20180329 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 29, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
1
Description of Material
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum; Updated
Resolution; Final Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan; Emails from: Andrew Fogg; Craig
Hoffman; Eva Cicoria; Barbara Sattler
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Wednesday, March 28, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180329 additions revisions to agenda.doc
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 Mihranian
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
MARCH 2018
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
i March 2018
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 Project Location .....................................................................................................63
Figure 2 Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP Preserve Design ..............................................65
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
10634
ii March 2018
TABLES
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
iii March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
iv March 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
1 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
2 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
3 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
4 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
5 March 2018
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:
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
6 March 2018
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 NCCP/HCP 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
7 March 2018
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
Pt. Vicente)
3.9 3.9
Targeted lands
Coast Guard Property (Lower
Pt. Vicente) 0 19.1 Targeted lands
Terranea Resort Bluff Face 0 10 Targeted lands
Trump Nation/Ocean Trails HCP
Related 0 6.6 Targeted lands
Identified HOAs 136.6 76.1 Targeted lands
Lands Adjacent to Agua Amarga
Canyon 0 14 Targeted lands
Portion of 3787 Coolheights
Drive 0 1 Targeted lands
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
8 March 2018
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
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
9 March 2018
Table 2
Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
2004 Project List
CSS
Habitat
Loss
Grassland
Habitat
Loss 2018 Project List
CSS
Habitat
Loss
Grassland
Habitat
Loss
2004 NCCP/HCP Covered City Projects and Activities 2018 NCCP/HCP Covered City Projects and Activities
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage
Project
2.5 3.0 1. Altamira Canyon Drainage
Project
2.5 3.0
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
Measures
5.0 15.0
4. Misc. Damaged Drain Repair 5.0 15.0 4. Misc. Drainage Repair in
Landslide Areas
10.0 15.0
5. Portuguese Canyon Drainage
Project
0.5 -- 5. PVDE Drainage
Improvement Project
5.0 15.0
6. Sacred Cove Geologic
Investigation
0.1 -- 6. Misc. Drainage
Improvements
20.0 60.0
7. PVDS Roadway Rehabilitation 0.2 -- 7. Abalone Cove Beach Project 1.0 2.0
8. PCDS Emergency Washout
Project
0.4 -- 8. RPV Trails Plan
Implementation
4.0 10.0
9. PVDE Drainage Improvement
Project
4.0 12.0 9. Lower San Ramon Canyon
Repair
0.3 0.0
10. Misc. Drainage Improvements 10.0 24.0 10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2
11. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase
2)
0.4 -- 11. Palos Verdes Drive South
Road Repair
5.0 15.0
12. Abalone Cove Beach Project 0.2 1.0 12. Upper Pt. Vicente 2.0 22.0
13. Tarapaca Sewer Line
Relocation
0.5 -- 13. Preserve Fuel Modification 12.0 18
14. Forrestal Property Trail
Clearing
0.1 -- 14. Utility Maintenance and
Repair
10.0 20.0
15. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase
1)
0.1 -- 15. Unimproved City Park
Projects
10.0 20.0
16. San Ramon Canyon Repair 1.0 -- 16. Malaga Canyon Drainage
Improvements
5.0 15.0
17. McCarrell Canyon Outlet
Improvement
0.2 -- 17. Other Miscellaneous City
projects
20.0 60.0
18. *RPV Trails Plan
Implementation
5.0 15.0 Subtotal of Covered City
Projects / Activities
115.8 303.7
19. Lower San Ramon Canyon
Repair
2.0 6.0
20. Active Recreation Area 1.0 13.6
21. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2
Subtotal of Covered City Projects /
Activities
40.2 106.3
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
10 March 2018
Table 2
Summary of the Revisions to Covered Projects / Activities
from the 2004 NCCP/HCP to the 2018 NCCP/HCP
2004 Project List
CSS
Habitat
Loss
Grassland
Habitat
Loss 2018 Project List
CSS
Habitat
Loss
Grassland
Habitat
Loss
2004 NCCP/HCP Covered Private Projects and Activities 2018 NCCP/HCP Covered Private Projects and
Activities
1. Brush Clearance at Windport
Canyon
0.5 -- 1. Lower Filiorum Development 11.9 70.0
2. Brush Clearance at 3303 Palo
Vista
0.3 -- 2. Portuguese Bend Club
Remedial Grading
3.0 10.0
3. Portuguese Bend Club Slope
Repair
0.5 -- 3. Fuel Modification for Private
Projects
10.0 20.0
4. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial
Grading
3.0 10.0 4. Miscellaneous Private
Projects throughout the City
71.8 143.1
5. Hon Geologic Investigation 0.6 -- 5. Plumtree Development 2.8 19.7
6. Crestridge Development 2.0 12.0 Subtotal of Covered Private
Projects / Activities
99.5 262.8
7. Brush Clearance at Lower
Filiorum
0.5 --
8. Lower Filiorum Development 7.3 59.0
9. Coolheights Residential Lot
Development
0.5 --
Subtotal of Covered Private
Projects / Activities
15.2 81.0
2004 NCCP/HCP TOTAL1 55.4 187.3 2018 NCCP/HCP TOTAL2 215.3 566.5
1 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.
2 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
11 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
12 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
13 March 2018
4 ANALYSIS
The following analysis provides a comparison of the impacts identified in the 2004 FEIR 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
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation and Traffic Utilities/Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
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).
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
14 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
15 March 2018
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 FEIR 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
16 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
17 March 2018
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 FEIR 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
18 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
19 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
20 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
21 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
22 March 2018
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 2004 NCCP/HCP 2018 NCCP/HCP
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 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
23 March 2018
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 RIHAs 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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
24 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
25 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
26 March 2018
Table 4
Summary of the Habitat Loss by Vegetation Type
for the 2004 NCCP/HCP and the 2018 NCCP/HCP
Vegetation Type
2004 NCCP/ HCP1 2018 NCCP/HCP2
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 15.2 99.5 --
Non-native grassland 81.0 262.8 --
1 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. .
2 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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
27 March 2018
(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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
28 March 2018
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
El 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 FEIR and no further analysis is necessary.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
29 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
30 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
31 March 2018
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, résumé, 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
32 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
33 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
34 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
35 March 2018
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 FEIR 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
36 March 2018
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 (2015) 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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
37 March 2018
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.App.4th 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.App.4th 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
38 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
39 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
40 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
41 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
42 March 2018
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 (I) 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
43 March 2018
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 Updated Project Consistency Discussion
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
Natural
Environment
Element
Conserve, protect, and enhance the City’s
natural resources, beauty, and open
space. Applicable policies under this
element include allowing only low-intensity
activities within Resource Management
Districts of extreme slopes, allow no
further development within active landslide
areas, maintain natural vegetation, and
encouraging study of and funding of flora
and fauna.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project would provide comprehensive management and
conservation of multiple species and natural habitat
within designated Preserves. The updated project
identifies habitat to be conserved in the Preserve
system, the mechanisms for conservation, and interim
protection measures. It also establishes the actions the
City would take to implement and fund monitoring and
management of the Preserve.
Socio-Cultural
Element
Preserve and protect the City’s cultural
resources and promote programs to meet
the social needs of its citizens.
Consistent. Like the original project, the preservation of
land resulting from the updated project would protect
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
archaeological, paleontological and
historical resources within the City.
Consistent. Like the original project, the preservation of
lands resulting from the updated project would protect
potential cultural resources within the updated Preserve
boundaries.
Current Social,
Service and
Cultural
Organizations
Policies include providing leadership to
solving the need for community meetings,
cultural events, and recreational activities,
and encourage the building of playing
fields for recreational groups.
Consistent. A PUMP and Preserve Trails Plan (PTP)
were developed as part of the NCCP/HCP to address
recreational issues such as public trail access and trail
use in the Preserve.
Social Services Develop recreational programs and place
special emphasis on cultural, educational,
and recreational needs of individuals and
encourage the expansion of existing
programs in these areas.
Consistent. See discussion under Current Social,
Service and Cultural Organizations, above.
Urban Environment
Element
Control and direct future growth towards
making a positive contribution to all
elements of the community.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project directs future growth by providing regional
comprehensive management and conservation to
multiple species and habitats, while allowing for
compatible and appropriate development and growth.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
44 March 2018
Table 6
Consistency with Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies
Element Overarching Goal/Objective Updated Project Consistency Discussion
Activity Areas Discourage industrial and major
commercial activities due to terrain and
environmental characteristics of the City;
provide, develop, and maintain
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.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project identifies covered activities, compatible land
uses, and a City-wide Preserve system consistent with
these objectives regarding activity areas in the City.
Recreational
Activity
Provide access to all public recreational
land; establish ordinances that require
builders and developers to provide lands
and/or funds for recreational use; seek
County, State, and Federal funds or
sharing funds to acquire lands; encourage
landholders to contribute lands to the City
for recreational use; encourage public use
of institutional recreational facilities, where
possible.
Consistent. The City's PUMP has been developed as
part of the NCCP/HCP to balance the public’s passive
recreational needs with the protection of natural
resources within the Preserve and address public
access issues. Like the original project, the updated
project would allow for compatible recreational uses in
the Preserve system consistent with the PUMP, while
maintaining biological values essential for issuance of
state (NCCP) and federal (HCP) permits.
Agricultural Activity Encourage implementation techniques for
preservation of agricultural activities and
assist in protection or conservation of
agricultural sites
Consistent. Like under the original project, the updated
project would continue to allow the limited existing
agricultural uses in the Preserve consistent with this
objective.
Disposal/Recovery
System
Encourage the retention of all remaining
natural watercourses in their natural state.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project would continue to protect and enhance natural
watercourses within the Preserve.
Transportation
Systems
Design path and trail networks to reflect
both a local and regional demand, while
maintaining the unique character of the
Peninsula; require, wherever practical; all
path and trail networks to be in a separate
rights-of-way; further investigate possible
funding sources for acquisition,
development and maintenance of paths
and trails; encourage the establishment of
a program designed to educate users and
non-users of path and trail networks in
terms of safety and courtesy; ensure
public access to the City’s shoreline;
reflect the elements of the City’s
Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) in
appropriate City processes and
procedures depending on trails categories
and status as defined in the CTP; design
Consistent. The City’s PUMP has been developed as
part of the NCCP/HCP in order to address issues of
public access in the Preserve. Consistent with this
objective and the 2018 NCCP/HCP, the PUMP would
facilitate and improve public access to the shoreline and
scenic resources while ensuring this access is
consistent with the conservation objectives of the
NCCP/HCP. The PUMP would include measures, such
as educational signage and brochures, to educate trail
users. As outlined in the PUMP, trails would be located
on historically used trails and the Preserve Trails Plan
(PTP) places an emphasis on avoiding or minimizing
impacts to habitat and covered species. Like the original
project, the updated project would be consistent with
these objectives regarding transportation systems.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
45 March 2018
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
wild animal populations
Consistent. Like the original project, long-term
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
Environment
To provide a quiet and serene residential
community with minimal restriction on
citizen activity, through proper land use
planning and regulations; to preserve the
City’s views and vistas for the public
benefit and, where appropriate, the City
should strive to enhance and restore these
resources, the visual character of the City,
and provide and maintain access for the
benefit and enjoyment of the public.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project would preserve natural habitat adjacent to
residential neighborhoods, thereby providing for a quiet
and serene residential community. Further, the updated
project would maintain views and vistas by ensuring
preservation and protection of habitats consistent with
the objectives regarding the sensory environment.
Noise Regulate land use so that there is minimal
degree of noise impact on adjacent land
uses.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project would not introduce new noise sources to
adjacent land uses.
Visual Aspects Preserve existing significant visual
aspects; preserve and enhance existing
positive visual elements while restoring
those, which are lacking in their present
visual quality; develop and maintain, in
conjunction with appropriate agencies,
public access to paths and trail networks
for the enjoyment of related views.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
Preserve would continue to maintain scenic views and
vistas. Further, the PUMP and the PTP have been
developed since the original project was evaluated,
which would improve the existing trail system and thus
public access, consistent with these objectives
regarding visual aspects.
Land Use Plan Provide land uses which will be sensitive
to and enhance the natural environment
and character of the community, supply
appropriate facilities to serve residents and
visitors, promote a range of housing types,
promote fiscal balance, and protect the
general health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project would continue to enhance the City’s natural
environment and community character through the
establishment of the City-wide Preserve system.
Further, like the original project, the updated project
covers development projects and public infrastructure
improvements that are consistent with the 2018
NCCP/HCP, which is consistent with objectives
regarding the land use plan.
Fiscal Element Take maximum advantage of regulatory
legislation to obtain contributions,
dedications and reservations (i.e.,
easements).
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project relies on dedicated funding sources to fulfill its
requirements for the permit duration and associated
perpetual management of the Preserve. To supplement
this funding, however, the City and PVPLC will actively
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
46 March 2018
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
Environment
Element
Sets development requirements within the
Coastal Resource Management Districts
such as low intensity activities in areas of
extreme or high slopes (CRM 1 and CRM
2), areas of extreme and high hazards
(CRM 3A and CRM 3B), areas or
flood/inundation hazards (CRM 7). The
CSP prohibits activities which would cause
excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase
canyon-wall erosion, or potential for
landslide, within or affecting CRM 8. The
CSP calls for considering the acquisition of
rights over the offshore tidelands area
along the City’s coastline if future
conditions warrant.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project is a natural community conservation plan and
habitat conservation plan that does not include
development activities. Individual future projects
identified as part of the NCCP/HCP would be required to
undergo separate CEQA review by the City. The
updated project would not create any silt or pollutant
runoff or increase canyon-wall erosion or the potential
for landslide. Therefore, the updated project is
considered consistent with the CSP objectives regarding
the natural environment element.
Socio/Cultural
Element
Work with other governmental agencies to
facilitate common objectives in a manner
which is harmonious with the local
community; consider implementation of
appropriate measures to protect the
identified cultural resources; consider
implementation of measures to protect
cultural resources.
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project would establish a City-wide Preserve system that
among other things would contribute to conserving the
local community and cultural resources in the City,
consistent with this CSP objective.
Urban Environment
Element
Provide access to all public recreational
land. Encourage recreation and cultural
activities, and provide outlets for citizens
on a non-discriminatory basis. Encourage
landholders to contribute lands to the City
for recreational use.
Consistent. The City’s PUMP developed as part of the
NCCP/HCP addresses public access in the Preserve
and allows for passive recreational uses to the public.
As such, the updated project would allow recreation and
contribute City lands for recreational use consistent with
these CSP objectives related to the urban environment
element.
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
Growth
Management
Encourage planned development in
locations least likely to cause
environmental impacts; support the
protection of vital resources; encourage
implementation of measures aimed at
preservation and protection of cultural and
archaeological resources; discourage
development, or encourage the use of
special design requirements, in areas with
steep slopes, high fire, flood, seismic
hazards; encourage mitigation that
Consistent. Like the original project, the updated
project is a natural community conservation plan and
habitat conservation plan that identifies a City-wide
Preserve system to be developed for covered species
and their habitat while authorizing certain development
and other covered activities. Like the original project, the
updated project was developed to be consistent with the
RCPG objectives regarding growth management.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
47 March 2018
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
Ancillary
Provide adequate land resources to meet
the outdoor recreation needs of present
and future residents and promote tourism.
Increase accessibility to open space and
outdoor recreation; promote self-sustaining
regional recreational resources and
facilities; maintain open space for
adequate protection of lives and properties
against natural and man-made hazards;
minimize potentially hazardous
developments in hillsides, canyons, areas
susceptible to flooding, earthquakes,
wildfire and other known hazards, and
areas with limited access for emergency
equipment;
Consistent. The City’s PUMP was developed as part of
the NCCP/HCP to provide public access to the Preserve
and balance passive recreational opportunities with
minimal impacts to natural resources. Like the original
project, the updated project would maintain natural
habitat in the City-wide Preserve system and thus would
not subject lives and properties to natural and man-
made hazards. The updated project would not include
development and thus development in potentially
hazardous areas would not occur. Existing agricultural
uses within the Preserve would be maintained under the
updated project. Like the original project, the updated
project would continue to preserve viable ecosystems
and known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered
species, which is consistent with the RCPG objectives
regarding Open Space.
Water Quality Encourage water reclamation through the
region where it is cost-effective, feasible,
and appropriate to reduce reliance on
imported water and wastewater
discharges. Address current administrative
impediments to increase use of
wastewater.
Consistent. The updated project would be consistent
with Title 15.34 of the City’s Municipal Code, which
establishes standards and procedures for design,
installation, and management of water-conserving
landscapes; therefore, it is considered consistent with
RCPG objectives regarding water quality.
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
48 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
49 March 2018
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 FEIR 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
50 March 2018
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).
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
51 March 2018
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 FEIR 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:
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
52 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
53 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
54 March 2018
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).
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
55 March 2018
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
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
56 March 2018
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 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 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 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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
57 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
58 March 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
59 March 2018
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
60 March 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
61 March 2018
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/10838.
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.
Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
10634
62 March 2018
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Rancho Palos
Verdes
Project Location
FEIR Addendum for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
SOURCE: NAIP 2016
Da
t
e
:
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
n
i
s
a
i
e
v
a
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
6
3
4
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
_
N
A
M
E
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
0157.5 Miles
City Boundary
FIGURE 1
Costa
MesaHuntington
Beach
Westminster
Seal
Beach
Garden Grove
Cypress Anaheim
Buena
Park
Fullerton
Brea
Placentia
Lakewood
Long
Beach
Carson
Torrance
Manhattan
Beach
BellflowerGardena
ComptonEl Segundo Hawthorne
South Gate
Downey Santa
Fe Springs
Inglewood
Huntington Park
WhittierCommercePico
Rivera
Montebello Walnut
Industry
South
El MonteMalibu
West
Hollywood
El Monte
CovinaAlhambra
Beverly
Hills
San Marino Irwindale
Agoura
Hills
Calabasas Azusa
Hidden
Hills
Arcadia
Glendora
Duarte
Pasadena
Glendale
San
Fernando
Palos
Verdes
Estates
Redondo
Beach
Burbank
Santa Monica
Los Angeles
Ventura
County
Los
Angeles
County
101
90
134
39
118
91
73
39
159
107
187
90
170
1
213
22
72
27
60
2
1910
405
5
710
605
210
105
Barkentine
Filiorum
Parcel
Donation
Parcel
Del Cerro
Buffer
Ocean
Trails/Trump
Shoreline
Park
Pelican Cove
Upper Point
Vicente
Lower Point
Vicente
Lunada Canyon
Agua Amarga
Crestridge
Abalone Cove
Oceanfront
Estates
Malaga Canyon
Forrestal
Switchbacks
Portuguese
Bend
Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP Preserve Design
FEIR Addendum for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
SOURCE: World Street Map (Accessed in 2017)
Da
t
e
:
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
N
I
s
a
i
e
v
a
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
6
3
4
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
_
N
A
M
E
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
D
e
s
i
gn
.
m
x
d
0157.5 Miles
City Boundary
Preserve Properties
FIGURE 2
01203.0005/459319.4
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,
01203.0005/459319.4
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 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
01203.0005/459319.4
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 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 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts
Addendum No. 1 to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Natural
Community Conservation Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan, based on the findings herein.
Section 32. 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:
1. 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
01203.0005/459319.4
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
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 43. 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 54: City Staff shall file a Notice of Determination pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21152.
01203.0005/459319.4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 29th day of March 2018.
_________________
Mayor
Attest:
___________________
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
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
FINAL DRAFT
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
PAGE 52
Section 4.4 of the Plan identifies other private and public lands that may be dedicated to the Preserve, but
are not necessary for the permit, that would add to the biological value of the Preserve. For various reasons,
these additional lands cannot be guaranteed to be part of the Preserve. The City, PVPLC, and/or the Wildlife
Agencies will pursue the acquisition and/or access agreements for these additional properties. If funding
can be identified for management, the properties will be actively managed by PVPLC as part of the Preserve
system.
PAGE 62
4.4 Other Private and Public Targeted Lands for Dedication to the
Preserve (170.7 acres)
The following 170.7 acres of publicly and privately owned properties have been identified as Targeted
Lands for possible future dedication to the Preserve, but are not considered essential to the proposed
Preserve design (see Figure 4-3). Adding the Targeted Lands properties 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 funding for active habitat management by the PVPLC. A
memorandum of understanding will be sought by the City and PVPLC for management of Targeted Lands
under Federal ownership. Since these contributions are not confirmed with the property owners, the acreage
is not included in the current Preserve design and is not counted as mitigation lands under the incidental
take permits
The City and/or PVPLC, in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies, may also apply for a Section 6 Habitat
Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grant that would complement the NCCP/HCP.
PAGE 86
The Covered City Projects/Activities are proposed to occur inside and outside of the Preserve and are
anticipated to impact a maximum of 303.7 acres of non-native grassland and 115.8 acres of CSS. Of these
total impacts, it is estimated that 148.3 acres of the impacted non-native grassland (49%) and 60.0 acres of
the impacted CSS (52%) will occur within the Preserve. Southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal
bluff scrub are subsets of CSS, and no more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff
scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub could be lost within the Preserve associated with Covered CITY
Projects/Activities. The City will mitigate these impacts by dedicating land to the City lands to the Preserve
and providing restoration and management funding for the Preserve (see Section 8.0). Of the 737.0 acres
of CSS and associated vegetation communities within the Preserve, a maximum of 60.0 acres (<8%) could
be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 677.0 acres (92%) of CSS in the
Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of
148.3 acres (31%) could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities in the Preserve, leaving a
minimum of 322.6 acres. Through Plan implementation non-native grassland within the Preserve may be
restored to native habitat. Impacts to specific vegetation communities within and outside of the Preserve
are described in individual project descriptions (Section 5.2).
PAGE 93
5.2.14 The installation, maintenance, and repair of utilities and related infrastructure facilities by the City
and other public agencies and/or utility companies who seek Third-Party Participant status, will occur
throughout the City.
PAGE 103 (6th bullet)
Installation of trailhead signage/kiosks within the Preserve adjacent to existing roads, recreational trails,
or other access ways shall be sited away from sensitive resource areas.
PAGE 100
5.3.4 Miscellaneous Private Projects Throughout the City Outside of the
Preserve
The City may issue a permit for any Private Project in the City which impacts CSS habitat and is not
specifically identified in this NCCP/HCP as a Covered Activity provided that the project impacts are located
outside of the Preserve and the impacts are mitigated by the project applicant as described in this section.
Impacts to CSS shall be mitigated by the project applicant using a 21:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS.
Because fire is a natural component of the CSS vegetation community, under normal circumstances natural
re-growth of habitat is expected, and any land that once had CSS will be considered CSS for the purposes
of this Covered Activity. The mitigation shall be provided by the project applicant by the payment of a
Mitigation Fee to the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund discussed in section 8.2.1.1 in the amount of $50,000
per acre based on the total mitigation acreage required. The Mitigation Fee must be paid to the City prior
to issuance of the grading or building permit, whichever comes first. The PVPLC and the City have
determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is the amount that is needed to restore and maintain 1 acre of
native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed annually by the City and, if necessary, adjusted
to account for inflation (Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)) and/or higher-than-expected restoration and
management costs.
There are 23.6 acres of exotic woodland, 22.6 acres of disturbed vegetation and 262.8 acres of grassland
located outside of the Preserve or Neutral Lands that will be impacted by potential development with no
mitigation required by individual property owners under this NCCP/HCP because the loss of such lands
would not affect any of the Covered Species. Furthermore, there are 99.5 acres of CSS habitat outside of
maintenance within the Preserve will be avoided.
PAGE 104
9. Where feasible and appropriate, dDust generated by the construction vehicles for Covered Projects
and Activities on non-paved trails that accommodate authorized vehicles within the Preserve or on
vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be minimized using a speed limit restriction to 10 miles per
hour (mph) and, where appropriate, controlled via watering unpaved surfacesof earthmoving areas
and non-paved roads and an off-highway speed limit restriction to 20 miles per hour (mph).
PAGE 102
5.4.2 Installation and maintenance of benches, picnic tables, tie rails, portable toilets, and trash cans within
the Preserve and near Preserve boundaries, provided no existing habitat will be lost. The location of
these facilities shall be sited to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to habitat and Covered
Species. Location of overlooks shall be reviewed for consistency with the PUMP and this Plan and
approved by the City Council prior to initiation of any implementation work.
• Operation and maintenance of the existing archery range in its current location and acreage
(approximately 8 acres) within the Preserve, provided the appropriate City permits are
maintained and the facility is not expanded
PAGE 105
5.5 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 prior to commencing work associated with each Covered
Project or Activity that temporarily impacts in native vegetation.
8. Cut/fill slopes within the Preserve should be limited to Covered Projects and Activities and 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 and consistent with No. 7 above. 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.
PAGE 120
1. 6.5.2 5. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Permits, the City and PVPLC will develop and
submit to the Wildlife Agencies a Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) to facilitate access by authorized
vehicles utility agencies and the City’s Public Works Department to areas within the Preserve. The
Preserve access protocol will contain measures, including those in Section 5.5 of the Plan, to avoid
and minimize, to the maximum extent possible, environmental damage, including direct and
indirect impacts to habitat and Covered Species. Until said access protocol is approved by the
Wildlife Agencies, the City and its Land Manager (i.e., PVPLC) shall ensure all access to the
Preserve is consistent with the minimization measures described in Section 5.5 of the Plan.
PAGE 174
9.2.2.2 It is estimated that current non-vehicle trail widths vary between 32 feet and 6 feet in the
Preserve, and trails that accommodate authorized vehicular access vary between 10 feet and 12 feet
in the Preserve. Within 3 years of Plan approval, the PVPLC will complete baseline surveys to
assess and document current trail widths and identify all unauthorized trails throughout the
Preserve. Following the completion of these surveys, PVPLC, the City, and the Wildlife Agencies
will meet to determine and finalize appropriate widths for all approved trails including trails that
accommodate authorized vehicles as described in Section 5.5 and identified in the Council-
approved PUMP. The final width determinations will take into consideration the current trail widths
as documented by the baseline surveys, trail topography, nearby sensitive species and their habitats,
trail prism, public use (taking into consideration the PUMP), and other factors. Once the final
widths have been determined and agreed upon, they will be memorialized in the PUMP and will be
referenced for comparison during 5-year monitoring events (see below). The determined trail
widths will be will monitored and maintained as a condition of trail coverage.
PAGE 176
9.2.2.2 In addition to the 5-year trail monitoring efforts, PVPLC and City will proactively identify
potential trail problems and coordinate and implement solutions on an ongoing basis from
information gathered when working in the Preserve and on trail and restoration projects.
PAGE 161/162
8.1.1 Management Budget Analysis
The City and the PVPLC developed a Management Budget Analysis for the proposed Preserve (see
Appendix C). Since that time, levels of services necessary have changed, and each Permittee’s annual cost
to manage the Preserve were calculated. Based on the updated Preserve Management budget, the City and
PVPLC’s total cost of managing the Preserve is estimated at $1,757651,4385731,785,438. 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 services and contributions 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 $422338,7000567,000 per year. This cost
includes $144,300 of funding the City will provide to PVPLC, and was used for the Management
Budget Analysis.
Table 8-1. Annual Funding for Preserve Management During the Permit
SOURCE *AMOUNT FROM
City $ 144,300 **Annual payment for the Management Agreement with PVPLC
City $ 1,391,119 **Services/financial contributions
PVPLC $
25031176,5611
67,019261989
Volunteer time/in-kind services in addition to $144,300 annual
payment for the Management Agreement from the City
Total $1,757651,438
5731,785,438
*Includes habitat restoration and Preserve management based on FY 2016-2017 costs
*Excludes the $50,000 Habitat Restoration Fund required funds
**See (see Section 8.2.1.1)
PAGE 164
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 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 by
the City related to PVPLC’s conservation management by the City post-Permit Term. The City’s post-
Permit obligations are detailed in Appendix C and Section 10.0 and 14.0 of the IA. Currently, there is
approximately $126,946 within the account that will be transferred to the PVPLC. A minimum payment of
$10,000 (as described above) will be provided to the PVPLC 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). 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 Preserve.
PAGE 173
1. Existing Trails
Baseline Trail Surveys
It is estimated that current non-vehicle trail widths vary between 3 feet and 6 feet in the Preserve,
and trails that accommodate authorized vehicular access vary between 10 feet and 12 feet in the
Preserve. Within 3 years of Plan approval, the PVPLC will complete baseline surveys to assess and
document current trail widths and identify all unauthorized trails throughout the
Preserve. Following the completion of these surveys, PVPLC, the City, and the Wildlife Agencies
will meet to determine and finalize appropriate widths for all approved trails including trails that
accommodate authorized vehicles as described in Section 5.5 and identified in the Council-
approved PUMP. The final width determinations, including possible trail width
decreases/increases, will take into consideration the current trail widths as documented by the
baseline surveys, trail topography, nearby sensitive species and their habitats, trail prism, public
use, and other factors. Once the final widths have been determined and agreed upon, they will be
memorialized in the PUMP and will be referenced for comparison during 5-year monitoring events
(see below). The determined trail widths will be will monitored and maintained as a condition of
trail coverage.
FINAL IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
PAGE 62
4.4 Other Private and Public Targeted Lands for Dedication to the
Preserve (170.7 acres)
The following 170.7 acres of publicly and privately owned properties have been identified as Targeted
Lands for possible future dedication to the Preserve, but are not considered essential to the proposed
Preserve design (see Figure 4-3). Adding the Targeted Lands properties 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 funding for active habitat management by the PVPLC. A
memorandum of understanding will be sought by the City and PVPLC for management of Targeted Lands
under Federal ownership. Since these contributions are not confirmed with the property owners, the acreage
is not included in the current Preserve design and is not counted as mitigation lands under the incidental
take permits
FINAL APPENDICES
PAGE A-6
Preserve Habitat Manager or Preserve Manager: The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
(PVPLC), the CITY’s designated Preserve Habitat Manager for the Plan and the entity responsible for
overseeing the day-to-day and long-range preservehabitat management activities within the Preserve
pursuant to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Management Agreement with the City, as described in Section
9.0 of the Plan, including, but not limited to management of natural resources, restoration of habitat,
reporting, and enforcement of the conservation easementsopen space restrictions.
PAGE C-34
Preserve Management Costs
Based on a PAR Analysis that was prepared by the City and PVPLC, that is included in Exhibit C-1, the
2004 Plan estimated that the total annual cost of managing the proposed Preserve would amount to
$311,949 per year with $220,049 being the responsibility of the PVPLC and $91,899 being the
responsibility of the City.
Since active management of the Preserve by the City and PVPLC began in 2006, the actual costs of
managing the preserve began to be tracked by both the PVPLC in the City. An updated Preserve
Management Budget was prepared that is attached as Exhibit C-2. Based on the updated budget, the total
cost of managing the Preserve is now estimated at $1,651,5731,785,438 per year, with the PVPLC
contributing $250,019 and the City contributing $1,,274,5841,535,419. The bulk of the costs, $1,305,669
($19,460 for PVPLC and $1,286,209 for the City) go toward public access and land ownership while the
remaining $478,769 ($230,559 for PVPLC and $249,210 for the City) go toward conservation. This
City’s cost for conservation includes $144,300 of funding provided to PVPLC annually.
*ALSO: UPDATE OF THE FUNDING SPREADSHEET DUE TO A CALCULATION
ERROR
From:
Sent:
To:
Fogg, Andrew K. <afogg@coxcastle.com>
Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:09 PM
CC; CityClerk
Subject: Comment Regarding March 29 City Council Hearing, Agenda Item 1 -Final Draft 2018 Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Scan.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Honorable Mayor and City Council members:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter that we will be submitting at tonight's meeting.
Best regards,
Andrew Fogg.
Andrew K. Fogg
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067
direct: 310.284.2178 main: 310.284.2200
afogg@coxcastle.com vcard bio website
Selected as 2018 "Law Firm of the Year" in Land Use and Zoning Law
by U.S. News & World Report-Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms"
For more information, visit our blog Lay of the Land
fhb cornrnuniu~tkY\ i~; inh:-ndHi ordy fnr ex(~us!ve lhf:' of th~~ addr<:,sst.·0 and may conL1!n infunnation that h pr!vH='.:~gcd er ccnfic\(~ntl;.--d, !f you :.~re not the 0ddr~.~~;s~.>~-or son+:oni:.:~
,e;ponsibk:' for dd1vt:~t'ing thl~; docurn0nt to the actd1\0:·>:>C('! you rnay net :"cad, copy or distributr.~ 1t. i\nv unauthorizud diSSt?.minaUun; r:lbtdbut;on or copying of th:~ con~rrunicY1<.n is
'.:trictiv pr()(\\bitP.(J. If you kwe received this c.ornrnunicatinn in f':-rcr, pl0::~sz~ caH us prcrnptiy and ~1i::'.curr::!v ck;pns~~ of it. Thank you,
I
1
I C X CASTLE
NICH LS N
March 29, 2018
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Cox, Castle &. Nicholson LLP
Park Ea:;r, Suite 2 l 00
Los C1Jiforni;1. 90067'·328"1
P; :ll0.284.2200 F: JHU84.2100
Andrew K. Fogg
310.284.2178
afogg@coxcastle.com
File No. 62466
Re: Objection to Final Draft 2018 Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
ConservatiQJl Plan
Honorable Mayor Brooks and City Councilmembers:
We write on behalf of our client York Point View Properties, LLC, the owner of
the Lower Filiorum property (the "Property") identified in the Final Draft 2018 Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (the "NCCP/HCP") that is being
considered by the City Council on March 29, 2018. As explained more fully below, the
NCCP/HCP ignores the development permitting history for the Property, does not satisfy the
applicable regulatory requirements for a plan of this type, and would result in an unconstitutional
compensable taking of our client's property. For these reasons, our client objects to the City's
adoption of the NCCP/HCP in its current form and respectfully requests that the City Council
direct staff to revise the draft NCCP/HCP to address the issues presented herein and to
recirculate the NCCP/HCP for further public review and comment.
1. The NCCP/HCP fails to take into account the Property's Permitting
History
The property owner acquired the Property in approximately 1994, which was then
undeveloped except for a kitchen (cook shack) and bathroom structure, together containing
approximately 400 square foot, built in approximately 1961, which were accessed by a dirt road
extending from Narcissa Drive within the adjacent, private Portuguese Bend community. A
portion of the Property is located in the City's Landslide Moratorium area, which has been in
place since approximately 1972; though, there has been no documented active landslide on the
Property.
An application to develop the Property was submitted to the City in 2005 for a
residential planned community containing 84 single-family residences and related community
amenities and a cohesive landscape design concept. This development would have required City
approval of a Landslide Moratorium Exclusion Request, which was supported by extensive
geotechnical investigation to confirm the development would not aggravate or make worse any
existing landslide conditions. The City did not approve the Moratorium Exclusion Request, and
062466\9560866v 1
www.coxcasde.com. Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco
City Council
March 29, 2018
Page 2
the 2005 application was terminated. A component of the 2005 proposed project included
setting aside 40 acres of land within the project area, which would have allowed development on
the balance of the Property -approximately 54 acres of land.
Following abandonment of the 2005 project, in 2012, an application was
submitted to allow a portion of the Property to be used for hosting special events and motion
picture filming (up to 30 events per year), to install up to 25.5 acres of agricultural uses, and for
installation of circulation improvements, including a paved and landscaped access driveway. As
mitigation for development of the agricultural uses, the City required payment of mitigation fees
in the amount of $97,800 (a rate of $20,000 per acre). Agricultural uses were installed and the
required mitigation fees have been paid for the acreage that has been disturbed.
Based on the City refusal to grant the Landslide Moratorium Exclusion Request
related to the now abandoned 2005 project~ the property owner has proposed to develop the
remaining portion of the Property in a manner that would avoid the existing Landslide
Moratorium area. However, the draft NCCP/HCP being proposed by the City would require
virtually all of the remaining developable area of the Property be dedicated to the City for
purposes of a wildlife corridor, both taking away the areas that have been developed previously
and for which mitigation fees have been paid and rendering the balance of the property
undevelopable in light of the grading that would be required to implement a project, which
would not be permitted within the context of the required dedication and Landslide Moratorium
areas.
The property owner was under contract to sell a portion of the Property to
facilitate the new proposed project for a value of approximately $25 million; however, the buyer
terminated the purchase agreement immediately upon the City's release of the draft NCCP/HCP,
which effectively eliminates all future development on the Property as well as will take away the
existing development that has been installed and for which all required mitigation fees have been
paid.
2. The NCCP/HCP is Inconsistent with Both the State Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act and the federal Endangered Species Act
The NCCP/HCP suffers from a number of legal defects under the state's Natural
Community Conservation Planning Act and the federal Endangered Species Act, and on that
basis, should be revised and recirculated for public review and comment. Because of these legal
defects, the environmental review associated with the NCCP/HCP, including but not limited to
the Environmental Assessment that was prepared pursuant to the National Environn1ental Policy
Act, is also inadequate and should be revised and recirculated.
First, by requiring that "any type of development ... approved on the Lower
Filiorum property" be conditioned on that property owner dedicating its own land to the
Preserve, the NCCP/HCP improperly shifts the burden of impact mitigation away from "the
applicant'', i.e., the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, to a non-applicant third-party entity. Section
062466\9560866v 1
City Council
March 29, 2018
Page 3
10 of the Endangered Species Act requires that "the applicant" for an incidental take permit take
steps to minimize take contemplated under the permit and its habitat conservation plan. (16
U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B)(ii) ("the applicant ... minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking"
of an endangered or threatened species) (emphasis added).) In approving the NCCP/HCP, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot "rel[y] on the conservation efforts of entities other than
[the] applicant." (Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2015).) Compounding this error is the fact
that the development the City seeks to burden with this land dedication requirement is
speculative. Reliance on speculative future actions by non-applicants is improper and grounds
for finding an HCP legally defective. (Id. (quoting Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274,
1282 (S.D. Ala. 1998) ("FWS cannot comply with the strict ESA mandate that the HCP
'minimize and mitigate' the effects of the projects 'to the maximum extent practicable' simply
by relying on speculative future actions by [nonapplicant] others.").)
Second, this dedication requirement improperly goes way beyond the burdens that
may be imposed to minimize and mitigate the impacts of incidental take. Section 10 of the
Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to find, based on the
measures described in an HCP, that "the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking." (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B)(iii) (emphasis
added).) The courts have interpreted the phrase "maximum extent practicable" to mean that an
"applicant may do something less than fully minimize and mitigate the impacts of the take where
to do more would not be practicable." (National Wildlife Fed'n v. Norton, 306 F. Supp. 2d 920,
928-929 (E.D. Cal. 2004).) Putting aside the fact that the property owner of the Lower Filiorum
Property is not the applicant here, which is problematic for the NCCP/HCP as described above,
requiring this property owner to dedicate a portion of its land in exchange for the right to develop
is excessive and far beyond Section lO's practicability requirement. For example, land
dedication requirements impose certain financial constraints on the development potential for
property, which can be a factor in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's determination of whether
the "maximum extent practicable" threshold has been met or has been improperly exceeded.
(See, e.g., National Wildlife Fed'n v. Babbitt, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1293 (E.D. Cal. 2000)
(finding that a record supporting an HCP lacked "adequate evidence and analysis" regarding
certain economic constraints); Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit
Processing Handbook at pp. 9-33 to 9-37 (Dec. 2016).) The NCCP/HCP contains no evidence
that the City has taken this concern into account.
Third, the dedication requirement is described as creating a "functional wildlife
corridor" to provide connection for other portions of the larger Preserve, which include
properties not owned by the owner of the Lower Filiorum Property. This requirement effectively
burdens the Lower Filiorum Property with mitigation obligations designed in part to offset
impacts created by others. This, too, is impermissible under the Endangered Species Act.
Section 10 requires that an applicant mitigate only for the impacts caused by an applicant's
development, not impacts caused by the development of others. (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A)(ii)
(requiring that "the applicant" take steps to minimize its own take).) Moreover, case law
062466\9560866v I
City Council
March 29, 2018
Page4
indicates that mitigation imposed under Section 10 is constrained by basic principles of
proportionality. "[T]he statutory language [of Section 1 O] does not suggest that an applicant
must ever do more than mitigate the effect of its take of species." (National Wildlife Fed'n, 306
F. Supp. 2d at 928-929 (emphasis added).) As the California Supreme Court noted in the context
of mitigation under the California Endangered Species Act, "[T]o require that mitigation
measures be roughly proportional to a landowner's impact on a species means that the landowner
is required to mitigate only its own impacts on the species." (Environmental Protection
Information Center v. California Dep 't of Forestry & Fire Protection, 44 Cal. 4th 459, 511
(2008).) These same principles apply to Natural Community Conservation Plans under the
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. (See Cal. Fish & Game Code§ 2820(b)(9)
(mitigation and conservation measures must be roughly proportional in time and extent to the
impact on habitat or covered species authorized under the plan).) By requiring the owner of the
Lower Filiorium Property to dedicate land for a wildlife corridor that is effectively intended to
offset the entire Preserve system, the NCCP/HCP would improperly require that property owner
to offset impacts caused by other property owners.
Fourth, the NCCP/HCP fails to analyze or even describe the impacts associated
with development on the Lower Filiorum property. This is inconsistent with Section 10, which
requires that an HCP must specify "the impact which will likely result from such taking." (16
U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A)(l).) Without an analysis of that development or the impacts that will
likely result from any take associated with that development, the HCP cannot in good faith
identify land dedication or any other kind of mitigation to offset those impacts because any such
impacts are at this time unknown and speculative. That analysis of impacts cannot be deferred to
some future time. (See, e.g., Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bartel, 470 F. Supp.
2d 1118, 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (finding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly assumed it
was not required to evaluate the extent of possible impacts at the time of issuing incidental take
permit).)
3. The NCCP/HCP Will Result in an Unconstitutional Taking of the Property
The United States Constitution requires that conditions of approval, particularly
those that require dedications of land, have both an essential nexus to the impact being mitigated
and bear a rough proportionality to the impacts of the particular development. See Nollan v.
California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S.
374, 391 (1994). As structured, the NCCP/HCP fails on both accounts.
As discussed above, the NCCP/HCP requires that "any type of development ...
approved on the Lower Filiorum property" be conditioned on the property owner dedicating 40
acres ofland to the City. By its express language, this would include development within the
areas that are subject to prior approvals, that have been substantially disturbed or altered, and for
which mitigation foes have already been paid. The NCCP/HCP makes no effort to substantiate
how "any" development on the Property will have any impacts at all on any specific resource or
why a dedication of 40 acres of land is in any way proportionate to the impacts of such
062466\9560866v l
City Council
March 29, 2018
Page 5
development. The simple answer is that there is none and the NCCP/HCP cannot make such
findings. Instead, the City appears to have simply taken a particularized finding related to a long
abandoned project and etched that into stone for anything that is done on the Property in the
future, even where impacts have been fully mitigated through payment of fees previously. On
this basis alone, the NCCP/HCP is fatally defective.
In addition, and not by way oflimitation as to the above, the application of the
NCCP/HCP to the Property will result in a total taking of the land. See, e.g., Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1016 (1992). As discussed above, the City has
previously refused to grant a development permit that would require issuance of Landslide
Moratorium Exclusion Request in conjunction with the terminated and abandoned 2005 project.
In response to City direction, the property owner has redesigned the proposed project to remain
outside of the Landslide Moratorium area. However, such development would require additional
development within the 40 acres that would now be required for "any" development of the
Property. Indeed, any development of the limited portion of the Property both outside of both
the Landslide Moratorium area and the NCCP/HCP dedication area would require substantial
grading and related development work within the boundaries of such areas with the net effect
that future development would be completely precluded. The property owner has already lost
the benefit of a fully executed purchase contract for a portion of the Property, which has resulted
in losses of not less than $25 million. A total taking of the Property would result in damages of
at least $40 million.
* * *
For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the City defer
consideration of the NCCP/HCP and make revisions thereto to address the concerns noted herein
and recirculate the NCCP/HCP for further public review and comment. Please note that nothing
herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.
Thank you for your time and attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,
AKF
062466\9560866vl
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:53 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: Regarding the NCCP Workshop tonight
20180329143424398.pdf
From: Craig Hoffman [mailto:CHoffman@projectdimensions.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:52 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Regarding the NCCP Workshop tonight
Mayor and council members, we will be submitting the attached letter on behalf of Jim York at tonight's workshop. Thank you in
advance for your consideration of this matter.
Craig Hoffman
PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC.
4 Park Plaza, Suite 700
Irvine, CA 92614
949.476.2246
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message from Project Dimensions, Inc., including any attachment(s) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privfleged information. Any unauthorized
interception, review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
1 /
~PROJECT DIMENSIONS '"'
29 March 2018
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 90275
Subject: Final Draft 2018 NCCP/HCP
Honorable Mayor Susan Brooks
Mayor Pro -Tern Jerry Duhovic
and Councilmembers Eric Alegria, John Cruikshank and Ken Dyda
This letter is being submitted on behalf of our client York Point View Properties, LLC, the owner of the Point View
(Lower Filiorum) property being considered as part of the Final Draft 2018 Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (the "NCCP/HCP") by the City Council. We are requesting that the City Council
continue this matter until such time as City staff can adequately coordinate resolution with the resource agency
staff, stakeholders and the community to resolve what we consider to be crucial inaccuracies in the Final Draft
2018 NCCP/HCP. These concerns include the following:
Survey and mapping
To support the assumptions and conclusions included in the NCCP/HCP, reliance is made on baseline
vegetation and sensitive species data surveys that were largely conducted in 1994 and updated in 1999 at a
scale of 1-inch = 1,200 feet for field mapping efforts using U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps and aerial
photography . This effort then culminated in the creation of the City's Draft NCCP/HCP Subarea Plan (Phase I)
and later the Implementing Agreement and Final Environmental Impact Report (Phase 11) in 2004 which are the
basis of the documents .
Requests: Previously prepared habitat and vegetation surveys for the NCCP/HCP used outdated methods.
Vegetation classification currently follows a system described in the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition
(Sawyer et al. 2009). This vegetation classification system is the preferred system of the California Native Plant
Society and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program and
allows for direct comparisons with other classification systems (e .g. Holland 1986).
Statistical and mapping technology should be updated to create an accurate basis for evaluating existing
conditions and future impacts, thereby making appropriate management decisions possible over the expected
next 40 -year life of the permit agreement. Updated mapping of the Preserve will also provide greater precision
through use of civil engineering practices not available at the time of the original surveys . These techniques
should be considered essential for NCCP/HCP success, particularly when monitory and/or land exactions are
contemplated.
Confirm Applicability for Reliance on Previous Planning Assumptions
In 2005, the Point View Project (Residential Planned Development) application was submitted for City
consideration, consisting of a development proposal for 84 single -family residential lots, infrastructure and
community landscaping on the 94-acre property . Development of the property also required that the City
approve a Landslide Moratorium Exclusion Request, involving extensive geotechnical investigation to confirm
the development would not aggravate or make worse any existing landslide conditions . Although all the
documentation was prepared and submitted to the City as part of a discretionary permit application (inclusive of
a Draft Project EIR), the Moratorium Exclusion Request never received City approved.
4 PARK PLAZA m SUITE 700 • IRVINE CALIFORN IA • 92614 949.4 76 .224 6
(1)
As described in the NCCP Subarea Plan Final EIR, the proposed project (see Attachments A and B) on private
owned land would involve the exclusion of approximately 62 acres from the City's Moratorium Area and a
subsequent residential development encompassing approximately 55 acres. It was anticipated that development
of the project would result in the overall loss of 7.3 acres of CSS habitat and 59.0 acres of non-native grassland.
Losses of habitat would therefore be mitigated by the project proponent through dedication of a minimum of 40
onsite acres to the Reserve in the form of a conservation easement and 11.4 offsite acres to the Reserve or
payment of equivalent habitat restoration funds if the property were to be developed due to being designated as
a Linkage Planning Area in the NCCP. (Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan EIR, July 29, 2004). The
designated linkage was identified as necessary to provide connectivity between the Barkentine component to the
west, the Upper Filorum component to the north and the Abalone Cove component to the south of the property.
The Draft 2004 NCCP also included the additional stipulations for the property that: 2) the minimum reserve
linkage corridor width would be no less than 300-feet in width at its narrowest location; and 3) non-native
grassland impacts would be mitigated by providing sufficient funds to purchase or restore off-site areas of non-
native grassland at a impact-to-mitigation ratio of 0.5:1. These same requirements remain in the document
being considered by the City Council today.
Subsequent to abandoning the residential development proposal for 84 units, in 2012 the property owner
prepared a discretionary permit application to allow for the use of a portion of the property for hosting special
events and motion picture filming. The Point View Master Use Plan Project included the expansion of
agricultural uses; development of an executive golf course and improvements to an existing event garden to
conduct up to 30 events per year; and circulation improvements, including a paved and landscape access
driveway. Agricultural uses proposed included up to 15 acres of new avocado orchards, 8.5 acres of grape
vineyards and 2 acres of citrus, olive trees and an organic vegetable garden (see Attachment C). All new
agricultural areas were conditioned to include state-of-the-art irrigation systems that limit groundwater infiltration
and control stormwater runoff throughout the property.
To evaluate potential environmental impacts of the Point View Master Use Plan Project, a Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared (April 2012) and subsequently Recalculated MND to evaluate comments
received and consultations with resource agency staff was distributed in November 2012. As mitigation for
proposed development of 25.5-acres of agricultural uses to be planted in areas containing non-native grasslands
(see Attachment D), the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration included mitigation measure BI0-12 that
reads:
The 25.5-acres of agricultural uses may be planted in phases over an unspecified period of
time. As such, the owner shall submit a plan to the City prior to the planting [of] each phase
illustrating the locations and areas to be planted. The owner shall pay a mitigation fee to the City
equivalent to $20,000 per acre of lost non-native grassland prior to planting of said areas. The
Director shall monitor the amount of agricultural uses on the property to ensure that not more than a
total of 25.5-acres of agricultural uses are planted on the subject property and that no more than
9. 78-acres of non-native grassland are lost. Thus, a total cumulative mitigation fee of $97,800 shall
be collected for the 489-acres of non-native grassland impacts. Mitigation fees shall be determined
by the City and paid in phases linked to acres planted.
Implementation of the Point View Master Use Plan uses has been largely completed and operational following
payment of a substantial portion of the conditioned mitigation fee.
Requests: As identified throughout the Final Draft NCCP/HCP EIR Addendum document prepared by the City's
environmental consultant: "Project consistency with the NCCP/HCP plans and policies will be evaluated for
future developments on a project-by-project basis" and should include the Point View (Lower Filiorum) property.
No special mitigation requirement, based on outdated historical information should be assumed for any property
PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC.
4 PARK PLAZA Ill SUITE 700 m IRVINE Ill CALIFORNIA Ill 92614 Ill 949.476.2246 (2)
owner. All referenes to the dedication of a minimum of 40 onsite acres to the Reserve in the form of a
conservation easement should be removed.
NCCP/HCP should incorporate alternative means and methods for achieving Plan goals and objectives,
including allowing PVPLC staff to supervise and accept habitat restoration mitigation projects as a form of
mitigation, rather than the City only requiring the payment of mitigation fees to offset anticipated project impacts.
Further, to facilitate future planning and enforcement activities, the NCCP/HCP documentation should define all
referenced terms (including linkages), acceptable setbacks, emergency measures and provide alternatives in the
event field conditions necessitate other strategies to achieve acceptable results without requiring a formal
amendment process.
Changed Circumstances
In a compare file format of the 2004 Draft NCCP Subarea Plan and the Final Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP
Subarea Plan, released for public review on March 20, 2018 a recorded 1,827 changes were detected, including
543 replacements, 495 insertions and 331 deletions. The size of the document was also increased from 133
original pages to the current 189 pages. The EIR Addendum however concludes 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." The proposed NCCP design was crafted on the
development of alternatives first considered in 1999 and then subsequently expanded in 2002. Given the
significant passage to time; changes in regulatory conditions at the local, state and federal levels; the influence
on natural areas from wildland fires; the number of modifications to the original NCCP/HCP Plan document;
technological changes allowing more precise information to be compiled regarding habitat, concentrations of
sensitive species, etc., it seems unclear how no significant changes have occurred over the timeframe that has
transpired to warrant additional environmental review.
Request: Based on the many changes that have occurred between 2004 and 2018 that have not been
considered as part of the Final 2018 Draft Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP Subarea Plan or the Final
Environmental Impact Report Addendum, new documents should be prepared and recirculated for public review
and comment prior to their being transmitted to the resource agencies for consideration.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
Sincerely,
i offman
PR JECT DIMENSIONS, INC.
Copies:
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development Department
PROJECT DIMENSIONS, INC.
4 PARK PLAZA fl! SUITE 700 fll IRVINE fl! CALIFORNIA fl! 92614 lffil 949.476.2246 (3)
ATTACHMENT A
Cl Project Boundary
• Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Male) "+'o • 1:6,000
EXHIBIT 2: 2017 CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY RESULTS
POINT VIEW I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
250 500
Feet
1 Inch = 500 feet
Upp er Filiorum
(Propose d NCC P R e se ~
Co m mon Area
Lane.h e ape Sl op es &
Fu el M od ifi ca tio n
\
Rl!S id en ti al Lots -----HI--~
Op en Space
(Pro p ose d NCC P Hese rve)
Up p er Ab.,tone Cove
Co mmunity ~
Res ide ntial Lots ---------"
ATTACHMENT B
Legend
17.87 AC ====
27.17 AC
Res ldl'ntli1t l o t ~ 19%
Co mmon.Ar a/ l andsca pe Slop es I 29%
Fuel Mod1 ca tlo n
41.01 AC
8.15AC
, Op en Space I Wildli fe Corridor 43%
Pr ivat e Ro ad/Sidewalks 9%
~=~
94.2AC ...._~ l<i ndslide Mo rat orium Boundary -------
100%
53.19 AC of impacts associated with
the d~velopment proposal (57% overaJI) ·
Not to scale
Source: To m leton Plannln Grou
Pa ge 111 -12
~ Portugues v nv nd ommunity ~
Open Spa ce I Wi ldl ife Corridor
(Propos ed NCCP Res erve )
---Wayfarer's Chapel
figure 111 -4
Conceptual Site Plan
ATTACHMENT C
• ORGANIC AVOCADO
ORCHARDS
•VINEYARDS
• CITRUS ORCHARDS
LEGEND
ORGANIC AVOCADO ORCHARDS
• AVOCADO ORCHARD 111 (10 AC+/·)
• AVOCADO ORCHARD #2 (6 AC+/·)
VINEfARDS
• VINEYARDll1 (SAC+/·)
• VINEYARD #2 (3 AC+/•)
1 ~• • ;rTRUS!NON-ORGANIC AVOCADOS
l•rATER TANKS
II POTENTIAL V!NErABD EXPANSION
rci MAIN IRRIGAVON srsm1 u.:::J ' • METE~/BACl<flOW
1 • rUMf STAVON
S AME.HOED LANQSLJDE
MORATORIUM BOUNDARY
• AJllHOU)IYndUfVOt'O&.OOrtTONWft
I · "'1f.JUANTTOft1V01tf»IAHUH0..1 11
Project Agricultural Plan
Pofnl View M11ter Use Plan
Souru: Yofl PoiM Vitw ,,opcrocs, 2011 .
FIGURE
A-8
-\
...... ,./.J'
r. .:.., .•
,,
ATTACHMENT D
LEGEND
[QJ Organic Avocado Orch1flfs
le::> I Vineyards
f ro11Jl)I Cllrus /Non-Organic Avocados
fanz>I Future Vineyard Ex.panslon
B Property Boundaiy
I• • •I Land1lldo Moratorium Boundary
Sourc;e: Information 1hown ii based on lhe •J>Pf'OVed ProjectAgricl4tural Plan for the Point V18W Mailer Use Plan
Approved by lhe City or Rancho Palos Verdes (ZON201o-Ooo87), not to exceed 25.5-acres of egrlcullural uses.
POINT VIEW. RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPANSION
APPROVED MASTER PLAN USE ..A rttOllCT 0 1"1fNSIONs '"' Cl3 ~ lb'.:t!27,ZOll W
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Late correspondence
Ara Mihranian
Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:54 PM
CityClerk
FW: RPV NCCP
Comments to Drafters.docx
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
CITV'OF !~\NCI 10 PALOS \/EHDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram@rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
This c·rna!I contains infonnat!on bdongin~J to the of Rancho Pdios Verdes, which rnay be privileged, confidcntidi and/or protected from
1nrm .. ;tinn is intended only for use of the or named. Uruuthorizcd dissemination, distribution, or C(1pyin9 is shctly prnhiiJilcd. if
you received ernai! in error; or arf: not dn [ntcndcd rec1pient 1 please the sender irrnncditd:e!y, Thank you for your dSS!StJntc and cooperation,
From: Eva Cicoria [mailto:cicoriae@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:20 PM
To: marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RPV NCCP
Mary Beth and Ara,
Thank you again for taking time to discuss the NCCP and related documents with me. I've attached
some edits that I hope you will consider. I also hope they are clear, since I doubt you have time to call
me for clarification, but you are welcome to do so at 310-54 7-5689 or 310-648-9784. Thank you for
all you have done to try to get this project finalized.
1 / Eva
Comments to Drafters
Conservation Easement:
Recital B: change "California gnatcatcher" to "coastal California gnatcatcher" and change
"coastal cactus wren" to "cactus wren".
Recital C, line 3: insert "Palos" before "Verdes".
RPV NCCP
Section 5.2.14: The first sentence is not actually a complete sentence.
Section 5.4.2: Consider whether closure of existing trails that are not in the PTP is a public use
or that line is misplaced.
Section 5.4.2, bullet 5 on p.102: "picnic tables" should be deleted as they are not permitted
under our PUMP. Note that it is appropriately excluded in the similar list in Section 9.2.2.1 at
p.172.
Section 5.4.2, bullet 7 on p. 102: Consider deleting, because it was rendered moot by removal
of the archery range property from the Preserve.
Section 5.5, item 2: Consider adding to the third sentence, to read "Existing trails that
accommodate authorized vehicles in the Preserve should be used wherever practical, while
minimizing vehicle trips overall within the Preserve".
Section 5.5, item 7: Consider adding a time-frame to the third sentence, to read "Project-
specific restoration plans will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies within 30 days of impacts
for review and comment .... "
Section 5.5, item 8: Consider revising to read "Cut/fill from slopes within the Preserve should
be limited to major Covered Projects rather than maintenance activities and such slopes
outside of fuel modification zones within the Preserve will be re-vegetated with native species ..
"
Section 5.5, item 9: Consider dropping the speed limit to 5 mph to protect people, wildlife and
habitat.
Section 5.5, item 15: Consider adding at the end "Lighting that impacts the Preserve habitat
should emit light in a wavelength safe for wildlife."
Section 5.6.8: Consider revising the last sentence to read "Routine recreational trail and trails
that accommodate authorized vehicles maintenance may impact host plants and potentially
PVB individuals, and there will be no additional restrictions, including the foregoing
restrictions, placed on recreational trail or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles
maintenance based on presence of PVB host plant(s). In the event PVB is observed on such
trail, however, the trail or trail that accommodates authorized vehicles shall immediately be
shut down until PVPLC and the Wildlife Agencies are consulted and determine appropriate
measures to implement to protect the PVB.
Section 6.5.2: Consider adding " ... and City Recreation and Parks Department personnel" after
Public Works Department.
Section 9.2.2.2: Consider adding: "Public use of the Preserve is secondary to protecting the
conservation values of the Preserve."
Section 9.2.2.2, item 1: Under Baseline Trail Surveys. Consider changing "3 feet" to "2 feet"
since some of our trails, particularly in densely CSS inhabited Forrestal Reserve, the trail bed is
that narrow and widening will impact the CSS stalks close to the trail bed, killing whole plants
and leaving large, bare spots.
And consider modifying the sentence to add the phrase in bold to the sentence "The
final width determinations will take into consideration the current trail widths as documented
by the baseline surveys, trail topography, nearby sensitive species and their habitats, trail
prism, public use, the commitment during PUMP proceedings to not widen trails to
accommodate use, and other factors.
Section 9.2.2.2, item 2c: Consider limiting the width of new trails to 3 feet. Even that is quite
wide for the 2 areas where new trails are possible per the PTP (between Three Sisters and
Filiorum and off of Quarry Trail in Forrestal).
Section 9.2.2.2, item 4: At the end of the section (before the start of Item 5), after "will
proactively identify potential trail problems" consider adding "and coordinate and implement
solutions .... "
Section 9.2.2.2, item 7: Consider adding a statement that "Trail maintenance, inspection,
monitoring and closure of unauthorized trails is a permissive activity for PVPLC."
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: questions & suggested rewording re plant impacts
Plant Impacts.docx; A TTOOOOl.htm
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:26 PM
To: MaryBeth Woulfe@fws.gov; Andrea Vona <avona@pvplc.org>
Subject: Fwd: questions & suggested rewording re plant impacts
FYI.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org>
Date: March 27, 2018 at 12:38:47 PM PDT
To: Ara Mihranian <aram@rpvca.gov>, Mary Beth Woulfe <marybeth woulfe@fws.gov>
Cc: Al Sattler <alsattler@igc.org>
Subject: questions & suggested rewording re plant impacts
1 /.
Ara and Marybeth -
I am concerned that the wording of the following sections of the revised NCCP may be mis-
interpreted to imply that plants may simply be dug up and replanted at any time of year as
mitigation for impacts.
What does "temporary" mean in this context?
At what point in time are transplanted plants considered complete and successful mitigation for
impacts? Does simply replanting an impacted area re-define that area according to the City's
allocation of allowable impact acreage or is there a requirement that such areas be restored to
functional habitat maturity?
5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures
.... Where practicable, areas of temporary CSS disturbance will be promptly re -vegetated with
CSS habitat within 60 days CSS habitat after completion of abatement activities (see Section
5.5 and Section 6.0 of the Plan for details about the restoration plan).
5.5 Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for
Covered Projects and Activities
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.
7.5.3 Restoration Design
The following will be included in the habitat restoration design criteria:
1 ..... Transplantation of appropriate salvaged plants from impacted sites (e .g .,cacti) is
encouraged to be incorporated into the restoration design . p. 149
I would like to see these sections made more clear, and suggest the following changes to
wording:
5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures
.... A plan for re-vegetation of CSS habitat of areas of temporary CSS disturbance will be
initiated as early as possible in the early planning stage of landslide abatement measures. That
plan should take into account all of the restoration guidelines incorporated in this NCCP/HCP .
Re-vegetation of impact areas will then be implemented as soon as possible after completion of
abatement activities (see Section 5.5 and Section 6 .0 of the Plan for details about the
restoration plan
5.5 Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for
Covered Projects and Activities
14. Under certain special conditions, 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. p. 106
7.5.3 Restoration Design
The following will be included in the habitat restoration design criteria:
1 ..... Transplantation of appropriate salvaged plants, as specified by the Wildlife Agencies and
the Preserve Habitat Manager, from impacted sites (e.g.,cacti) is encouraged to be incorporated
into the restoration design. p. 149
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 28, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Wednesday afternoon for the Thursday, March 29, 2018 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
Description of Material
Email from Sunshine; Email exchange between City Manager
Willmore and Noel Park
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180329 additions revisions to agenda thru Wednesday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Saturday, March 24, 2018 5:43 PM
cc
PC; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; smhvaleri@cox.net;
momofyago@gmail.com; leneebilski@hotmail.com; jessboop@cox.net
Ladera Linda, General Plan and NCCP. Action needed, now
RE: Ladera Linda is not an island. Neither are the Nature Reserves
I am so sorry that Mayor Pro Tern Jerry Duhovic was not able to convince the rest of you that some
design elements within this specific "park site" may need to be changed in deference to additional
information and subsequent Council decisions regarding how the park impacts, and is impacted by,
surrounding activities. Change Orders are not cheap.
I agree with Mickey Radich and others, that a lot of Public Input has been ignored. Just because
Staff has "declared a consensus" does not mean that their choices to go one way v.s. another have
been publicly justified and validated by the Council.
One of our Consultants stated that the proposed floorplan of the building is little more than a "bubble
diagram". I spent most of my thirty+ year career as a Facilities Designer gathering the data from
which a "bubble diagram" is generated. The first step in doing a "relationship study" (which a "bubble
diagram" illustrates), is to have the Client produce and sign-off on a list of features and facilities. Not
that said list has ever shown up in a Staff Report, but, I can see that a "family, handicap accessible"
rest room is not on it. Oops.
The building Floor Plan, Elevations and general, exterior aesthetics renderings have been presented
as "conceptual". This means that the "Program" which Councilman John Cruickshank referenced has
not yet been done. Council's direction to decrease the square footage of the Discovery Room and
increase the square footage of the Multi-Purpose Room is as vague as the information the
Consultants have to work with, already.
1
The Client (that is the Council/Staff representing we, the people) needs to provide the data upon
which the Consultant can calculate the square footage of each room to accommodate the Client's
requirements. Specifically, how many people should the Multi-Purpose Room accommodate for
banquet seating and how many for presentations to an audience? This sort of data must be
established for every feature and facility on our "relationship study" list. And, should be a matter of
Public Record. Has the Consultant met the requirements? When, and which individual/job title is
authorized to sign-off on that?
Think of it like the entitlements process to construct a private facility. The Planning Staff would use
the "program" to calculate how many regular, how many compact and how many handicap accessible
parking spaces are required. A lot of other things come up in this phase like "neighborhood
compatibility", substantial view impairment, exterior lighting and such. Clearly, we are nowhere close
to being ready to present an "application" at the Planning Counter.
"Construction drawings" are produced after the entitlements have been granted. They are to be
presented at the Building and Safety Counter. Just because the City doesn't have to comply with all
of the "health, safety and welfare" codes imposed on John Q. Citizens doesn't mean we shouldn't, at
least, avail ourselves of the same critiques, in house.
That brings up the opportunities for further comment and validation of the Site Plan. I submitted two
"Public Comments" which have not been addressed. In response to Plans A and B, I submitted a
Plan C. A graphic merger of Plans A and B. Nobody except Staff has seen it that I know of.
Because it is a basic traffic safety "rule of thumb", I am sure the Consultant was compelled to present
an option with the entrance to the park aligned with Pirate Drive. A vote at a Delphi Technique
facilitated Workshop is no basis for a "consensus" on a traffic safety issue. Matt Waters has
confirmed that a "Traffic Authority" has never been asked to submit the pro's and con's of relocating
the park entrance. Is, or is not, a 4-way intersection considerably "safer" than two somewhat adjacent
3-way intersections?
My Plan C also showed a TYPE 5 trail from farther northwest on Forrestal to the parking lot in the
park. (ADA compliant is TYPE 1). The PV Loop Trail Project's "ideal route" crosses the Forrestal
Reserve and per its Mission, recommends access to Ladera Linda as a trailhead, pit stop, point-of-
interest or whatever along the way. Despite more public comments than mine, Staff has totally
refused to consider any through-trail user accommodations within this "park site".
Our current General Plan speaks to a city-wide network of off-road circulation opportunities. The
Final Draft Update, the NCCP Final Draft Update and this specific park plan direct users and visitors
to use motor vehicles to get from point-of-interest to point-of-interest. That plays into the UN Agenda
2
21 interim objective to make traffic as congested as possible so that people will, voluntarily, move to
transportation hubs, stop using cars and stay out of "other critters' habitat".
My question before the Council election and now, still is ... Are you, as our representatives,
pursuing this on purpose or, are you letting it happen to us?
Yea Jerry. Votes and Items on the Agenda speak louder than a reply from the City Manager.
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Doug Willmore
Monday, March 26, 2018 11:51 AM
Noel Park; CC; Ara Mihranian
RE: Nature Preserve access
Thanks for you input, Noel. I do want to add one clarification to my comments. The fees that Salt Lake County charged
were essentially vehicle fees (i.e., parking fees), not fees to enter the trails. The County charged for a car entering a
particular canyon and then the driver could park at any trailhead and hike any trail they desired. If someone wanted to
ride a bike or hike up the canyon to the trailhead (usually at least several miles or more) then they could do that free of
charge. The fees that we charged were successful in reducing the overcrowding on at the trailheads and on the trails.
I am not advocating one way or the other, just clarifying.
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:04 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Nature Preserve access
As some of you know, I am a long time member of the PVPLC. I contributed in my small way to the purchase
of the Portuguese Bend property, so I modestly claim to be a stakeholder.
I believe that the primary purpose of the Nature Preserves is to restore and protect habitat and wildlife. I have
said many times that, if it were necessary to succeed in those goals, I would be OK with restricting public
access by whatever means necessary. If that meant fencing off Portuguese Bend and totally excluding the
public, including me, so be it.
At the recent CHOA meeting Mr. Willmore related his experience in Salt Lake County, Utah. In a very similar
situation, a County trail complex was over used to the detriment of the facilitates and the habit. The County
responded by charging for admission, gradually increasing the fee until the usage dropped to sustainable level.
Another approach might be to install parking meters along Crenshaw as far back from the entrance as necessary.
I would support any and all such measures. They might even have the additional benefit of providing funding
for habitat restoration.
Best regards,
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
1 j_