F - Responses to Comments on the NCCP HCP and Associated Environmental AssessmentRESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES NCCP/HCP
Between October 31, 2018, and December 31, 2018, the Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and the Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) were published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public
comment period. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received 89 public comments.
The Service re-circulated the Draft NCCP/HCP and EA in the Federal Register for an additional
30-day public comment period between April 4, 2019, and May 6, 2019, and received 24 public
comments. Two additional comments were received between the two comment periods and four
were received after the public comment period closed on May 6, 2019. The majority of the
public comments addressed similar issues regarding the NCCP/HCP. The following are
responses to the general public comments and are summarized in the “Master Responses” section
of this document. This is followed by responses to the individual comments of each
correspondence in the “Specific Responses” section.
MASTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1. The California Environmental Quality Act and how it applies to private property?
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a California statute passed in 1970, shortly
after the United States Federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA does not directly
regulate land uses, but instead requires state and local agencies within California to follow a
protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of proposed projects and
adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. In other words, CEQA generally requires
state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential
environmental impacts of proposed projects, and to reduce those environmental impacts to the
extent feasible. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California
state and local agency's decision-making process for projects.
Pursuant to CEQA, a project requires approval by a public agency if it may result in direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact. If an action doesn’t qualify as a project,
then the action is not subject to CEQA. A project under the definition of CEQA may range from
a grading permit for a retaining wall to new single-family residence.
A project may be exempt from CEQA. Exemptions can be statutory, such as those granted by the
Legislature, or categorical which are classes of projects that have been determined not to have
effects on the environment (i.e., room additions, remodels, grading, and most new single-family
residences). If not exempt, a project may require the preparation of a Negative Declaration, when
there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will have a significant
environmental impact; Mitigated Negative Declaration, when the potential impacts can be
mitigated to a level of less than significant (i.e., some new single-family residences and minor
commercial development); or Environment Impact Report, when there is substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that a project will have a significant environmental impact that cannot
be mitigated to a level of less than significant (i.e. major commercial or subdivision projects).
F-1
2
2. The Federal and state incidental take permits and how do they apply to private
property?
A Federal Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is required for non-Federal activities that will result in
take of threatened or endangered species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (ESA). Private landowners, corporations, state agencies, local agencies, and
other non-Federal entities that wish to conduct activities that would result in take of a listed
species must first obtain an ITP. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must accompany an
application for an ITP to ensure that the effects of the authorized incidental take are adequately
minimized and mitigated. HCPs must include information on impacts likely to result from the
proposed taking of the species; steps undertaken by the applicant to monitor, minimize, and
mitigate such impacts; funding to undertake conservation measures; alternative actions to such
taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being pursued; and
procedures to deal with unforeseen and changed circumstances. While an ITP is required only
for listed species, HCPs may include conservation measures for candidate, proposed, and other
non-listed species. Including non-listed species in a HCP can avoid the requirements of a new
HCP and permit application or amendments to the HCP in the event that a species becomes listed
during the permit term.
California State ITPs allow a permittee to take a California Endangered Species Act (CESA)-
listed species if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise
lawful activity. These permits are most commonly issued for construction, utility, transportation,
and other infrastructure-related projects. Permittees must implement species-specific
minimization and avoidance measures. State ITPs require a plan to minimize and fully mitigate
impacts of taking, as well as monitor compliance with and effectiveness of the minimization and
mitigation measures. The permittee shall ensure there is adequate funding to implement the
minimization and mitigation measures, and all required monitoring.
The CEQA analysis for a project determines whether the project (public or private) results in
take of protected species, and will require ITP’s from the Service and the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). As noted above, CEQA is a statute that requires the lead agency
to identify the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project actions and to avoid or
mitigate those impacts, if feasible. In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City), CEQA compliance
for private development is processed through the Community Development Department’s
Planning Division, and for public projects, through the Public Works Department. Through
CEQA analysis, the project applicant will ascertain whether their project impacts protected
species, and if so, ITP’s from the Service and the CDFW would be required.
Applicants applying for Federal and state ITP’s must apply directly to both the Service and
CDFW for permits. These permits require applicants to prepare various studies, plans, and maps
related to the take associated with the project, which can be timely and costly.
3. Benefits of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program?
The early 1990s saw the beginning of a new emphasis on regional habitat conservation planning
as an alternative to project-by-project permitting, which was time consuming and costly to
applicants. Natural Communities Conservation Planning is a result of the Natural Community
F-2
3
Conservation Planning Act, which was enacted in 1991 and most recently amended in 2011 to
provide for the protection of habitat, natural communities, and species diversity on a landscape
or ecosystem level through the creation and long-term management of habitat reserves. NCCP
promotes coordination between agencies, effectively addresses cumulative impact concerns,
promotes conservation of un-fragmented habitat areas, promotes multi-species and multi-habitat
management and conservation, and provides an option for identifying and ensuring appropriate
mitigation that is roughly proportional to impacts on fish and wildlife. Regional habitat
conservation planning is a proactive approach to addressing species conservation, and economic
growth and development over a large geographic area. NCCP can apply to listed, non-listed, and
fully protected species. NCCP goes beyond project mitigation and calls for conservation of
covered species that will reduce the need for listing species under the CESA, enhance species
conditions, and restore and manage resources for ecological integrity on a broad scale. This form
of proactive planning is in contrast to project-specific permitting that takes place reactive to
proposed projects in compliance with the ESA and the CESA, as determined through CEQA.
Projects covered under a NCCP/HCP must comply with CEQA. NCCP minimization measures
are sufficient to meet CEQA standards for a NCCP/HCP’s covered species and may be sufficient
to meet CEQA standards for species not covered by the plan. Additionally, any environmental
mitigation required by CEQA, in most cases, is provided through a NCCP/HCP in the form of
habitat conservation. Permits issued pursuant to a NCCP/HCP are not intended to satisfy
mitigation requirements for any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit for impacts to
wetlands, any requirements pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code and
subsequent Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement between the CDFW and the applicant, or
permits required by the California Coastal Commission. However, a NCCP/HCP is largely
intended to fulfill the requirements for endangered species consultation relative to wetland
permitting and associated incidental take of covered species addressed in a NCCP/HCP.
Approval of a NCCP/HCP should streamline the wetland permitting process.
Local, state, and Federal agencies are encouraged to prepare NCCPs to provide comprehensive
management and conservation of multiple species and their habitats under a single plan, rather
than through preparation of numerous individual plans on a project-by-project basis. There are
currently 16 NCCP/HCP subarea plans in either the planning phase or approved in California,
and Rancho Palos Verdes would be the only jurisdiction within the Los Angeles County
Subregion currently participating in the NCCP Program.
Also, the City’s enrollment in the NCCP Program made them eligible to obtain land acquisition
grant funding from specific sources of State funding that benefit NCCP regional conservation
efforts.
4. Why did the City decide to prepare a NCCP/HCP?
In 1996, the City entered into a planning agreement with the CDFW and the Service, hereafter
collectively referred to as the “Wildlife Agencies,” to develop a NCCP/HCP that would
encompass the entire City. The City chose to pursue NCCP/HCP permits in 1996, because the
City had several public infrastructure projects vital to the City’s infrastructure and public safety
(i.e., storm drain, road repairs, and landflow remediation projects to name a few). These projects
were expected to impact relatively high concentrations of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat,
F-3
4
which supports listed and sensitive species, found in the City, and 7.5 miles of environmentally
protected coastline. Additionally, the City was experiencing the growing intensity of private
development pressures on these areas. An important objective of the NCCP/HCP for the City is
the ability to streamline the permit process that could otherwise require lengthy and costly permit
processes for each public and private project. A NCCP/HCP permit issued to the City would
streamline the environmental review (CEQA, CESA, and section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA take
authorization) for public and private projects City-wide by granting the City permits from the
Wildlife Agencies for projects and activities specifically covered under the NCCP/HCP. Thus,
protecting areas of concentrated CSS habitat, the length of coastline, and the number of vital
public infrastructure projects planned, are key reasons why the City was the only jurisdiction on
the Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula to pursue a NCCP/HCP.
5. What species are proposed to be covered by the City’s NCCP/HCP and their Federal
and state protective status?
The proposed NCCP/HCP is intended to provide the justification for take authorizations from the
Wildlife Agencies for the proposed covered species identified in the NCCP/HCP and listed
below.
Table-1. Proposed Covered Species List for the NCCP/HCP
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides CNPS List 1B
South Coast Saltscale Atriplex pacifica CNPS List 1B
Catalina Crossosoma Crossosoma californicum CNPS List 1B
Island Green Dudleya Dudleya virens ssp. insularis CNPS List 1B
Santa Catalina Island Desert-
thorn
Lycium brevipes var. hassei CNPS List 1B
Woolly Seablite Suaeda taxifolia CNPS List 4
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis
FE
El Segundo Blue Butterfly Euphilotes battoides allyni FE
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica
californica
FT, NCCP Focal Species,
SSC
Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
NCCP Focal Species
FE = Federally endangered
FT = Federally threatened
SSC = State Species of Concern
CNPS List 1B = Plants, rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
CNPS List 4 = Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
6. Why is the cactus wren proposed to be covered under the City’s NCCP/HCP?
The cactus wren is not a federally or state listed species but has been identified as a sensitive or
at-risk species, because cactus wrens have greatly declined along coastal Southern California
between Ventura to the Mexican border. The cactus wren was also identified as one of three
F-4
5
focal species under the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation Guidelines in
1993. Once widespread in coastal Southern California, by 1990, cactus wren populations had
been reduced to fewer than 3,000 pairs. Both CDFW and the Service issue ITPs for listed
species. While ITP’s are required only for listed species, NCCP/HCPs may, and commonly do,
include conservation measures for candidate, proposed, and other non-listed species (see Master
Response #2 and #3 above). In fact, NCCPs are intended to address the conservation needs of a
diversity of species at a regional scale. In doing so, it is anticipated that performing such
conservation would prevent the need for future listings of species as threatened or endangered.
As described in Section 1.2.1 of the NCCP/HCP, the Service has the legal authority to issue
permits for the incidental take of species under section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA. Section 10 and 16
USC Section 1539(a)(1)(B), expressly authorizes the Service to issue a section l0 permit to allow
incidental take of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The legislative
history of section 10(a)(l)(B) clearly indicates that Congress also intended that the Service will
approve HCPs that protect unlisted species as if they were listed under the ESA, and that in
doing so the Service will provide section l0(a)(l)(B) assurances for protection of such unlisted
species (H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 30-31, 1982. Conference Report on 1982
Amendments to the ESA). The Service has approved many HCPs that address both listed and
non-listed species. Under Fish and Game Code Section 2835, CDFW may permit the taking, as
provided in the code, of any identified species whose conservation management is provided for
in a CDFW approved NCCP. This includes non-listed species.
The Service issued a formal regulation known as the “No Surprises” Rule, effective
March 25, 1998 (Federal Register 63[35]:8859-8873). The rule provides regulatory assurances to
holders of HCP ITPs. These regulatory assurances generally provide that no additional land use
restrictions or financial compensation will be required of the permit holder with respect to
species covered by the permit beyond the levels provided under the HCP, even if unforeseen
circumstances arise after the permit is issued, without the consent of the permittee.
Including non-listed species in a NCCP/HCP can avoid the requirement of a new ITP or
burdensome amendments to a NCCP/HCP in the event that a species becomes listed during the
NCCP/HCP permit term. Additionally, new conditions regarding the coverage of a non-listed
species cannot be added to a NCCP/HCP in the event the species is listed, without the consent of
the Permittee. The City, in coordination with the working groups and Wildlife Agencies, chose
to include the cactus wren as a proposed covered species in its NCCP/HCP in anticipation that it
is likely that it will be listed at some time during the 40-year permit term. Thus, by including the
cactus wren as a covered species, the City’s NCCP/HCP addresses the permit issuance criteria as
if it were a listed species and there would be no need to obtain additional permits from the
Wildlife Agencies should the species become listed in the future.
7. What occurred between 1996 and now as it relates to the NCCP/HCP, and why so long?
The City signed a Planning Agreement for the Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP Subarea in 1996, to
begin the preparation of a Natural Communities Conservation Program Plan. From 1996 through
2004, the City, in coordination with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC),
and their consultants mapped existing vegetation communities, along with sensitive species
distributions and their potential habitat, as well as developed alternatives for the configuration of
F-5
6
what is now known as the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve). The City and the Wildlife
Agencies held public workshops and meetings with stakeholders and interested parties. The
NCCP/HCP working group helped develop the NCCP/HCP.
On August 30, 2004, the City Council approved the Draft NCCP/HCP, certified the related
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which pursuant to CEQA analyzed the environmental
impacts related to the implementation of the NCCP/HCP; and approved the draft Implementing
Agreement, which sets the legal responsibilities of all of the involved parties (City, PVPLC, and
Wildlife Agencies) for implementing the NCCP/HCP post adoption of the NCCP/HCP. After the
City approved the NCCP/HCP, the City and PVPLC began operating under the guidelines and
regulations of the Draft NCCP/HCP.
Since 2004, the City has worked with the Wildlife Agencies and PVPLC to finalize the
NCCP/HCP for approval by the City Council. The primary reason for the delay in finalizing the
NCCP/HCP is that the City reprioritized projects and activities proposed to be covered by the
NCCP/HCP, and the City focused on acquiring land in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies
to enhance the Preserve to maximize the baseline of land that was protected within the Preserve.
State and Federal grant funding significantly helped to fund the purchase of additional
biologically important lands including the Portuguese Bend Reserve (2005), Filiorum Reserve
(2010), and most recently the Malaga Canyon Reserve (2014). Additionally, the City changed
the Preserve configuration by adding conservation lands, enhancing habitat corridors, and by
removing the areas commonly known as the archery range and Gateway Park. The City, PVPLC,
and Wildlife Agencies also spent considerable time completing various components required by
the NCCP/HCP. The 2018 NCCP/HCP was updated to reflect the City’s public project needs and
to reflect changes in land acquisition that have occurred since 2004.
On October 2, 2017, the City Council conducted a public workshop to receive a status update on
the NCCP/HCP. At that meeting, the City Council reviewed the latest draft of the NCCP/HCP
with a comparison of changes and updates since the 2004 adopted Draft NCCP/HCP and was
informed that the document would be completed pending some final wordsmith edits and
clarifications to represent current conditions. That evening, the City Council directed City staff
to finalize the NCCP/HCP for future consideration by the City Council.
On March 29, 2018, the City Council reviewed and approved the Final Draft 2018 NCCP/HCP
including the Implementing Agreement and conservation easements; approved Addendum No. 1
to the 2004 City Council-Certified Final Environmental Impact Report; and directed City staff to
submit these documents along with the permit application to the Wildlife Agencies to initiate the
process for the 60-day public comment period to be noticed in the Federal Register and for the
Wildlife Agencies’ subsequent permit decisions.
On October 31, 2018, the Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft Environmental Assessment were
published in the Federal Register (83 FR 54769) for a 60-day public comment period, concluding
on December 31, 2018. The Service recirculated the documents for an additional 30-day public
comment period between April 4, 2019, and May 6, 2019 (84 FR 13308). The Service extended
the public comment period, in part, to maximize public review because, while the document
provided during the initial 60-day comment period was the document considered by the City
Council at their March 29, 2018, meeting, it did not include changes accepted by City Council
F-6
7
via late correspondence at the City Council meeting, nor did it include technical and clarifying
edits made after the City Council meeting. The Wildlife Agencies are currently evaluating the
City’s Draft 2018 NCCP/HCP and associated documents for a determination of permit issuance.
8. What are the NCCP/HCP Findings necessary to issue the City and PVPLC, as the
Habitat Manager, a permit by the Wildlife Agencies?
Under the NCCP/HCP, the Service and the CDFW are required to make specific findings before
approving a NCCP/HCP and issuing a permit. Under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), CDFW must make responsible agency findings with respect to the potentially
significant environmental effects authorized by CDFW pursuant to the NCCP Permit issued to
the City and PVPLC under the NCCP Act (NCCPA). In addition, under the NCCPA, the CDFW
must find that:
1. The NCCP addresses wildlife conservation on a regional or area-wide scale;
2. The NCCP protects and perpetuates wildlife diversity;
3. The NCCP allows for compatible and appropriate development and growth;
4. The NCCP is consistent with the NCCP Enrollment Agreement signed by the City, and
with the Planning Agreement for the Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP Subarea;
5. The NCCP provides for the conservation and management of all species subject to the
take authorization provided as part of this NCCP Permit;
6. The NCCP substantially adheres to the scope and configuration of regional and
subregional planning areas as described in the CSS NCCP Guidelines;
7. The NCCP substantially adheres to the conservation standards, guidelines, and
objectives for the Regional Coastal Sage Scrub Planning Area prescribed in the CSS
NCCP Guidelines;
8. The NCCP substantially adhered to the CSS NCCP Guidelines’ provisions regarding
the appointment and use of advisory committees, coordination with local, state and
federal agencies, and public participation;
9. The NCCP substantially adheres to the CSS NCCP Guidelines’ provisions for ensuring
compatibility and compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA);
10. The approval process employed for the NCCP substantially adheres to the process
requirements in the CSS NCCP Guidelines;
11. The mechanism for implementing the NCCP substantially adheres to the CSS NCCP
Guidelines;
12. That the NCCP substantially adheres to the CSS NCCP Guidelines’ provisions
concerning monitoring and reporting on NCCP implementation;
F-7
8
13. The Implementing Agreement contains provisions allowing for amendments to the
NCCP that are consistent with the initial intent of the plan; and
14. The City’s development of the NCCP substantially adhered to the CSS NCCP
Guidelines provisions concerning the loss of CSS habitat prior to approval and
implementation of the NCCP.
Similarly, the Service must find for the HCP:
1. The taking will be incidental;
2. The Applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the
impacts of such taking of listed species and the effects to other covered species;
3. The Applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan and procedures to deal
with unforeseen circumstances will be provided;
4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of
the species in the wild;
5. Other measures, if any, required by the Secretary under subparagraph (A)(iv), as
necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan will be met;
6. The Secretary has received the necessary assurances that the plan will be implemented.
Findings of consistency with a NCCP/HCP are required for public and private projects
requesting issuance of Federal and state take authorizations during the City’s CEQA and
development review/approval process. This is a very important characteristic of the NCCP/HCP
permit. Without the NCCP/HCP, applicants (both public and private property owners) whose
projects include take of federally or state listed species, would need to submit individual ITP
requests to both the Service and/or the CDFW. The NCCP/HCP allows the City to convey the
take authorization to private property owners conducting discretionary actions that follow the
terms of the NCCP/HCP; thereby, greatly reducing permit processing time and saving private
landowners significant costs from preparing conservation plans and documents. The Wildlife
Agencies will receive notification of public and private projects in the City through the CEQA
notification process, and projects processed by the City will document their consistency with the
NCCP/HCP during the appropriate CEQA review and will be summarized each year in the
annual report.
9. How is the NCCP/HCP implemented?
Implementation of the NCCP/HCP will rely on the City’s land-use authority provided though
General Plan policies, Local Coastal Program, and the City’s Municipal Code ordinances.
Implementation will also rely on the City’s compliance with state and Federal environmental
land use laws (e.g., CEQA/NEPA), CESA permit, section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, and the
Implementing Agreement between the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies.
F-8
9
10. What public projects are covered by the City’s NCCP/HCCP?
As described in Section 5.2 of the NCCP/HCP, the City’s is seeking Federal and state permits to
address covered projects/activities, including 17 City projects/activities (Table 5-1 below).
Addressing the City’s proposed projects and activities anticipated over the next 40 years in one
NCCP/HCP permit application will significantly reduce the processing time associated with
individual permits and expense for the City. It will also streamline compliance with CEQA as
described in Master Response #4 above and provide certainty and assurances to the City and
private landowners. The main differences between a project and an activity are that activities are
not expected to result in the permanent loss of habitat. Table 5-1 in the NCCP/HCP (below) lists
the City projects and activities covered under the NCCP/HCP. The activities covered by the
NCCP/HCP also include Operations and Maintenance, Public Use, and Preserve Management.
Table-2. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities
City Project Name
Total
Habitat
Loss
(Acres)
CSS
Total
Habitat
Loss
(Acres)
Grassland
Habitat
Loss In
Preserve
(Acres)
CSS
Habitat
Loss In
Preserve
(Acres)
Grassland
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project 2.5 3 0.0 0.0
2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3. Landslide Abatement Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9
5. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project 5.0 15.0 0.0 0.0
6. Misc. Drainage Improvements 20.0 60.0 6.6 20.0
7. Abalone Cove Beach Project 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
8. *RPV Trails Plan Implementation 4.0 10.0 2.0 5.0
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 0.0 0.0 0.34 0.0
10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2 0.0 0.0
11. Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
12. Upper Point Vicente 2.0 22.0 1.0 11.0
13. Preserve Fuel Modification 12.0 18 12.0 18
F-9
10
City Project Name
Total
Habitat
Loss
(Acres)
CSS
Total
Habitat
Loss
(Acres)
Grassland
Habitat
Loss In
Preserve
(Acres)
CSS
Habitat
Loss In
Preserve
(Acres)
Grassland
14. Utility Maintenance and Repair 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0
15. Unimproved City Park Projects 10.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
16. Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
17. Other Miscellaneous City projects 20.0 60.0 10.0 30.0
**Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 115.5 303.7 60.3 148.3
* Part of the PUMP, a Covered City Project (see Section 9.2 of this Plan)
** Total habitat loss (CSS and Grassland) is 419.2 acres, of which 208.6 acres (50%) would occur in the Preserve.
Included in the CSS loss are losses associated with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub
which are expected to be minimal. No more than 5.0 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2.0 acres of coastal bluff
scrub, and 2.0 acres of saltbush scrub could be lost within the Preserve associated with Covered City Projects
and Activities.
11. What private projects are covered by the City’s NCCP/HCP?
As described in Section 5.3 of the NCCP/HCP, the City is seeking Federal and state permits to
address 5 covered private projects/activities (Table 5-2 below). In the absence of this
NCCP/HCP, a private property owner would apply for Federal and state ITPs and comply with
CEQA requirements during the City’s local CEQA and development (building or grading)
review/approval process. The City’s NCCP/HCP reduces the applicants’ permit processing time
and application costs since the City has taken on these costs with the development of the
NCCP/HCP. The adoption of the NCCP/HCP by the City provides individual landowners
certainty about the conservation necessary for private projects within the City as well as
assurances. The specified mitigation ratios identified in the NCCP/HCP ensure appropriate
mitigation that is roughly proportional to impacts on covered species and natural vegetation
communities. Conversely, in the absence of the City-wide NCCP/HCP permit, mitigation ratios
for private projects would likely be higher for individual projects. Likewise, the applicant would
have to prepare costly surveys, studies, and supporting documents for individual permits (i.e.,
ITPs) that would take time to complete in support of permits. Under the proposed NCCP/HCP,
private applicants’ projects would be required to adhere to the City’s development review
process and fixed mitigation ratio established in the NCCP/HCP.
F-10
11
Table-3. Total Loss of Habitat by Privately Covered Projects and Activities
Covered Private Project
Habitat
Loss
(acres)
CSS
Habitat
Loss
(acres)
Grassland
1. Lower Filiorum Development 11.9 70.0
2. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading 3.0 10.0
3. Fuel Modification for Private Projects 10.0 20.0
4. Miscellaneous Private Projects throughout the City 71.8 143.1
5. Plumtree Development 2.8 19.7
Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 99.5 262.8
12. Why are some private project impacts to habitat mitigated at a 2:1 ratio?
This question refers to the requirement to offset impacts to CSS outside of the Preserve at a 2:1
conservation to impact ratio. This requirement applies to most private projects with anticipated
impacts to CSS, including impacts from new development and landscaping. This conservation
ratio is consistent with mitigation requirements for CSS vegetation occupied by sensitive species
throughout southern California in areas with approved NCCP/HCPs and provides the necessary
conservation for the extension of take authorization. As a reminder, because of the substantial
losses of CSS to urbanization, further losses of CSS are commonly considered to be significant
under CEQA; therefore, impacts to CSS typically require habitat mitigation even outside of
regional NCCP/HCP areas in southern California (see Master Response #2). Outside of
NCCP/HCP Plan Areas, mitigation required for impacts to CSS habitat can often exceed a 2:1
conservation to impact ratio depending on, among other things, the quality of habitat impacted
and the area’s importance to the functioning of the surrounding landscape, and the species
present. To provide flexibility for private projects, the NCCP/HCP allows payment of a fee of
$50,000 per acre of conservation required (see Section 5.3 of the NCCP/HCP). The $50,000
Mitigation Fee will be reviewed periodically, no less than every three years, by the City and, if
necessary, adjusted to account for inflation and/or higher than expected restoration and
management costs. The PVPLC and the City have determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is
the cost to restore and maintain 1 acre of native habitat. This fee will be held in the City’s
Habitat Restoration Fund.
Of the approximately 15,500 private properties in the City, approximately 986 properties contain
CSS. The majority of these private properties that support CSS are located on neutral land.
Neutral land has existing development constraints pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code or other
restrictions. The City estimates that there are approximately 43 private properties that are not
designated as neutral lands that would be eligible to apply for ITP’s through the NCCP/HCP.
F-11
12
The NCCP/HCP is expected to streamline permitting for private landowners who propose to
impact CSS habitat.
13. Is the NCCP/HCP more restrictive to private property owners than the development
process, absent a NCCP/HCP?
We received numerous comments regarding whether the NCCP/HCP is more onerous or imposes
more restrictions than the CEQA process. The NCCP/HCP does not impose restrictions that are
more restrictive than CEQA. The intent of regional plans is to streamline permit processes for
applicants and develop landscape scale plans that result in preserves that are more functional
for plants and wildlife than would be assembled from individual permits. Typically, this level of
planning allows for smaller mitigation ratios because thoughtful preserve design optimizes the
function of the preserve for a given area. Additionally, this streamlined approach provides
applicants with certainty and saves time and money.
In absence of a NCCP/HCP, all private development projects would be processed for CEQA
compliance by the City’s Community Development Department pursuant to the Zoning Code
(Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code). During the CEQA review process, the
level of environmental impacts is analyzed and mitigation measures to avoid or substantially
reduce any significant environmental effects are identified and incorporated as part of project
approvals. If the project involves take of protected species or loss of suitable habitat, the
Community Development Department informs the applicant that they are required to apply to the
Service and CDFW for ITP permits. Timelines for CEQA processing by the Community
Development Department can take one week to a year depending on the breadth and scope of the
project. ITP permit processing by the Wildlife Agencies can take 1-2 years depending on the
complexity of the project, amount of listed species present, time it takes to prepare the necessary
documents, including applicable CEQA and NEPA public review, and permit decision
processing time. For Federal ITPs, individual habitat conservation plans must be prepared and
submitted by the project applicant along with their permit application requests to the Wildlife
Agencies. Habitat conservation plans require detailed information (see Master Response #8
above) and often require an outside consultant for their preparation. Both state and Federal
permits will require the applicant to minimize and mitigate for the losses of covered
species/habitat by setting aside land, paying a mitigation fee (only for HCPs) or restoring habitat
of equivalent value often times at a certain ratio; monitoring for compliance and effectiveness of
the mitigation; and ensuring there is adequate funding to implement the required mitigation. The
mitigation ratio and/or mitigation strategy is based on anticipated impacts to species and their
habitat and comprehensive impacts to surrounding natural resources.
Several comments raised concerns about coverage for species that are not currently protected by
Federal or state regulations. We note that the plant species covered in the City’s 2018
NCCP/HCP are only known from the Preserve, and we do not anticipate restrictions for private
projects. By covering these species and protecting them within the Preserve, the City and PVPLC
are addressing any future conservation requirements that may otherwise be imposed if these
species become listed.
The benefit of the NCCP/HCP is that the Community Development Department will be
permitted to extend their take authorization to an applicant, subject to the City’s discretion, on
F-12
13
behalf of the Wildlife Agencies pursuant to the NCCP/HCP. The NCCP/HCP addresses the
covered projects/activities contemplated in the City and replaces the need for an individual
property owner to prepare individual ITP applications. The City-wide NCCP/HCP greatly
reduces permit processing time and cost to individual landowners or applicants. As noted above,
the NCCP/HCP provides certainty to the City and local landowners by establishing mitigation
requirements (i.e., fixed ratio for habitat mitigation) and minimization requirements. Pursuant to
the NCCP/HCP, the City is also provided assurances that no further mitigation will be necessary
when the NCCP/HCP is properly implemented.
14. What purpose does the Preserve serve for the NCCP/HCP?
The Preserve benefits the City because it serves as the baseline conservation for the proposed
covered species and a proportion of the Preserve provides mitigation necessary for the
NCCP/HCP and associated permits. The NCCP/HCP includes 17 City-covered projects/activities
(see Section 5.2) and 5 private-covered projects/activities (see Section 5.3) estimated to result in
a loss of 781.5 acres of combined CSS and grassland habitat. The City’s primary conservation
strategy is to dedicate 1,402.4 acres of habitat for the establishment of a Preserve that conserves
un-fragmented habitat and provides comprehensive management and conservation for multiple
species and their habitats. Of the 1,402.4 acres, 499.9 acres that was previously owned or
partially purchased by the City will be dedicated to mitigate for all covered City
projects/activities. An additional 623 acres of land was acquired largely by the City through
Federal and state grant funding and by PVPLC community contributions. An additional 20.7
acres is owned and will be dedicated by the PVPLC. Finally, 258.7 acres of City-owned land, or
land that will eventually be owned by the City, was previously dedicated for conservation as
mitigation for the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP and the Oceanfront Estates projects. The
499.9 acres of mitigation land, including previously conserved land and new land that will be
dedicated to the Preserve by the City, in addition to the 250 acres of disturbed land that PVPLC
proposed for restoration over the life of the permits, serves as the City’s mitigation for the
NCCP/HCP permits. Mitigation ratios for environmentally sensitive areas that includes CSS
habitat are often higher. The Wildlife Agencies and the City negotiated that the amount of habitat
being dedicated to the Preserve, in conjunction with the configuration of the Preserve lands, the
restoration of an additional 250 acres, and perpetual management of those lands would support
the issuance criteria necessary for the permits associated with NCCP/HCP.
While developing the NCCP/HCP, the working groups and many residents supported the concept
of an NCCP/HCP because it established a 1,402.4-acre Preserve that will be perpetually
conserved. Lands within the Preserve will be encumbered by conservation easements to ensure
that their resource values are perpetually maintained. This will result in 17% of the City’s land
protected from development while preserving the City’s semi-rural character and providing
opportunities for passive recreation consistent with the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal
Program, Municipal Code, and NCCP/HCP. In addition, the NCCP/HCP provides a framework
and dedicated funding source for acquiring additional private lands from willing sellers. The City
and/or PVPLC, in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies, may apply for Federal section 6
Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grants that would complement the NCCP/HCP.
F-13
14
15. Are there any other mitigation measures required for habitat impacts?
The habitat avoidance and minimization measures found in Section 5.5 and 5.6 (Appendix B also
provides additional details for covered species) of the NCCP/HCP apply to the 17 covered City
projects/activities and 5 covered private projects/activities, and any private projects receiving
permits through the City’s NCCP/HCP. The habitat avoidance and minimization measures apply
to projects/activities within and outside of the Preserve. These measures are similar to measures
that would be required in individual HCPs and NCCPs. Their purpose is to minimize impacts to
covered species and their habitats. The City will coordinate with PVPLC to ensure
implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures as enforceable conditions in all
permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the covered projects and activities
covered by the NCCP/HCP. There are also specific avoidance and minimization measures
required for new development abutting the Preserve, which are outlined in Master Response #16
below. These measures are required to maintain permit coverage for covered species.
16. Does the Preserve create restrictions for adjacent private properties and equestrian
facilities?
Properties owners who develop within the City currently have obligations under CEQA.
Consistent with CEQA, property owners adjacent to the Preserve will have reasonable
avoidance and minimization measures to implement to ensure that proposed activities minimize
the effects to covered species and the Preserve. Property owners within the City will also be
subject to CEQA to ensure that activities avoid and minimize impacts to covered species. The
NCCP/HCP provides a standardized approach to these avoidance and minimization measures
that is expected to streamline approvals from the City and the Wildlife Agencies.
Additionally, CEQA requires applicants to address potential impacts to sensitive species, and if
a project has the potential to increase the impact of cowbirds on sensitive species, then measures
are commonly implemented to address these impacts, including surveys and potentially cowbird
trapping.
The NCCP/HCP identifies avoidance and minimization measures to be incorporated in new
development projects on lots or new structures on developed lots adjacent to the Preserve. As
part of the development review process (including CEQA), the Community Development
Department will consider the locations of access and staging areas, fire and fuel modification
zones, predator and exotic species control, fencing, signage, lighting, increased stormwater and
urban runoff, increased erosion, increased noise levels, and public access to habitats supporting
covered species and ensure appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are implemented
for new development projects. Projects that abut the Preserve and impact covered species and
their habitats will implement measures to avoid or minimize impacts to biological resources.
Specifically, the measures identified in Section 5.7 of the NCCP/HCP will apply to new
development projects (and new structures) on lots abutting the Preserve and shall be incorporated
as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures in City-issued permits, operations, and
authorizations to proceed with work.
F-14
15
17. Does the City’s NCCP/HCP require existing equestrian facilities to trap cowbirds?
Brown-headed cowbirds, commonly referred to as cowbirds, are a parasitic, non-native species
in California that contribute to the decline of many native bird species and can adversely affect
native songbird breeding (e.g., gnatcatcher), if populations are not adequately
monitored/managed. This transient bird species originally followed bison herds and has adapted
to follow domestic European livestock. As a result, the NCCP/HCP requires that any new corral
or equestrian facility located within 500 feet of the Preserve seeking the City’s approval of a
Conditional Use Permit or Large Domestic Animal Permit, must have a qualified biologist
monitor for cowbirds for three years, and every third year thereafter, to determine their presence.
If cowbirds are present, a cowbird trapping program and/or other effective measures must
implemented by the applicant at their cost. This expense is borne by the applicant rather than the
City, because it is part of the Conditional Use Permit for an equestrian facility. Existing
equestrian facilities adjacent to the Preserve are not prohibited or regulated by the NCCP/HCP;
however, the NCCP/HCP defines procedures for new equestrian facilities that include
monitoring for the presence of the cowbird. This requirement does not apply to existing facilities.
18. Why is the Lower Filiorum Property held to different habitat mitigation requirements?
To address the particular public comments requesting information regarding what would
constitute a viable corridor in the lower Filiorum area, we acknowledge that habitat connectivity
has been compromised by previous development throughout the City; however, recent surveys
suggest that the remaining open space can support substantial populations of sensitive species,
including coastal California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. Though species vary, both flying
and non-flying species are capable of crossing non-habitat features, including roads. However,
greater connectivity of preserves increases movement among populations, which increases
demographic and genetic exchange. Maintenance of live-in habitat within corridors is especially
important for connectivity. The intent of the 40-acre dedication and 300-foot-wide minimum
wildlife corridor required for this project is to maintain a viable wildlife corridor as well as live-
in habitat. Furthermore, many flying species are more likely to fly over native habitat and
undeveloped open space areas than developed areas.
In the process of designing the NCCP/HCP, the Lower Filiorum Property was included in the
NCCP/HCP to function as a wildlife corridor that provides live-in habitat due to its location
within the plan area. The property supports a functional connection important for the Preserve
design necessary to support the NCCP/HCP. The Lower Filiorum property is not being held to a
different mitigation standard. The conservation strategy for this property was established in
coordination with the landowner and identified in the 2004 adopted NCCP/HCP. The mitigation
identified is consistent with the mitigation requirement for projects/parcels within this
NCCP/HCP and other comparable projects in other regional conservation plans. In fact, the basis
for creating the Preserve design included evaluations of potential development on the largest
properties supporting natural vegetation, including the Lower Filiorum Property, and a
commitment to conserve the linkage between coastal and inland areas centrally within it.
In analyzing the mitigation requirements for the Lower Filiorum Property established in the draft
NCCP/HCP, it is important to understand the history of the wildlife corridor. The 2004
NCCP/HCP states that if a project is proposed for the Lower Filiorum parcel, approximately 40
F-15
16
to 45 acres of the 94-acre parcel would be dedicated to the Preserve with a width of no less than
300 feet. The purpose of this requirement was to mitigate the project’s impacts to surveyed
species on the property at the time and to provide a viable wildlife (bird and butterfly) corridor to
Abalone Cove. According to the maps in the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the portion of the Lower
Filiorum property comprising the 40-acre corridor was within the City’s landslide moratorium
area, thus leaving the wildlife corridor outside the area most likely to be developed. Since then,
the City issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allowing a portion of the area originally
identified to serve as the wildlife corridor to be improved with the Event Garden and agricultural
uses. The 2004 NCCP/HCP was not applied in the context of the CUP process because it was the
City’s understanding that the remaining portion of the property would remain undeveloped and
would serve as the wildlife corridor. The 2018 NCCP/HCP is consistent with the 2004
NCCP/HCP citing the 40-acre mitigation but identifies a more general location of the wildlife
corridor. This is intended to provide flexibility and, again, to offset impacts to covered species
that were originally surveyed on the property. The mitigation will only be triggered if a
development project is pursued by the property owner and approved by the City. The property
owner may seek an individual ITP directly from the Wildlife Agencies to mitigate for impacts to
listed species and natural communities associated with a proposed development project;
however, mitigation similar to the NCCP/HCP would likely be required. Furthermore, any
proposed individual permit will need to be consistent with the NCCP/HCP.
19. How is public use and maintenance managed in the Preserve?
Public access in the Preserve is conditionally allowed per the NCCP/HCP for passive use
consistent with the conservation of biological resources. Prior to the acquisition and conservation
of the properties that make up the Preserve, the public historically accessed many of these private
properties for recreational purposes. This resulted in unauthorized use and duplicative trails that
did not consider the sensitive resources within the Preserve.
In 2008, the City developed a Preserve Trails Plan (PTP) that provides protection to biological
resources while balancing passive recreational activity. The City Council also formed a 17-
member Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) Committee. The PUMP Committee met 33 times over
a three-year period (2006-2008), and formulated recommendations to the City Council for trail
names, routes, and uses among other things. The PUMP Committee included comprehensive
public vetting and input through numerous public workshops and meetings.
On September 2, 2008, the City Council adopted the PTP. On October 2, 2012, the PTP was
amended to include the Filiorum Reserve which was acquired by the City in 2009, as well as to
adopt some minor amendments. Trails identified in the PTP include existing trail routes that have
been identified based primarily on historical usage and popularity. Impact to the environment
was minimized by using existing trails. In development of the PTP, consideration was also given
to line-of-site, slope, and safety factors, as well as minimizing potential for erosion. Furthermore,
the PTP’s approved trail routes take into consideration the natural topography, and the intent to
provide access to open areas and vistas while avoiding impacts to sensitive natural areas. Finally,
the public uses and trail routes/configurations are designed to be compatible with the Preserve
and avoid disturbance to native vegetation, habitat, or covered species identified in the
NCCP/HCP. Where habitat impacts, user conflicts, or safety concerns arise on a trail, change of
F-16
17
trail use designation may be considered, and must be approved by the City Council and the
Wildlife Agencies.
The PUMP Committee also made recommendations to the City Council on the PUMP, which
establishes public access to the Preserve, and amenities and maintenance supporting public use.
The City Council approved the PUMP document April 2, 2013, and it includes public access
elements such as permissible and prohibited Preserve uses, trail use determinations, trail
maintenance guidelines, and supporting amenities. The public uses and activities in the PUMP
are considered conditionally compatible uses under the NCCP/HCP provided they are consistent
with the guidelines described in Section 9.2.2.1 of the NCCP/HCP. Not all trail standards
commonly accepted in open space areas elsewhere are included within the Preserve, because the
Preserve’s primary purpose is habitat conservation and covered species protection rather than
public use. Trail guidelines are established on Page 6 of the PUMP and NCCP/HCP Section
9.2.2.2. Per the PUMP, trails are to be maintained or designed for minimum impact on existing
and potential habitat. Section 9.2.2.2 of the NCCP/HCP describes how baseline surveys will be
conducted to assess and document trail widths, and identify unauthorized trails through the
Preserve. The City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies will meet to determine and finalize
appropriate widths for all trails consistent with Section 9.2.2.2 of the NCCP/HCP. The PVPLC
and City will cooperatively maintain and manage public uses within the Preserve consistent with
the NCCP/HCP.
20. Why is public access to the Preserve conditionally allowed per the NCCP/HCP?
To understand why public access to the Preserve is conditionally allowed per the City’s
NCCP/HCP, it is important to understand the purpose of the NCCP/HCP. The NCCP/HCP
identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while
allowing compatible uses. Because there is overwhelming public support in the City (and
surrounding areas) to provide for public access to the Preserve, the City has included passive
recreation as a conditionally compatible use in the Preserve. Public access within the Preserve
must conform to the Preserve’s PUMP and the NCCP/HCP (see Sections 5.4.2, 5.2.8, and 9.2.2
of the NCCP/HCP). More specifically, the public uses and activities in the Preserve’s PUMP are
considered conditionally compatible uses under the City’s NCCP/HCP, provided they are
consistent with the guidelines described in Section 9.2.2.1 of the NCCP/HCP. Public access is
subject to the same habitat impact avoidance and minimization measures as all other
projects/activities covered by the NCCP/HCP (see Section 5.5 of the NCCP/HCP). Moreover, it
is a priority for the City, Wildlife Agencies, and PVPLC to work together to manage public
access in a way that is consistent with the protection and enhancement of the biological resources
identified in the NCCP/HCP. The passive recreational activities allowed within the Preserve
through the NCCP/HCP and the PUMP are designed to connect to the recreational facilities
located outside the Preserve.
21. How does the City’s NCCP/HCP address fuel modification within and adjacent to the
Preserve?
At no time will the NCCP/HCP provisions take precedence over requirements of public health,
safety, and welfare as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The City has
consulted with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Department of
F-17
18
Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures to ensure that fuel modification zone widths
and defensible space methods within and adjacent to the Preserve are adequate to meet Fire
Department requirements.
Fuel modification is a covered activity in the NCCP/HCP. The City’s required fuel modification
is expected to result in the loss of 12 acres of CSS and 18 acres of non-native grassland within
the Preserve. As defined in the Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC, the
City is responsible for conducting fuel modification on City-owned Preserve land and the
PVPLC is responsible for conducting fuel modification on PVPLC owned-land. The City owns
all 12 areas within the Preserve, with the exception of an approximately 25-acre portion of the
Agua Amarga Reserve. The City coordinates fuel modification annually with the Los Angeles
County Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures (formally known as
the Weed Abatement Division) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and conducts fuel
modification in coordination with their staff. While fire safety measures and fuel modification
will be carried out with a priority for human safety, the City and PVPLC also minimize impacts
to biological resources including covered species and their habitat to the extent possible.
Preserve fuel modification requirements and prescribed methods are further outlined in Sections
5.2.13 and 9.2.3 and Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 of the NCCP/HCP.
For new private development projects on vacant lots adjacent to the Preserve, all fuel
modification required as a result of the new projects must occur outside of the Preserve, unless
the Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures or
Los Angeles County Fire Department agree that no other options exist. In situations where fuel
modification for new development must occur in the Preserve, impacts are already addressed by
the NCCP/HCP. For private projects to be covered under the NCCP/HCP, impacts to vegetation
to be cleared for fuel modification will be offset by the project applicant with a mitigation fee to
the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a 0.5:1
mitigation ratio for impacted non-native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native
grassland occurring in areas greater than 0.3 acre. The anticipated loss from fuel modification
resulting from covered private projects/activities outside of the Preserve is not expected to
exceed 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of grassland. Any loss of CSS beyond 10 acres and 20 acres
of grassland is not a NCCP/HCP covered project/activity. For more information on fuel
modification for new private development, refer to Section 5.3.3 and Table 5-2 of NCCP/HCP.
22. Does the NCCP/HCP allow vehicular access in the Preserve?
There are 33 miles of trails within the Preserve of which approximately 21 trails can
accommodate authorized vehicular access. These trails were historically used as roads prior to
creation of the Preserve by utility companies for infrastructure maintenance, public safety, and
vehicle access by then-private owners. The NCCP/HCP recognizes that there is a need for
limited vehicular access in the Preserve by authorized agencies (public safety, utilities, City,
PVPLC, etc.). Vehicle access in the Preserve will be conducted consistent with Section 5.5 of the
NCCP/HCP. Pursuant to the NCCP/HCP, the City and PVPLC will work with the Wildlife
Agencies to develop a Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) within 90 days of NCCP/HCP adoption
(see Section 6.5.2 of the NCCP/HCP). When accessing the Preserve, authorized vehicle
operators must take measures to avoid and minimize, to the maximum extent possible,
environmental damage, including direct and indirect impacts to habitat and covered species. The
F-18
19
PAP will create a protocol for vehicular access in the Preserve in a way that provides authorized
entities the vehicle access they require, while minimizing impacts to covered species and their
habitat. The City will be working directly with public safety agencies, including the Los Angeles
County Fire Department (including Los Angeles County Lifeguards) and the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department to provide their vehicular access and maintenance needs. The City
currently communicates with the Fire Department and maintains trails for emergency/fire/public
safety at their request and in compliance with the NCCP/HCP. The PAP will be discussed at
quarterly Preserve Public Forums, and will be brought to City Council for consideration.
23. How does the City’s NCCP/HCP address coyotes?
As detailed in Section 7 of the NCCP/HCP, general biological monitoring in the Preserve will be
conducted to evaluate whether the Preserve is meeting the conservation goals for covered plants
and animal species and their habitats. The NCCP/HCP does not regulate management of coyotes
as safety threats to humans. However, the City has a Coyote Management Plan administered by
the City’s Code Enforcement Division that supports coexistence with coyotes and uses
education, behavior modification, and development of a tiered responses to aggressive coyote
behavior. The City also utilizes the Wildlife Watch program, administered by the CDFW, to
keep coyotes out of residential neighborhoods and in the canyons and open space areas of the
Peninsula. Here is the Management Plan.
24. What role does the PVPLC have in the City’s NCCP/HCP?
The PVPLC was founded in 1988 by a group of concerned residents to preserve open space on
the Peninsula. The organization is a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. The PVPLC consists
of a Board of Directors and a staff that includes qualified biologists. In 2006, the City entered
into an interim management agreement with PVPLC to manage and monitor conserved habitat in
the Preserve. A formal long-term management agreement was entered into by the City and
PVPLC in 2011. As the habitat manager of the Preserve, PVPLC has also applied to be a
Permittee under the NCCP/HCP for management related activities. As discussed in the
NCCP/HCP, PVPLC will hold conservation easements for Preserve lands in perpetuity. PVPLC
and the City are responsible for stewardship of the Preserve during the 40-year life of the permit.
The PVPLC and the City will also be responsible for enforcement of conservation easement
requirements in perpetuity once the permit decision on the NCCP/HCP has been finalized. Post-
permit, PVPLC will have responsibilities for perpetual stewardship and conservation easement
enforcement for the Preserve.
25. How does the PVPLC contribute to the financial support of the Preserve?
PVPLC, as the habitat manager of the Preserve, will provide in-kind services and funding for
management and monitoring obligations as described in the NCCP/HCP. This commitment also
supports the NCCP/HCP permit application by contributing to the necessary funding that will
assist the Wildlife Agencies in making their required findings associated with the permit
decisions. The City’s partnership with PVPLC will enable the PVPLC to manage the non-
wasting endowment to fund the conservation management of the Preserve during the permit
term, and post-permit conservation in perpetuity (see Section 8.2 of the NCCP/HCP). Per the
Management Agreement between the City and PVPLC, the PVPLC provides annual financial
F-19
20
support to the Preserve consisting of at least $50,000 (2006 baseline payment/subject to
inflation) in cash expenditures, and in-kind services to perform or support its performance of the
obligations set forth in Exhibit B-1 and C of the Management Agreement. Additionally, the
PVPLC organizes and provides for volunteer services valued at not less than $50,000/year to
perform or support the PVPLC’s performance of its responsibilities under the NCCP/HCP (see
Exhibit B-1 of the Management Agreement and Appendix C of the NCCP/HCP). Finally,
PVPLC has been successful at obtaining many grants for habitat restoration, invasive-plant
management, interpretive signage, trail maintenance, and environmental education, all of which
contribute to the overall management of the Preserve.
26. What is the PVPLC’s role as Preserve Habitat Manager?
While the City is the lead applicant for the NCCP/HCP, both the PVPLC and City are anticipated
to be Permittees under the NCCP/HCP. The City is expected to be issued permits for covered
projects/activities identified in the NCCP/HCP that require local land use authority; whereas,
PVPLC, as the designated Preserve habitat manager, is expected to be issued permits related to
implementation of Preserve management and monitoring activities as agreed to by the City and
PVPLC in the Management Agreement and the NCCP/HCP. The Management Agreement
between the City and PVPLC is required by the NCCP/HCP and shall expire on the same date as
the expiration of the NCCP/HCP. The Preserve habitat manager is responsible for
implementation of the biological objectives and methodologies described in Section 7 of the
NCCP/HCP. As Preserve habitat manager, PVPLC is tasked with restoring 250 acres of habitat
for the City over the total life of the NCCP/HCP permit and conducting all biological monitoring
and reporting for the Preserve. A minimum of 5 acres of native habitat shall be restored each
year, or a total of 15 acres every three years if exigencies prevent restoration of 5 acres each
year. PVPLC engages in permissive activities which will be carried out as determined necessary
by PVPLC, some of which include trail maintenance and sign replacement. Additionally,
PVPLC will coordinate with the City to ensure implementation of the habitat impact avoidance
and minimization measures identified in the NCCP/HCP for covered projects/activities within
and outside of the Preserve.
27. Does the City’s NCCP/HCP requires Conservation Easements and what is the
PVPLC’s role in permit and post-permit responsibilities?
Within 90 days of permit issuance, and as a condition of the NCCP/HCP, the City and PVPLC
will place Wildlife Agency-approved conservation easements following the template in Exhibit
E of the Implementing Agreement on all proposed City-owned Preserve lands described in
Section 4.2 of the NCCP/HCP. PVPLC will hold conservation easements for City-owned lands
within the Preserve, and the City will hold conservation easements for PVPLC-owned lands
within the Preserve. During the 40-year permit term and post-permit term, the PVPLC, as the
Preserve habitat manager, will be responsible for protection of the conservation value of the
Preserve by enforcing the conservation easements and conducting basic land stewardship
activities, such as biological monitoring and invasive species control.
F-20
21
28. What is the permit term of the City’s NCCP/HCP?
The City is requesting a 40-year permit term for the NCCP/HCP that would enable the City to
carry out the proposed covered projects and activities addressed in the NCCP/HCP.
29. Why is the City operating under the NCCP/HCP though it hasn’t been formally
approved by the Wildlife Agencies?
Although the NCCP/HCP was drafted and approved by the City Council in 2004, it has not been
formally approved and permitted by the Wildlife Agencies. The City Council opted to begin
implementing the tenets of the draft 2004 NCCP/HCP, while reevaluating the City’s need for
public and private projects to be covered under the NCCP/HCP. The permit term was originally
proposed as 50 years; however; the City began operating consistent with the NCCP/HCP in
2004. Covered projects/activities that would have resulted in loss of habitat or take of listed
species did not move forward during that time. The City began implementing the NCCP/HCP in
2004; however, covered projects/activities that would have resulted in loss of habitat or take of
listed species did not move forward during that time. The 2018 NCCP/HCP has been updated to
reflect the City’s public project needs, changes in land acquisition that have occurred since 2004,
and updated to acknowledge areas within the NCCP/HCP plan area that were removed.
30. What happens in the event the City and the PVPLC come to a disagreement with the
implementation of the NCCP/HCP?
The PVPLC, as the Preserve habitat manager, will implement their responsibilities identified in
the NCCP/HCP. This includes managing and monitoring the Preserve and protecting the
conservation values of the Preserve through enforcement of conservation easements over the
land that PVPLC will hold in perpetuity. If the City and PVPLC disagree on matters related to
implementation of the NCCP/HCP and associated agreements and documents, a conflict
resolution process is outlined in the Management Agreement to address the resolution process.
The conflict resolution process is as follows: If the PVPLC has concerns with any City activities
that affect the Preserve and/or NCCP/HCP, the PVPLC Executive Director shall transmit its
concerns directly to the City Manager. Likewise, if the City has concerns with any PVPLC
activities that affect the Preserve and/or NCCP/HCP, the City Manager shall transmit said
concerns directly to the PVPLC Executive Director. If differences of opinion cannot be resolved
by the Executive Director and the City Manager, the concerns shall be discussed by one or more
representatives of the PVPLC Board and one or more representatives of the City Council (but not
by way of a public meeting in which a quorum of Council members are present). If the PVPLC
Board and members of the City Council cannot resolve the concerns, either party may request
that the Wildlife Agencies mediate the concerns. The Wildlife Agencies’ direction shall be final
and binding on the parties.
31. How much does the NCCP/HCP Cost?
The City and PVPLC have financial obligations to the NCCP/HCP as described in Section 8 in
the NCCP/HCP. Annual financial obligations are broken into two categories, as shown in
Appendix C: (1) funding required for the conservation requirements of the NCCP/HCP, and (2)
costs associated directly with land ownership and public access/passive recreation. Annual
F-21
22
funding obligations have also been identified for the 40-year permit term and post-permit. The
table below summarizes the City and PVPLC annual funding obligations during the permit term
and post-permit.
A significant portion of the management and maintenance costs result from public access to the
Preserve, and the resulting necessary enforcement and supporting maintenance and amenities. In
response, the City has increased costs related to management, enforcement, public safety,
maintenance, signage, parking solutions, and public education. Public access of the Preserve is
being requested by the City and is not a requirement of the NCCP/HCP; therefore, these costs
related to management of public access, etc. is a cost that is in excess of just managing and
monitoring the Preserve for the covered species and their habitat.
Table-4. Annual Preserve Management Costs
Annual Preserve Management Costs During Permit Term
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (City) $249,210
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (PVPLC) $230,559
Costs related to land ownership and public access (City) $1,286,209
Costs related to land ownership and public access (PVPLC) $19,460
Total Annual Preserve Management Costs $1,785,438
Annual Preserve Management Costs Post Permit Term
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (City) $94,910
Fulfilling Conservation Requirements (PVPLC) $22,030
Costs related to land ownership and public access (City) $1,286,209
Costs related to land ownership and public access (PVPLC) $5,000
Total Annual Preserve Management Costs $1,408,149
In addition to annual management costs, as a post-permit requirement to ensure the continued
conservation and management of the Preserve in perpetuity the City will provide funding to the
PVPLC for a non-wasting endowment in the amount of $10,000 annually and continuing for the
permit term. The funds will be adjusted annually by the CPI-U for inflation. 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
stewardship of the Preserve and management of the conservation easements. Post-permit, the
PVPLC will be responsible for conservation management of the Preserve in perpetuity, thereby
removing any financial obligations related to conservation management by the City post-permit.
F-22
23
The City will remain responsible for maintenance and repair of City-owned infrastructure and
staff costs.
The City will maintain a dedicated Habitat Restoration Fund of at least $50,000 (adjusted
annually by the CPI-U) during the 40-year permit term that may be used to fund a variety of
habitat restoration purposes including payment to the PVPLC for their habitat management
defined in the City-PVPLC Management Agreement, as a contribution toward the non-wasting
endowment fund discussed above, or as a contribution to the PVPLC to perform habitat
conservation activities beyond the requirements of the NCCP/HCP. A detailed discussion on the
financial obligations can be found in Section 8 of the NCCP/HCP, and Appendix C of the
NCCP/HCP.
32.What is the Special 4(d) rule and interim habitat loss permit?
The City signed a Planning Agreement to begin the preparation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula
NCCP Subarea in 1996, which afforded the City interim take exemptions under 4(d) of the ESA.
The City was allocated and has exhausted about 63 acres of coastal sage scrub loss while the
NCCP/HCP was being developed. Several projects were authorized to move forward with
interim Special 4(d) rule habitat loss permits (i.e., Subregion 1, Kajima) which streamlined
project approvals in advance of permit decisions on the NCCP/HCP. To date, NCCP/HCP
permits have not been issued to the City since the NCCP/HCP is not currently approved by the
Wildlife Agencies. Over the past several years, approximately eight public projects are waiting
to be authorized under the NCCP/HCP permits. Thus, individual projects that will result in take
of listed species and their habitat, beyond what was allowed under the interim Special 4(d) rule,
have not moved forward under the NCCP/HCP. NCCP/HCP permits are expected to be issued by
the Wildlife Agencies for losses of habitat and take of listed species which will expedite pending
projects within the City.
33. What is the NCCP/HCP document versus the Implementing Agreement?
The NCCP/HCP document is necessary as part of the permit application package for the issuance
of a section 10 ITP under the ESA and issuance of a NCCP permit authorizing take under the
state NCCPA. The NCCP/HCP describes, in detail, what roles and implementation
responsibilities (e.g., funding, management, reporting) the City and PVPLC have over the life of
the permit as well as post permit. The Implementing Agreement is a joint document between the
applicant (City and PVPLC) and the Wildlife Agencies that clarifies the provisions of a habitat
conservation plan and specifies how those provisions will be carried out.
F-23
24
SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
1 11/18/18 Sunshine I. It appears to me that this draft NCCP is not compliant with
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. In many
ways, it dilutes the Goals of preserving and enhancing:
infrastructure, recreational open space, the Peninsula Wheel
Trails Network, agricultural activities and the keeping of
large domestic animals. The draft NCCP places restrictions
on these activities in deference to native plants as does the
PUMP.
II.For several years, the RPV Staff has been recommending
actions to the City Council as though the NCCP was
approved and to be enforced. This has caused great harm to
the quality of the facilities which the City is to maintain in
the interest of the residents’ health safety and welfare. To
quote the Maintenance Superintendent, “The PVP Land
Conservancy is interfering with my ability to apply best
business practices.”
III.I will be asking the RPV City Council not to adopt this Plan
unless all of the references to avoiding otherwise appropriate
designs and engineering be removed. Management to
“remedy the degradation” should be sufficient.
IV.Since the NCCP applies to the whole City and even impacts
adjacent jurisdictions, I object to the restatement of the
Preserve Trails Plan (Sections 5.4.2 and 9.2.1.1) as
something to be kept up to date separately from the Trails
Network Plan (TNP). In the interest of consistency,
continuity, emergency access and evacuation corridors, all
trail designs, use rules, signage and maintenance criteria
should be governed and implemented by one document, the
TNP. The Peninsula Wheel Trails Network (PWTN) should
be the guiding priority. (Attached.) FYI. The PWTN was
designed by the local Sierra Club to avoid isolating wildlife
gene pools.
I. The NCCP/HCP is compliant
with the General Plan.
Specifically, it supports the goals
of the Conservation & Open
Space Element and the Land Use
Element by preserving 1,402.4
acres of open space in perpetuity.
See Master Responses Nos. 14
and 20.
II.See Master Response No. 29.
The Maintenance
Superintendent, as well as City
staff works cooperatively with
the PVPLC to manage the
Preserve pursuant to the
Management Agreement
between the two entities, and the
NCCP/HCP.
III.Comment noted.
IV.See Master Response Nos. 14
and 20. The Peninsula Wheel
Network will be considered and
included as appropriate in the
update to the Trails Network
Plan (TNP) currently underway.
The Preserve Trails Plan (PTP)
will be included within the larger
TNP, and the PTP may be
updated periodically.
V. The NCCP/HCP does not ban
Capital Improvement projects
(Numbered and referenced attachments follow the chart below)
F-24
25
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
V. The direction that the City will cease and desist all of their
usual Capital Improvement Plans, repairs and maintenance
that might result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their
habitat is absurd. The quality of our infrastructure must not
be infringed upon.
VI.The advantages of human access to open spaces and vista
points are universally accepted. Most of those advantages
are lost when humans are excluded in favor of “pure
habitat”. The NCCP is not a local concept and I am offended
by this effort to impose “pure habitat” regulations and
penalties upon the residents, private property owners and
citizens of this whole region.
VII.The California Coastal Trail is a Legislated objective and has
been designated as our State’s Millennium Trail by our
Former First Lady, Hillary Clinton. I question how any
Agencies have the authority to obstruct that endeavor. Please
do not approve the RPV Natural Communities Conservation
Plan as drafted.
Attachment
and is intended to streamline
permitting.
VI.Comment noted. The
NCCP/HCP is not intended to
impose “pure habitat”
regulations and penalties.
VII.We are not aware of any conflict
with regional trail projects.
2 12/1/19 Sunshine I. The draft RPV NCCP/HCP of 2018 as written, is seriously
flawed with respect to the design and maintenance of the
Peninsula’s trails network as it exists within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. The Preserve Trails Plan is not a
“stand-alone” document. It should be implemented and
updated as a “living document” portion of the RPV Trails
Network Plan (TNP). The conceptual and the existing trails
which are potentially impacted by this draft NCCP are
indicated on the attached illustration of the Peninsula Wheel
Trails Network. (Approved by RPV City Council in 1990.)
II.One page which is not subject to amendment is the TRAILS
DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4,
2012. (Attached.) This document should be included in the
I. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 1, IV.
II.See Specific Response to
Comment No. 1, IV. The July 4,
2012 Trails
Development/Maintenance
Criteria was not adopted by the
City Council.
III.See Specific Response to
Comment No. 1.
IV.Comment regarding typos noted.
The reason the PTP is discussed
F-25
26
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
NCCP as a reference for establishing a balance between
circulation needs, best engineering practices (erosion control)
and foliage maintenance. Each of the conceptual and
existing trail segments within the City need to be defined per
the Conceptual Trails Plan format. All trails on City owned
land and easements are either Category I or Category III.
The process for updating a trail’s Status: is a mechanism
under the TNP, not the NCCP.
III. The PUMP needs to be subservient to the TNP and limited to
specific regulations which are unique to the deed restrictions
imposed by each Reserve’s Conservation Easements. The
NCCP and the TNP are to be implemented, consistently,
City-wide.
IV. I am seeing many lines of text which should be deleted from
the draft NCCP. Typo alert in Section 5.2.8. There is no
Section 9.2.1.1. The PUMP should be covered in one place
and all references to the Preserve Trails Plan should be
covered by reference to the TNP in Section 5.2.8. Sections
5.4.2 and Sections 9.2.1 are either redundant, unnecessary or,
in conflict.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
2 Attachments
in both NCCP/HCP Sections 5
and 9 is that Section 5 addresses
covered projects/activities, and
Section 9 addresses the PTP
within the context of Preserve
management.
3 12/1/18
(2)
SUNSHINE This more closely explains my objection to the draft NCCP as
written. I suspect that Joel Rojas and now, Ara Mihranian have
been avoiding updating the RPV Trails Network Plan and have
been blocking its implementation so that the NCCP can over-ride
and supersede the trails, erosion control and emergency circulation
related Goals in the RPV General Plan. It is totally in the hands of
the current RPV City Council to allow this to continue to happen or
to introduce some balance with the pure habitat advocates.
The City’s General Plan was updated
and approved by the City Council on
September 18, 2018. The City is
currently working with a consultant to
update the Trails Network Plan (TNP).
Staff anticipates releasing the draft TNP
for public review and public workshops
in December 2019, and for the City
Council’s consideration in Spring 2020.
F-26
27
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
4 12/5/18 SUNSHINE I. Attached is an illustration which was created by Kit Fox
(City Manager’s Dept.) in relation to the tax defaulted
property at 8 Chaparral Lane. I have added the route of the
existing trail connection which is shown as “conceptual” in
the original RPV General Plan, described as a point-to-point
trail in the RPV Conceptual Trails section of the RPV Trails
Network Plan and is the RPV portion of Spoke #2 of the
Peninsula Wheel Trails Network.
II. The sad thing is that Kit put this together for my
information. I know all of what he has pointed out, and
more. It is the Public Works Dept, the Community
Development Dept, the Rec.& Parks Dept. and the Finance
Dept. Staff who need to be aware of the changing
circumstances in the area and should become proactive in
pursuit of the opportunities to preserve and enhance this
historic and desirable trail connection.
III. The primary thing that should have been done long ago and
now be done ASAP is the budgeting for and the design of the
ideal route of the Bronco Trail. Because so many
undeveloped lots are involved, Conceptual Trails Plan
Section Five, trail F2 should be pre-engineered as a
minimum TYPE 5 trail prism. Public Works needs to initiate
that via the Finance Dept. and our on-call Engineers.
IV. The Planning Division needs access to this design for when
any of these lots are presented with Applications for
development. We do not need a repeat of the 10 Chaparral
Application which included easement requests by Staff
where there was no potential for a viable trail of any TYPE.
V. The Rec.& Parks Dept. needs to look into why this area is
not mentioned in the draft NCCP. Partially because of the
active landslide on the site, LA County had designated this
area as a potential park site. The original General Plan
identified it as a potential “municipal stable”. The PVPLC
I-V. The properties and trails
referenced in this comment are
not within the City’s Preserve or
implemented by the NCCP/HCP.
VI. Trail easements are being
recorded per the Council-
adopted conditions of approval
for the development project at 10
Chaparral Lane. The City’s
Community Development
Department is currently working
with the property owners of 14
Bronco Drive who have
expressed a willingness to
voluntarily dedicate trail
easements as part of their
development proposal. This will
likely be a condition of approval
if and when the project is
deemed complete for processing.
VII.-IX. Comments noted.
F-27
28
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
now owns the large parcel which contains a very mature
riparian habitat. The trail to where Geology students can
view the outcropping of Catalina Schist should be designated
as a TYPE 7 trail so that it can be maintained without any
threat of anyone claiming this public access to be a “taking”
of Habitat. If R&P can’t pull together a comprehensive
Agenda Report with a recommendation for the future of this
area, who should?
VI. The Community Development Dept. has received a request
for assistance with getting a voluntary, no cost, Irrevocable
Offer of Trail Easement across the northwestern side of 14
Bronco Drive. It would be an overlay of an existing sewer
easement. Staff has received previous requests to have the
new City Attorney review and bless/modify Carol Lynch’s
boilerplate form. Members of the public cannot nurture
volunteer offers without Staff assistance and we are not
getting any. 14 Bronco has sold so, that opportunity has
been lost. The public needs the form in order to pursue
future offers.
VII. The September 18, 2018 Land Use Map shows a
preponderance of this area as OPEN SPACE
HILLSIDE. My request that the General Plan Update
include some specific language to permit trail construction
on “Hillsides” was not accommodated.
VIII. This is as close to bullet items as I can make it without
assuming that anyone at City Hall has a grasp on the whole
picture. The City Manager’s Staff is recommending that the
purchase of 8 Chaparral be pursued without any clear
indication of how the City’s ownership of this parcel will
enhance the amenities which the City provides to the
public. The City’s ownership/maintenance of the lot which
is sometimes referred to as the East Crest Trailhead Park is a
waste of tax payer dollars.
F-28
29
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
IX. I continue to urge the Council to create an Infrastructure and
Activities Commission. This would force the various
departments to get their acts together before they present a
recommendation of action to the City Council. This is the
epitome of “screening by the public”. Maybe such a body
will be able to sort out the conflicts between the RPV
General Plan and the NCCP. Please do not adopt the NCCP
as drafted.
Attachment
5 12/6/18 Tooley I. Somehow a serious error has been made and I plead with you
to correct it!
II The entire city of RPV has been included in the NCCP
project! That includes my property and that of all my
neighbors. We have no desire or intention to modify the
vegetation on our property and the city has no right to
impose that upon us.
III The mitigation project was originally, and correctly, limited
to a specific few acres dedicated for that purpose. It has been
expanded to cover all private property in the city without a
vote or approval of the citizens.
IV Please do not approve the RPV NCCP/HCP project as
submitted. Instead send it back to the RPV City Council to
correct this serious error and overstepping of authority by
removing its applicability to the entire city and returning it to
the limited scope as originally proposed.
II. See Master Response Nos. 4, 11,
12, and 13. The NCCP/HCP
does not impose any new
restrictions on properties that
aren’t being developed.
III-IV. Since the planning stages of the
NCCP/HCP in 1996, the plan
area boundary included the entire
City. The City-approved 2004
NCCP/HCP plan area boundary
encompassed the entire City as
well.
6 12/6/18 Teles My wife and I both object to the NCCP as currently proposed
because the NCCP / HCP detrimentally encumbers your
PROPERTY RIGHTS as an RPV resident.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this issue that did not have
any public discussion or vote.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
F-29
30
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
7 12/6/18 Fotion I STRONGLY object to the NCCP as currently proposed because
the NCCP / HCP detrimentally encumbers your PROPERTY
RIGHTS as an RPV resident.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
8 12/6/18 Chelini I object to the NCCP as currently proposed, because the NCCP /
HCP detrimentally encumbers my PROPERTY RIGHTS as an
Rancho Palos Verdes resident.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
9 12/7/18 Frka We object to the NCCP as currently written because the
NCCP/HCP detrimentally encumbers our PROPERTY RIGHTS as
a RPV resident.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
10 12/7/18 Friedland The NCCP as current proposed is not in the best interest of either
private property owners or further the purpose of the plan.
This is written in highly technical terms, which will generate
confusion and lead to unnecessary, expensive litigation.
This needs to go back to the drawing boards and most importantly
this particular purpose needs to include community feed-back to
balance improper impositions of burdens against real benefits.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13.
11 12/9/18 Lemke To whom it may concern: As longtime residents of Rancho Palos
Verdes my family and I strongly object to the NCCP as currently
proposed because the NCCP / HCP detrimentally encumbers our
PROPERTY RIGHTS as RPV residents.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
12 12/10/18 Phillips In reference to the above-mentioned subject matter, the proposed
Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), we strongly object to their overreaching
and burdensome powers. The NCCP includes ALL properties (city
and private) within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is and or
will be encumbering my private property rights. This may lead to a
reduction in our property values, as well as lead to additional
negative impacts to homeowners in the City.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
F-30
31
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
We object to the NCCP as currently proposed because the NCCP /
HCP detrimentally encumbers our private PROPERTY RIGHTS as
a Rancho Palos Verdes homeowner and resident.
13 12/10/18 DeLong The NCCP includes ALL properties (city and private) within the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and detrimentally impacts our
RIGHTS as RPV residents.
The RPV Council with Susan Brooks as Mayor voted on March 29,
2018 to approve the NCCP which was then submitted to California /
US Wildlife agencies for final approval without having any voter
approval. This will be governmental “taking” of private property
without just compensation.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13, and
16. The NCCP/HCP does not impose
any new restrictions on properties that
are not being developed.
14 12/11/18 Mueller I object to the NCCP as currently proposed because the NCCP /
HCP detrimentally encumbers my PROPERTY RIGHTS AS AN
RPV RESIDENT.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
15 12/14/18 Ruona I am a 35-year resident of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV).
The Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) & Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), which you are considering has only
recently been brought to my attention. I am quite certain that is the
case of many residents in the city. There seems to be a difference
of opinion amongst some of the concerned citizens of RPV & city
officials on whether these plans effect the entire 13.6 square miles
of the city, or only certain segments, i.e., the land in the Palos
Verdes Land Conservancy. It seems to me this is an important
question that should be resolved & communicated to the public
prior to any final decision is rendered. If it does include all private
property there appears to be some oppressive governmental
overreach & I do not support that. The other residents I have
discussed this with agree with me.
If someone can clarify this issue I would appreciate it. Thank you.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights. The
NCCP/HCP has been in development
since 1996 and was approved by the
City Council in 2004.
F-31
32
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
16 12/15/18 Pilmar I object to the NCCP/HCP presently under your review. I do not
wish to have my property included in this ruling.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
17 12/17/18 Kendel We object to the NCCP as currently proposed because the NCCP /
HCP detrimentally encumbers our PROPERTY RIGHTS as RPV
residents.
We demand that you limit the boundaries of the NCCP to the
Nature Preserve excluding the ~14,000 homes in RPV from
inclusion in the NCCP.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
18 12/17/18 Tanielian I object to the NCCP/HCP presently under your review. I do not
wish to have my property at (redacted) RPV, 90275 included in this
ruling.
See Master Responses Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
19 12/18/18 Yarber I. I may be late to the party, but I have now read the
Environmental Assessment ( the “EA”) and the NCCP and it
is clear that we, the public, have been misled. The NCCP is
nothing short of a land grab.
II. Federal and State environmental laws now protect three of
the 10 species sought to be covered by the proposed NCCP.
Six of the species to be protected by the NCCP are plants that
were identified by the Native Plant Society and one species,
the cactus wren, is not a protected animal species under
federal or state law.
III. It is clear from reading the EA that if the No Action
Alternative was selected far less protection would be
afforded by enforcement solely of state and federal
environmental laws. We have been told that the NCCP is a
benefit to private property owners because they would be
subject to constraints under federal and state law, which is
partially true, but the NCCP gives the City the ability to
exact land from private property owners in order to protect
I. Comment noted.
II. See Master Responses Nos. 2
and 6. While a Federal ITP is
required only for listed species,
NCCP/HCPs may include
conservation measures for
candidate, proposed, and other
non-listed species. Including
non-listed species in a
NCCP/HCP can avoid the
requirements of a new HCP and
permit application or
burdensome amendments to the
NCCP/HCP in the event that a
species becomes listed prior to
completion of the permit
holders’ activities.
III. and IV. See Master Responses Nos.
11-13. As noted in Master
Response No. 11, the
F-32
33
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
habitat that is not otherwise protected. The NCCP, thus,
results in greater exactions than would otherwise occur.
IV. I cannot find anything in the materials presented to us that
disclose what established and inflexible mitigation ratios, if
any, exist under state and federal law, so there is no
information against which to compare the effect of the
mitigation ratios set forth in the NCCP. While staff has
suggested that the reduction from a 3:1 ratio under the 2004
draft NCCP to 2:1 under the 2018 draft is a benefit to private
property owners, that would certainly not be true if the ratios
under federal and/or state law are 1:1. So what are the
mitigation ratios under federal and state law with respect to
federally and state protected habitat? I don’t know, do you?
And what are the federal and state ratios with respect to the 7
additional species to be protected by the NCCP? NONE!
There are no ratios because there is no such protection. By
adding species to the NCCP the document mandates
mitigation measures that do not exist under federal or state
law.
V. There is no “opt out” provision in the NCCP. How dare
Council or staff suggest there is. And even if there were an
opt out provision for a private property owner, the Wildlife
Agencies are bound by the terms of the NCCP and they do
not have an opt out provision. Thus any statements by staff
or the Council suggesting there is an opt out option available
is patently false.
VI The NCCP is simply a disguised effort to obtain more land to
add to the Preserve and limit to development. While I would
prefer not to see more development on the Peninsula,
particularly along our beautiful coast, the NCCP is NOT the
way to compel private property owners to donate land to
increase the size of the Preserve. Further, the NCCP not only
exacts land, it also exacts money to pay for the management
NCCP/HCP provides the
mitigation for those few private
properties that may result in
impacts to the covered species
caused by development. These
property owners will be covered
by the City’s permit and may pay
a mitigation fee to the City to
cover the costs to revegetate
Preserve land. Alternatively,
these property owners may
choose to dedicate land to the
City as their form of mitigation.
V. The NCCP/HCP includes
specific properties that have been
identified for development since
the early 2000 and are covered
by the NCCP/HCP based on
agreements made at that time. If
these property owners do not
want to be covered by the City’s
permit, they can seek to obtain
their own permits from the
Wildlife Agencies and as part of
the CEQA process. However, the
mitigation required by the
Wildlife Agencies will likely be
the same as described in the
NCCP/HCP. The City has taken
on the cost of the development of
the NCCP/HCP which removes
the financial burden of
developing a plan from the local
landowners.
F-33
34
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
of the donated land by the Conservancy. That is unfair and
unconstitutional.
VII Now that I am informed, I vehemently oppose the NCCP and
will be writing to the Wildlife Agencies in support of the No
Action Alternative.
VI. The legality of the NCCP
program and as it relates to
HCPs is established law.
VII. Comment noted.
20 12/18/18 Yarber (2) I am opposed to the NCCP/HCP as currently drafted for the
following reasons:
I. I do not think private property should be subjected to the
terms of the NCCP/HCP. It is fine to limit the permit sought
to projects involving land owned by, or under the control of,
the City of RPV or the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy, but not private property;
II. Federal and state laws do not protect 7 of the 10
species/habitat sought to be protected by the NCCP.
Broadening of opportunities for exacting land and monies
from private property owners to protect species that are not
now protected already by Federal and/or State law gives
additional power to the City and is an unconscionable
opportunity to seize private property;
III. Staff and Council have stated in public meetings that private
property owners can “opt out” of the NCCP, which
statements are not supported by any provisions in the NCCP
and further, the Wildlife Agencies would be bound by the
terms of the NCCP and thus no “opt out” opportunity really
exists. To garner support for, or at least attempt to assuage
concerns about, the NCCP based, in part, on false statements
cannot be sanctioned;
IV. In particular, but not by way of limitation, the Lower
Filiorum property owned by Mr. York is subject to a most
egregious provision in the NCCP. As revised in 2018, the
NCCP now provides that ANY development done on that
property necessitates the granting of 40 acres of his land to
I. See Master Responses Nos. 3
and 11-13.
II. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 19 (II)
III. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 19 (V)
IV. See Master Response No. 18
V. See Master Response No. 4
F-34
35
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
the Preserve. This is an unconstitutional and unjust taking by
any measure. His prior agreement in 2004 to give 40 acres in
exchange for the entitlement to develop some 85 or so
homes, is not binding now. That development was not
pursued and any future development that is pursued should
be reviewed as to its impacts, if any, and appropriate and
proportionate mitigation measures imposed. Should a minor
addition of a gazebo be done, for example, 40 acres ipso
facto needs to be donated. That is preposterous and must be
stricken from the NCCP. Demand for such modification to
the NCCP by Mr. York was inappropriately rejected by
Council.
V. I find it compelling that none of the other cities on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula are joining in the NCCP. Admittedly they
differ in terms of size, population and they are not faced with
the number and scope of infrastructure projects that confront
the City of RPV. Nevertheless, apparently these cities do not
feel compelled to try to exact land and money from their
residents in an effort to enlarge the Preserve that the residents
of all of the cities enjoy in order to protect species not
protected by federal and/or state law. We have enough
government control already. We do not need an additional
layer of control over private property granted to the City of
RPV via the NCCP.
21 12/20/18 Davidson This is to document that we support the Rancho Palos Nature
Preserve.
We are in favor of the Department of Fish and Wildlife approving
the NCCP and the preservation of the land set aside in Rancho
Palos Verdes for the protection of the plant and wildlife.
We all enjoy the beauty of the land and want to continue to protect
this land with your help.
Comment noted.
F-35
36
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
22 12/20/18 Bioveyda This is to communicate that we fully support the Rancho Palos
Verdes NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Plan).
Comment noted.
23 12/21/18 Deo Please know how important this Natural Communities Conservation
Plan is for the people of Palos Verdes. I am a Docent with the City
of RPV and we utilize the nature preserve all the time for tours with
children and adults. There are many crucial threatened species in
the preserve as well as Los Angeles County desperately needs open
space such as these acres. We have all worked long and hard for
this Conservation Plan. As a citizen of Rancho Palos Verdes for
twenty years and a professor of environmental studies I know how
important it is for the human residents of Palos Verdes and
Southern California and for all the living creatures in the area. It is a
model of habitat restoration for the whole country as well--
especially in the most populous county in the U.S.
Comment noted.
24 12/21/18 Straub I'm writing to voice my support for Alternative D of the above
mentioned NCCP.
I hike there almost weekly and want to see it kept as natural as it is
now.
Comment noted.
25 12/21/18 Wright Please preserve the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. It is important to
protect natural habitat and endangered species, while also having
the Nature Preserve open to the public for nature appreciation and
hiking.
Comment noted.
26 12/21/18 Kirk Our wild areas are so few and far between down here in the LA
area. We need them desperately. Please support Alt. D.
Comment noted.
27 12/21/18 Herman The people of Rancho Palos Verdes and surrounding communities
have fought for decades to have a space devoted to preserving the
rare coastal sage scrub habitat and the endangered and threatened
birds and other animals that can survive only there, and to provide
open natural spaces for hikers and others to enjoy nature. We
thought that when private donors, city, state, county and federal
agencies came together to acquire the land and the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes approved the draft NCCP in 2004 that we would have
Comment noted.
F-36
37
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
such a nature preserve saved for future generations. But it seems
that the NCCP has still not be finalized.
Please support Alternative D to ensure that the nature preserve
endures.
28 12/21/18 Cornell I live in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA and support Alternative D,
Proposed Action, for the Natural Communities Conservation Plan
that is now under review. One of the reasons I moved here is
because RPV is one of the few communities in Los Angeles
County's South Bay that had the foresight to set aside open space
and has continued to maintain its open space and hiking trails. I
would be extremely disappointed if the Wildlife Service were to
adopt measures that would cause these areas to be degraded.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (redacted) if you have any
questions or would like to discuss this matter further.
Comment noted.
29 12/21/18 Barryte I concur with the selection of Preserve Alternative D. Comment noted.
30 12/21/18 Scharfenberger Finalize the establishment and continuation of the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve.
Those who are overseeing its development and preservation are
doing a great job. It is a necessary endeavor. Contribute your
affirmation of this project.
Comment noted.
31 12/21/18 Benator Please support the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities
Conservation Plan Alternative D. It is important to both protect the
natural habitat and endangered species while also having the Nature
Preserve open to the public for nature appreciation and hiking. I am
one of many who hike in Palos Verdes and enjoy the natural
surroundings while also trying to protect the natural habitat.
Comment noted.
32 12/21/18 Iacopucci Protection of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is very important to
me, my family & friends!
Comment noted.
F-37
38
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Please protect the natural habitat and endangered species, while also
having the Nature Preserve open to the public for nature
appreciation and hiking.
33 12/22/18 Good I’m writing to say there are some beautiful areas left on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula that I hope will stay that way. There are native
plants growing and many volunteer opportunities for all ages. Talks
given by knowledgeable naturalists and opportunities for students
of all ages to learn about nature or become environmental
scientists. White Point Preserve has native plants growing and
volunteer opportunities for students and now has native plants
covering the hill side; people can come to see birds and butterflies. I
hope there will be as much open land as possible and I thank the
Palos Verdes Land Conservancy for the fine way they are
preserving the land
Comment noted.
34 12/22/18 Seaver Please help us to preserve the last bit of natural habitat in our
area. It would be a sad day for our community to see our natural
environment become history instead of an enriching reality.
Comment noted.
35 12/22/18 Wilson I am a long-time resident of the South Bay and have seen the
negative impact of population growth and loss of public lands to
development. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve provides much
needed respite from urban intrusion as well as important protection
for wildlife. Protection of natural habitat and endangered species is
essential if citizens are to have access to healthy, open spaces, The
Nature Preserve is open to the public and is critical for nature
appreciation, education and hiking. Once lost, this precious public
resource will be gone forever.
I am voicing my Support for Alternative D of the NCCP; the
compromise between protection of endangered species and
development. Please, please do not destroy the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve by fragmenting it into an uncertain future.
Comment noted.
36 12/22/18 Schlichting You MUST support the City of RPV NCCP/HCP, as it is:
1) OUR COMMUNITY wanting to preserve
Comment noted.
F-38
39
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
wildlife habitat IN OUR OWN
COMMUNITY
2) OUR COMMUNITY standing up
AGAINST MONIED INTERESTS from
OUTSIDE our community that want to
profit AT OUR COMMUNITT'S AND
OUR WILDLIFE'S EXPENSE
3) It is consistent with SELF-
DETERMINATION and LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITY ASSUMED for caring
for our own community
4) IT IS CONSISTENT WITH the MISSION
STATEMENT: "The mission of the
agency is 'working with others to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the
American people.' "
5) ANY CAPITULATION TO
DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPERS is NOT
consistent with the above Mission.
6) ANY CAPITULATION TO
DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPERS is
ACTUALLY WORKING CONTRARY to
the stated mission of THE AGENCY,
and, in fact, might be considered
ABUSE of power and authority by
those entrusted and paid by the
People of The United States.
It is beyond time for the federal government to work for the
people's best interest over well-heeled, profit-goaled special
interests.
Thank you for your time and for listening.
F-39
40
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
37 12/22/18 Lino The PV nature preserve is a valued wilderness region that's
accessible to the urban south bay area. I support NCCP alternative
D to preserve this area.
Comment noted.
38 12/22/18 North I live on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and frequently hike in the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. I support Alternative D of the NCCP
to protect this natural habitat and endangered species, while
maintaining the Nature Preserve being open to the public for nature
appreciation and hiking. Please promote and vote for Alternative D.
Comment noted.
39 12/22/18 Summers I am writing to express my support for Alternative D of the NCCP.
It is very important to protect natural habitat and endangered
species, while also having the Nature Preserve open to the public
for nature appreciation and hiking. The compromise that Alternative
D of this draft lays out is the best one for this area. Please safeguard
both natural and human communities by ensuring that Alternative D
of the NCCP is adopted.
Comment noted.
40 12/22/18 Kilroy This message is written in support of final approval of the NCCP,
specifically Alternative D.
For more than two decades, now, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
has shown great leadership in advancing the cause of both the Palos
Verdes Preserve and the NCCP which both protects it and enables
residents of Rancho Palos Verdes to benefit from its many
provisions. It has also, in the process, helped lead the creation of
the largest natural coastal open space area between Malibu and
Laguna Beach while at the same time protecting and enhancing
property rights and values in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please be the council which carries this ball over the goal line.
Comment noted.
41 12/22/18 McLaughlin My husband and I are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and
approve the Natural Communities Conservation Plan for the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. We enjoy staying in shape by hiking the
trails and de-stress in the natural beauty of this area. It’s a gem that
needs to remain for future generations to enjoy. Thank you.
Comment noted.
F-40
41
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
42 12/22/18 Jordan I am in favor of Alternative D of the NCCP. I grew up in the
incredibly beautiful Palos Verdes Peninsula. It is extremely
important to me and my family and friends that we protect natural
habitat and endangered species while having the Nature Preserve
open to the public to enjoy and appreciate.
Comment noted.
43 12/22/18 Hunter We are writing in favor of the NCCP including D. Comment noted.
44 12/22/18 Davis I am writing to express my strong support of the NCCP and
Alternative D in particular.
My family has been enjoying the unique environment of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula for decades. My husbands grandfather was
instrumental in developing the peninsula back in the 1920s. He was
drawn to this area for its beauty and realized early on how special it
was, truly a rare jewel. My husband grew up in Rancho Palos
Verdes, and has wonderful stories to tell of his unique childhood
here on the peninsula. The conservation plan is so important to help
maintain this natural area for generations to come.
There is no doubt in my mind that urban expansion and
development will continue to plod along, progress is
inevitable. However, progress without destruction of the wonder
we have around us is within easy grasp. I believe the NCCP is the
conservation plan for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that will help
maintain the delicate balance of beauty and progress in this
area. Indeed, this balance has already provided the area with
stunning preservation of preserve lands that supports wildlife
unique to this area of the world. The peninsula is a showplace
because of the work of the land conservancy along with all those
who have helped to work toward balance and access for the public.
Providing the public with recreational opportunities AND
protecting our natural resources that make this community special is
vital. Nature cannot speak for itself, one only has to look
around Los Angeles to observe opportunities lost, areas where
wonderful natural beauty suffered needlessly or was destroyed
Comment noted.
F-41
42
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
completely. 1400 acres is a pittance in the greater scope of this vast
state, but it is a treasure trove to Rancho Palos Verdes, it makes this
community stand out, there are few other places quite like it.
My family has enjoyed the 30 + miles of hiking trails - trails that
are world-class, stunning views, and wildlife all within walking
distance of our home. Not a day goes by that I am not amazed at
the joy this slice of heavens brings to us. On the trails I observe
others partake of this extraordinary area, and realize the value of
having access to this lovely land. I do not want to take for granted
the privilege of having the preserve at our fingertips - nor should
the city ever lose sight of the importance of protecting this area for
future generations to explore and love.
I encourage and implore you to approve the NCCP and Alternative
D.
45 12/22/18 Harwood As a long time Palos Verdes Peninsula resident, I wish to encourage
you to finally adopt the RPV City NCCP (Alternative D).
Comment noted.
46 12/22/18 Doty The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve must be protected. It is of
immeasurable importance to protect natural habitat and endangered
species, while also having the Nature Preserve open to the public
for nature appreciation and hiking.
Comment noted.
47 12/22/18 Fredrick I support Alternative D of the NCCP.
Protecting the natural habitat and endangered species in the Palos
Verdes Nature preserve is very important to me. The area is a
phenomenal asset to all - people, animals, and plants. In an area as
dense as the greater Los Angeles area, the open space and natural
habitat is essential.
Thank you for your support in preserving the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve.
Comment noted.
F-42
43
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
48 12/22/18 Martin Please let us have this nature area! It is so important for my children
to have a place to both see what our area used to look like, and to
give plants and animals a place to thrive.
Comment noted.
49 12/22/18 Marcelo As an active Volunteer in support of Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy (PVPLC), I am in strong support of the PVP Land
Conservancy and Alternative D of the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP). It is vitally critical to the city of
Rancho Palos Verdes, of which I have been a resident for the past
34 years, that the NCCP be approved, specifically Alternative D.
The NCCP represents a common sense approach the city of Rancho
Palos Verdes will have at its disposal to support development and
infrastructure projects that will seamlessly blend with the PVPLC’s
primary mission in support of Federal and State protected plants
and wildlife.
Further, the NCCP Alternative D will provide balance of the
public’s recreational interests a well as protection of natural
resources within the Preserve. All Volunteer efforts by the PLPLC
enhance not just the land within the Preserve, but contribute to the
symbiotic features and attributes of residential areas bordering the
Preserve.
Comment noted.
50 12/22/18 Mah Please continue to protect our natural habitat and endangered
species. The Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is where my family and
I enjoy our hikes. There are so few places such as this left to enjoy.
Comment noted.
51 12/22/18 Jones At long last the Natural Community Conservation Plan for the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes is up for final approval. This has been a
long, very thoughtful process and I, as a resident of Rancho Palos
Verdes, fully support its final approval in its highest and best
iteration, that of Alternative D.
The reasons for support are innumerable, not the least of which are
the very reasons it was created in the first place. Very rare and
valuable habitat is retained, maintained and restored. Plants and
animals that are endangered or threatened are provided
Comment noted.
F-43
44
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
for. Development in a sensitive area is given over to thoughtful,
local control. The quality of our lives and enrichment of our
environment is, to say the least, enhanced.
Please help us continue to balance the recreational needs with the
natural and development needs of the area. This program has
effectively been in place close to 15 years, time to finalize it.
52 12/23/18 Campbell Greetings! I am a Rancho Palos Verdes resident. I strongly support
the implementation of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(NCCP). This preserve is a wonderful asset in our community and
a source of great pride for me. I am so happy to live in an area that
is concerned with our environment and the preservation of native
plants and animals. Where else in this vast metropolis can you find
such open space and solitude! We have a great treasure here in our
back yard and I hope the people of Rancho Palos Verdes and you
are aware of this gift and strive to protect it from any
encroachment. We will be a better community if we value our open
spaces. Once these areas are compromised, there is no going
back. Let's appreciate the gift of open space and the gifts it has to
share with us while we still have it. Thank you for your kind
attention.
Comment noted.
53 12/23/18 Fadich I am writing to ask you to please save the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. My friends and I have been hiking the trails there for 12
years. It is a wilderness in the middle of city, a haven for many
animals, and a place that brings people back to nature. So please
finalize the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP and save it for future
generations.
Comment noted.
54 12/23/18 Fives My name is J. Timothy Fives. I have been coming to Palos Verdes
for decades, exploring the many trails, canyons, coves, wildlife, and
enclaves of natural habitat. I have led groups of Boy Scouts from
Troop 476 on land navigation exercises in the Portuguese Bend
Nature Reserve and have accompanied visitors from Italy and
Germany on hikes during which I explained the area's natural
history in Italian or German. I have run the Palos Verdes Marathon
Comment noted.
F-44
45
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
or Half Marathon multiple times since 1980 and bicycled around
the Peninsula.
Since January of this year, I have put in many hours with the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Volunteer Trail Watch
program. On these missions I have assisted lost hikers, guided
visitors, and admonished people walking dogs off leash, and
documented graffiti and damage to the trails. During this year I
have been greatly impressed by the many interpretive signs and
other improvements installed by the PVPLC and city of Rancho
Palos Verdes. I have joined several docent-led trips with well-
informed naturalists and seen crews planting native plants in the
hillsides once dominated by invasive species. The Palos Verdes
Peninsula is an urban wilderness, a refuge for plants, animals, and
people seeking a bit of nature surrounded by a massive urban
region.
I am writing to urge support of Alternative D of the Natural
Communities Conservation Plan. Palos Verdes is too valuable to
lose to further development or neglect of its natural treasures.
55 12/23/18 Baer I would like to express importance of the PVP Preserve. I have been
running hiking, bird and whale watching in this area for over 30
years. During that time, I have many people of variety of ages doing
the same. It is a perfect area for escaping the city life. It is a great
place to expose children and teens to the wonders of nature. My
family has been enjoying the area since their respective births.
Whether it’s the off chance to see an orca pod, rescue a barn owl, or
just breathe the fresh air, it has been a family staple for us. One
daughter uses it for cross-country training and both have used the
area for soccer training as well. I feel it is very important to
maintain the area and protect it for the future generations.
Comment noted.
56 12/23/18 Yarber I have additional comments to make on the NCCP and look forward
to the responses to these comments.
I. Grassland (including non-native)
may provide valuable forage
habitat for raptors and support
other sensitive wildlife species.
F-45
46
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
I. I do not think any mitigation should be exacted for the
removal of non-native grassland. The removal is a benefit
and goal of the PVPLC. Mitigation for such removal is an
inappropriate punishment for desired conduct. Furthermore, I
do not support the imposition of mitigation measures for
removal of native grassland, as they are not protected by
federal or state law. If mitigation for native grassland
remains part of the NCCP, the ratio should not be greater
than it is for CSS. It should be 0.5:1 at most, not 3:1.
II. Paragraph 4.2 of the NCCP says that the PVPLC will
“perpetually” manage the Preserve. As you know, the
PVPLC currently manages the Preserve pursuant to a written
management agreement with the City which has a term of 50
years. Under the agreement the City does have the right,
under certain circumstances, to terminate the agreement and
select a replacement manager. Thus, the NCCP is in direct
conflict with the agreement. 4.2 should be revised to provide
that the PVPLC will continue to manage the Preserve in
accordance with, and pursuant to the terms and provisions of,
the management agreement.
III. The NCCP draft includes picnic tables as permitted
improvements. I do not support picnic tables in the Preserve
and request that the reference to picnic tables be deleted. The
Preserve is a nature preserve, not a park.
IV. It is anticipated that development of Grandview Park and
Hesse Park will disturb cumulatively an estimated 20 acres
of native grassland. Since native grassland is not protected
under federal or state law, it is only the NCCP that would
require mitigation for such disturbance. If I understand the
NCCP correctly, any development of the parks will
necessitate placing additional lands into the Preserve or else
the City would have to pay mitigation fees with taxpayer
dollars should the parks ultimately be developed. As stated
When contiguous with larger
areas of biological open space
they contribute to a habitat
mosaic that can be used by
sensitive species. Therefore,
conservation of grassland
(including non-native)
contributes toward NCCP
planning goals. The Preserve
design includes mitigation for
potential impacts of City projects
to grasslands (including non-
native). Mitigation for grassland
is not specific to NCCP
Planning. Moreover, the
majority of private projects are
covered by the Miscellaneous
Private Projects category and are
not required to mitigate for
impacts to non-native grassland.
II. See Master Response Nos. 24,
26, and 27. The perpetual
management is requirement for
the NCCP/HCP. The covered
activities will result in permanent
loss, thus the expectation is that
the mitigation be perpetual as
well.
III. Picnic tables were removed in
the recirculated NCCP/HCP, and
they will be removed from the
PUMP at its next update.
F-46
47
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
above I do not believe there should be mitigation for native
grassland, but if there is, it should be at a reduced ratio.
V. The Barkentine Property was acquired with a Parks and
Open Space grant for a passive recreation PARK. 98.4 acres
of parkland was placed into the Preserve using the ratios
under the NCCP to mitigate for other City projects resulting
in taking. The question is, what was taken that necessitated
the mitigation under the NCCP? Was it protected by federal
or state law or just the NCCP? What mitigation ratios were
applied to the taking? Might the mitigation have been
significantly less had the NCCP not be in place? Placing a
park into the Preserve deprives the public of a park. Uses in a
passive park allow for picnics, grass on which to lay a
blanket, playing frisbee, etc. 98 acres of land acquired for a
park is now not available to be used as a park, and there is no
explanation as to what would have been required had the
NCCP not been applied to the taking that caused this transfer
to the Preserve.
VI. 50.9 acres of Upper Point Vicente, which is now parkland, is
slated to go into the Preserve, as is 16.8 acres of parkland at
Crenshaw and Crestridge Road. Again, what would be
required if there was no NCCP?
VII. Obviously, the more land that is placed in the Preserve the
greater the number of properties that are adjacent to the
Preserve and therefore fall under the purview of Section
5.7.3. This creep affects an ever growing number of private
properties, does it not? As stated in my prior email, I do not
think any private properties should be covered by the NCCP.
VIII. If I understand the NCCP correctly, HOAs may have to
dedicate an easement or pay mitigation fees if their privately
owned open space land is re-landscaped and habitat that is
protected under the NCCP, but not federal or state law, is
disturbed. If that is the case then this constitutes an
IV. Improvements to Grandview or
Hesse Park could be covered
under “Unimproved City Park
Projects,” for which the
NCCP/HCP allows the loss of 10
acres of coastal sage scrub and
20 acres of grassland. Land
would not need to be added to
the Preserve. Unimproved City
Park Projects is a project covered
in the NCCP/HCP. The City
would not be required to add
additional land to the Preserve or
to pay mitigation fees. See
Specific Response to Comment
No. 56 (I) above.
V. Barkentine (now known as Three
Sisters Reserve) was added to
the Nature Preserve in
preparation and planning for the
City’s Nature Preserve, and as
mitigation to offset the multitude
impacts of projects covered by
the NCCP/HCP. The property
was not purchased to mitigate for
any one particular project.
Moreover, Barkentine was
purchased with grant funding
available because of the City’s
commitment to making it part of
the Nature Preserve. The City
updated its Parks Master Plan in
2015, and conducted robust
public input. Moreover, the most
F-47
48
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
unconstitutional taking of private property and cannot be
sanctioned. I do not support mitigation for species not
protected by federal or state law being imposed on the open
space privately owned by the HOAs.
IX. I am concerned about the impact to private property owners
when they are required to provide mitigation because they
have been required to perform fuel modification for fire/life
safety and such modification adversely affects protected
resources. Does this only apply to vacant lots where there is a
proposed development? Several provisions in the NCCP
appear to impose constraints that apply to “vacant lots”
abutting the Preserve. Nowhere did I find a definition of a
“vacant lot”. Is a vacant lot one on which there has never
been any development of any kind, or is a vacant lot one on
which improvements have been demolished for new
construction? This should be clarified.
X. As an equestrian I am concerned about the provisions of the
NCCP that mandate monitoring for brown-headed cowbirds
should someone want to have a horse on a property the
boundary of which is within 500 feet of the Preserve. This
largely affects homes in Portuguese Bend, one of only three
areas in RPV zoned for horse keeping (the “Q” Overlay
Zone). The NCCP says the cowbird is parasitic to many
native bird species, but does not identify clearly which
species and whether they are protected by any laws. There is
reference to the gnatcatcher but is the gnatcatcher, in fact,
prey for the cowbird? The applicant must engage a biologist,
monitor for three years and then every third year thereafter,
and if cowbirds are found a trapping program, or “other
effective measures” will be taken. Has anyone taken a survey
of the Peninsula to see if there are any of these cowbirds
(Wildlife Agencies – please help with this question) in the
areas densely populated by horses, e.g. Rolling Hills Estates
and Westfield? If there is no problem in those areas why
heavily supported recreational
amenity in the City was open
space/nature trails.
VI. See Master Response No. 14.
The Preserve acreage and
configuration was designed
partly to provide adequate
habitat mitigation for the 17
City-covered projects/activities
and 5 private-covered
projects/activities addressed by
the NCCP/HCP.
VII. See Master Response No. 16.
VIII. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 56 (I).
IX. Vacant lots are lots on which
there are no improvements. See
Master Response No. 16.
X. See Master Response No. 17.
The concern is cowbirds
parasitizing native bird nests.
The Cooper Biological survey
conducted in 2018 monitored for
presence of cowbirds along with
coastal California gnatcatchers
and cactus wren within the
Preserve. Their survey did not
cover any City or private
properties outside of the
Preserve. In their reported
results, the biologists did not
observe any presence of
F-48
49
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
would properties adjacent to the Preserve be targeted for this
additional measure, and might an “other effective measure”
include compelled removal of the horse(s) from the private
property? At a minimum, if the concern about cowbirds is
real, and they attack species protected by federal or state law,
or even for those protected by the NCCP, then the cost of
engaging such biologist and performing the monitoring
should be at the expense of the City or the Preserve Manager,
not the applicant, and it should be made clear that removal of
the horse(s) or withdrawal of any permit for large animals
will NOT be a measure that can be employed. Further, the
cost of trapping or “other effective measures” should also be
at the expense of the City or the Preserve Manager, not the
applicant who is entitled by zoning to have horses.
XI. As an equestrian I am also concerned about the constraints
placed on trails within the Preserve (and there should be no
constraints whatsoever regarding trails on property outside of
the Preserve). As it is, under the PUMP and via Council
Action, a number of trails have been designated “multi-use”
which do not qualify as such because they lack the width,
grades and lines of sight necessary to be so designated.
Almost every trail designated as multi-use has become a de
facto bike trail. Equestrians should be able to persuade the
City to widen some multi-use trails to make them safe, or
create a few additional trails for equestrian/pedestrian use
only, so that equestrians can, as a practical matter, enjoy use
of the Preserve safely. As now implemented, the Preserve
Trails Plan results in equestrians having lost the ability to
safely ride in the vast majority of the Preserve. Limiting trail
widths to 5 feet would be fine for any trail that is not
designated multi-use, but multi-use trails should definitely be
allowed to be wider than 5 feet. Further, by limiting all new
trails to a maximum width of 5 feet it should be a proviso
that any new trail is for equestrian and pedestrian use only.
cowbirds within the Preserve
during that survey.
XI. See Master Response No. 19.
XII. See Master Response No. 20.
XIII. Comment noted.
XIV. See Master Response Nos. 8 and
9. The NCCP/HCP allows the
City to convey incidental take to
private property owners, greatly
reducing permit processing time
and significant cost borne by
landowners from preparing
associated plans and documents.
The Wildlife Agencies will
receive notification of public and
private projects in the City
through the CEQA notification
process, and projects processed
by the City will document their
consistency with the NCCP/HCP
during the appropriate CEQA
review. These projects will be
summarized each year in the
Annual Report.
XV. See Master Responses Nos. 9
and 13.
XVI. See Master Responses Nos. 14,
16, 19, and 20, and Specific
Response to Comment No. 56
(I).
F-49
50
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XII. I am concerned about the ability of the City to “seasonally
restrict access, if recommended by PVPLC, to certain trails
to prevent disturbance of breeding activities” under 9.2.2.2
(7) (j). This could result in closure of an untold number of
trails for months on end.
XIII. I do not understand 9.2.3 which says “Cactus should be
avoided and retained to the maximum extent possible.” How
does one avoid and retain at the same time? This needs to be
clarified.
XIV. Ultimately what the NCCP does is create a City and PVPLC
environmental protection agency and is tantamount to a new
body of environmental laws created by the City when the
City has no lawful power, acting alone, to enact ordinances
that protect habitat. Only the federal and state governments
have such legislative powers.
XV. The NCCP makes it clear that if there was no NCCP (the No
Action Alternative) there would be more disturbance and less
mitigation. It is clear that the NCCP can be used as a vehicle
to enable the City to prevent development that it does not
want under the guise of enforcement of the NCCP’s
provisions.
XVI. The bottom line for me is that (i) private properties should
not have any additional burdens placed on them beyond
those that exist under state and federal law; (ii) mitigation
measures imposed with respect to city projects should be
equivalent to what would be required under federal and state
laws so that excessive amounts of public property that can be
used for parkland are not added to the Preserve; (iii) no
mitigation should be required for non-native grasslands and
if there is to be mitigation for native grasslands, the ratio
should be lower; (iv) the provisions that I have pointed out
XVII. Staff has coordinated with the
Wildlife Agencies on the
response to public comment
document, and will be available
for questions at the October 29,
2019 City Council Meeting.
F-50
51
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
that need to be corrected or clarified should be addressed,
and (v) the use and width of trails should not be so restricted.
XVII. Finally, I request that meetings between the staffs of the City
and the Wildlife Agencies to fashion responses to comments
received be held in public at open forums so that the
residents can understand how the responses are developed
and the thought processes behind them.
57 12/23/18 Jansen I am writing in support of the Natural Communities Conservation
Plan under which the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is established
and maintained.
As a resident of Palos Verdes Estates, frequent local hiker and
environmental supporter, I urge you to support and pass the NCCP.
Comment noted.
58 12/23/18 Yang It is important to me to protect the natural habitat and endangered
species while also having the Nature Preserve open to the public for
nature appreciation and hiking.
Comment noted.
59 12/23/18 Cellier We support Alternative D of the NCCP.
We believe that it is important to protect natural habitat and
endangered species, while also having the Nature Preserve open to
the public for nature appreciation and hiking.
Comment noted.
60 12/23/18 Bain As a resident of Palos Verdes and a long-time supporter of
environmentally sustainable public open space, it is extremely
important to me that our government protect natural habitat and
endangered species in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
Please support Alternative D.
Comment noted.
61 12/23/18 Treherne I am a volunteer with the Land Conservancy and have been on and
off for 28 years. I am in full support of the final approval of NCCP
especially Alternative D. One of the main enjoyments living in PV
for my family is the many hours we have all spent hiking and
enjoying nature in the Preserve. I am currently a trail watch
Comment noted.
F-51
52
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
volunteer. We would not enjoy living here so much if conditions
changed in the Preserve. Everyone should be able to enjoy open
space and nature. Unfortunately access to open space is
disappearing, especially in Southern California. Most of my friends
and neighbors also agree that having open space to enjoy nature
has a positive effect on property prices, and so far we have all
appreciated having access to it. Please approve NCCP so all of us
and future generations will be able to enjoy the Preserve as we do
today.
62 12/25/18 Nicholls As a local resident in Redondo, I have had a lifetime of enjoying the
semi -rural nature of the PV peninsula. I have hiked it extensively
and continue that pursuit to this day. Open area is unique and
important and deserves to be protected. It is slipping away
constantly bit by bit and is a true escape and outdoor resource
needed in the time of urbanization. We need to leave something for
those who follow. Please stop further development. We have also
lost 60 % of animal species on the planet since the 60's. It's time
think on a bigger scale then just further development
Comment noted.
63 12/26/18 Bjerke The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Palos Verdes Land
Conservancy have done a marvelous job of conserving a vast
expanse of PV Peninsula to protect not only open space but also
native plant and animal life. Many people in the Los Angeles area
use the area daily for recreation and a breath of fresh air.
Please protect this area.
Comment noted.
64 12/26/18 PVPHA Please find attached a letter containing comments on the Rancho
Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP.
Attachment
See Master Response Nos. 14, 17, 19
and 20.
65 12/27/18 Snyder I support the plan as proposed, due to the lengthy input of the
pvplc.
Comment noted.
F-52
53
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
66 12/27/18 Park I strongly support the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural
Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan. I
encourage you to approve and adopt it forthwith.
I have lived in Rancho Palos Verdes for 12 years, but I joined the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy long before I moved
here, and contributed as much as I could to the land purchase and
restoration efforts. I did so because I recognized that the benefits
extended to communities far beyond Rancho Palos Verdes.
When natural communities and wildlife are preserved and restored,
everyone's quality of life is improved. I firmly believe that the
preservation of rare, threatened and endangered species will, in the
end, have a direct bearing on the survivability of the human species.
The regional impact of the Nature Preserve is probably most
obviously illustrated by its recreational use. Simple observation of
the users makes it clear that they come from all over Southern
California. While this use presents challenges around parking and
habitat protection, it also makes it clear that the taxpayers are
receiving a benefit from their investment.
The establishment of the Nature Preserve reflects tremendous credit
upon the State and Federal wildlife agencies, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and the farsighted private citizens who have
contributed so much to its establishment. Words fail me to
adequately thank the State and Federal agencies involved for
making this great accomplishment possible.
Clearly, we in Rancho Palos Verdes are blessed to have this
beautiful open space and its wildlife inhabitants in our community.
But I try to be ever mindful of the contribution that our neighbors
have made, and that it is good public policy to preserve these assets
for the benefit of our large urban region.
Thank you so much for all of your efforts over the years to make
this spectacular achievement possible. Once again, I devoutly hope
Comment noted.
F-53
54
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
that you will give final approval to the NCCP-HCP at your earliest
convenience so that our restoration efforts may continue apace.
67 12/27/18 Birkey On behalf of York Point View Properties, LLC, attached are
comments on the Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural
Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan and
the Draft Environmental Assessment for the NCCP/HCP. Also
included in these comments are comments on the Implementation
Agreement for the NCCP/HCP.
Attachment
See Master Response Nos. 18, 19, and
21.
The dedicated funding sources for the
City’s implementation of the
NCCP/HCP are located in Section 8 of
the NCCP/HCP and the associated
Appendix C.
The City and/or PVPLC, in
coordination with the Wildlife
Agencies, may apply for Federal
section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan
Land Acquisition grants that would
complement the NCCP/HCP.
The PUMP is incorporated into the
NCCP/HCP as Appendix H.
The City, PVPLC, and the NCCP/HCP
Working group, in coordination with
the Wildlife Agencies, have worked to
create a Preserve design that is robust
and provides connectivity to extent
possible within the City in support of
the NCCP/HCP.
Although the vegetation data are dated,
they are the most recent comprehensive
data available and represent the best
available information for the City and
Wildlife Agencies to analyze the
NCCP/HCP.
F-54
55
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
The Draft NCCP/HCP, Draft
Environmental Assessment, and
associated documents were published in
the Federal Register for two public
comment periods in late 2018 and early
2019. See Master Response No. 7.
68 12/27/18 Chadwick I have been gently hiking the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve with my
husband since 1975. It is imperative that we preserve our major
local resource for hike outings, and maybe more importantly, to
protect what little remaining habitat we have along the coast. Our
local preserve is home to many endangered species, including those
of birds, butterflies, mammals, lizards, and Coastal Sage
Scrub which I have taught Palos Verdes 3rd graders about for 16
years as part of the PVPLC 3rd Grade Nature Program. Without
protection, the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve will become
fragmented and uncertain. Alternative D, the Proposed Action,
seems to be the most viable option and best compromise available
at this time.
Comment noted.
69 12/27/18 Ryan I. I support efforts to preserve and conserve the plant life and
wildlife that are recognized by the ESA, and I commend the
PVP Land Conservancy in their tireless efforts to ensure that
the existing plant and wildlife species in the 1550 plus acres
under their control continue to survive and thrive.
II. What I do oppose is the NCCP/HCP draft submitted to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services by the City of RPV. I also
oppose empowering the City of RPV and the PVP Land
Conservancy by issuing an ITP which could impact private
property development and result in the 'taking' of private
property. There are many properties, especially larger ones in
Portuguese Bend,that border the PVPLC preserve, and
probably house many of the covered species. But many of us
throughout RPV have incorporated California Natives in our
I. Comment noted.
II. See Master Response Nos. 11-13
and 16. We do not believe that
the NCCP/HCP encumbers
property rights.
III. See Master Response Nos. 9 and
29.
F-55
56
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
landscaping and enjoy the fauna that visit. Does that make us
vulnerable to a 'taking'? This is very worrisome.
III. Please consider Alternative (1) No Action
Alternative. Return the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' draft of
NCCP/HCP and request that the City work with a public
panel, along with PVPLC and City RPV management to
devise a draft that would continue to maintain and ensure
protection, conservation and mitigation of the federally
endangered/threatened species of plants and wildlife within
the preserve, but not empower the City or management, in
this case, PVP Land Conservancy, with an ITP, a blank
check. Let's also curtail any enforcement of the City of
RPV's current draft of the NCCP/HCP that has yet to be
ratified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
70 12/28/18 Ailor In the late 1980s there were few places in the South Bay where a
family could take a quiet walk in tranquil open space. Large areas
of undeveloped natural open space were only available in the Santa
Monica Mountains—an hour or more away through heavy traffic;
the only large blocks of open space remaining locally were on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. The land was owned by developers, so
development seemed inevitable.
Residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the South Bay and Los
Angeles recognized that Peninsula open space resources were
critical to their quality of life and to the preservation of rare plants
and animals that found homes on this former Channel Island. They
donated their time and talents to create a plan to acquire critical
open space areas via voluntary transactions with willing
sellers. With strong support from local cities, funds from local
donors, and funds approved by voters for preservation of “critical
natural habitat and open space,” over 1600 acres were preserved on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula; 1400 of these acres are in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
Comment noted.
F-56
57
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Approval of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan will help
assure the maximum protection of these areas and the coastal sage
scrub habitat that the endangered coastal California gnatcatcher and
other species use for food and shelter. The NCCP will also help
assure that the trails and outdoor experiences offered by these areas
will remain in perpetuity.
We urge support for final approval of the NCCP/Habitat
Conservation Plan for the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and in
particular, for Alternative D. Please help us complete the effort we
initiated 30 years ago to preserve these special areas.
Many thanks for your consideration.
71 12/28/18 Wilkinson The attached letter is in support of the NCCP for your immediate
attention. Please feel free to contact me should you have any
questions.
Attachment
Comment noted.
72 12/28/18 Baker As a 70 year resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I strongly urge the
final approval of the NCCP Alternative D.
My family and I have, over the years, contributed to the acquisition
of the Preserve and have enjoyed volunteering toward its restoration
and hiking the trails of this precious gem of natural open space that
enhances our special community. By protecting the coastal sage
habitat and the wildlife that call it home (including threatened and
rare species) the lives of our human inhabitants are enriched. To be
able to take a hike and see red tail hawks circling overhead, hear the
call of a California gnatcatcher and smell the sweet scent of purple
sage is an experience to be savored.
Our family looks forward to the NCCP finally becoming a reality.
Comment noted.
73 12/28/18 Popoff I am writing to express my strong support for the final approval of
the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), in
particular, Alternative D. As a long-time resident in the vicinity of
the Palos Verdes Peninsula, I have first hand experience of the
Comment noted.
F-57
58
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
overwhelming benefits to not only the flora and fauna of our
beautiful region, but also to the many people whose physical,
mental, and emotional well-being have enhanced by the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. Please vote in favor of final approval of
the NCCP.
Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter. I look
forward to approval of the plan.
74 12/28/18 McLeod To relevant staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service-I am a resident of
Palos Verdes Estates writing in support of final approval of the
NCCP, in particular, Alternative D. As a former volunteer for the
PVP Land Conservancy and participant in their guided hikes, I can
speak personally to the beneficial effects of this wonderful preserve
in multiple ways. It has been used to educate children and adults to
the intricate network that binds all living things together. Far from
favoring plants over humans as some have claimed, it is a place that
allows humans, plants and animals to thrive as participants in the
natural cycles of weather, geology and biology. Imagine if those
hills were covered with roads, houses and shopping malls!
Many people have worked for many years in many different ways
to make the Conservancy into a place of refuge, renewal, recreation,
research, education and involvement. The Conservancy represents
partial compensation for the ways humans have appropriated
natural areas for their own uses, especially economic benefit,
eradicating all sorts of living populations repeatedly and without
pause. We humans here have the chance to repay this debt in a
small way by offering permanent protection to the land and species
that so often we willfully ignore.
I hope you will give this precious piece of land and the plants,
animals and people who have benefitted from it the final approval
as part of the Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Thank you
for your attention.
Comment noted.
F-58
59
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
75 12/28/18 Monks We object to the NCCP as currently drafted because the control and
impact on private property suggested in the document is
confusing. We mistrust the interpretation that there will only
benefits to private landowners as there doesn’t seem to be any
written protections for private property.
See Master Response Nos. 11-13. We
do not believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
76 12/28/18 Sala I am writing in support of final approval of the NCCP, in particular,
Alternative D.
The Palos Verdes land Conservancy has been a part of my life ever
since we moved to Rancho Palos Verdes over 24 years ago. Just this
morning I was taking a hike along one of the many pathways,
enjoying a magnificent view, thinking all the while what a gift it is
to have access to nature so close to our homes. Truly, it is
something worth saving – for ourselves, for each other, and for our
children.
Please finalize the NCCP for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. It is
a treasure not only to us, but to the entire Los Angeles Basin.
Comment noted.
77 12/28/18 Funk It appears to me that this draft NCCP is not compliant with the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. In many ways, it dilutes the
Goals of preserving and enhancing: infrastructure, recreational
open space, the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network, agricultural
activities and the keeping of large domestic animals. The draft
NCCP places restrictions on these activities in deference to native
plants as does the PUMP.
For several years, the RPV Staff has been recommending actions to
the City Council as though the NCCP was approved and to be
enforced. This has caused great harm to the quality of the facilities
which the City is to maintain in the interest of the residents’ health
safety and welfare. To quote the Maintenance Superintendent, “The
PVP Land Conservancy is interfering with my ability to apply best
business practices.”
I will be asking the RPV City Council not to adopt this Plan unless
all of the references to avoiding otherwise appropriate designs and
See Specific Response to Comment No.
1.
F-59
60
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
engineering be removed. Management to “remedy the degradation”
should be sufficient.
Since the NCCP applies to the whole City and even impacts
adjacent jurisdictions, I object to the restatement of the Preserve
Trails Plan (Sections 5.4.2 and 9.2.1.1) as something to be kept up
to date separately from the Trails Network Plan (TNP). In the
interest of consistency, continuity, emergency access and
evacuation corridors, all trail designs, use rules, signage and
maintenance criteria should be governed and implemented by one
document, the TNP. The Peninsula Wheel Trails Network (PWTN)
should be the guiding priority. (Attached.) FYI. The PWTN was
designed by the local Sierra Club to avoid isolating wildlife gene
pools.
The direction that the City will cease and desist all of their usual
Capital Improvement Plans, repairs and maintenance that might
result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat is absurd.
The quality of our infrastructure must not be infringed upon.
The advantages of human access to open spaces and vista points are
universally accepted. Most of those advantages are lost when
humans are excluded in favor of “pure habitat”. The NCCP is not a
local concept and I am offended by this effort to impose “pure
habitat” regulations and penalties upon the residents, private
property owners and citizens of this whole region.
The California Coastal Trail is a Legislated objective and has been
designated as our State’s Millennium Trail by our Former First
Lady, Hillary Clinton. I question how any Agencies have the
authority to obstruct that endeavor. Please do not approve the RPV
Natural Communities Conservation Plan as drafted.
78 12/29/18 Warren About the Natural Communities Conservation Plan by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes now under consideration, as a conservationist
I strongly believe the Nature Preserve should be designed to give
full attention to preserving the natural environment with various
Comment noted.
F-60
61
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
habitats which support the numerous endangered species, all of
which should be protected.
The Preserve should be open to the public for enjoying nature and
hiking, which has minimum effect of the environment.
79 12/29/18 Cicoria I. I’m writing to you to urge final approval and adoption of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation
Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan for the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. In particular, I support Alternative
D. It’s hard to believe that although we have been protecting
and restoring habitat in the PV Nature Preserve as well as
enjoying the trails therein for more than a decade as if it is “a
done deal”, it is only now in the stage of final approval.
II. I support the NCCP for myriad reasons: the efficiencies of
the NCCP program for the city of RPV (where I reside) to
accomplish needed infrastructure projects; protection of open
space for public enjoyment; and the conservation and
restoration of critical habitat for at risk and endangered
species on a broad scale rather than piecemeal.
III. We have relied on the NCCP as if it was finalized and RPV
City Councils over two decades have supported it. It is time
to move forward with final approval and adoption. Rancho
Palos Verdes has already accepted millions of dollars from
donors, as well as from government agencies, to acquire for
the PV Nature Preserve acreage that would otherwise have
been developed, and more recently to support habitat
restoration. Over more than a decade, RPV has benefited
from more than two hundred thousand hours of volunteer
time in furtherance of the NCCP goals. RPV has also relied
upon the permitting aspects of the NCCP program for several
public improvement projects, using the NCCP area as
mitigation for project impacts.
IV. Between 2004 and 2019 the City
reassessed the breadth and scope
of projects covered under the
NCCP/HCP permit. Losses of
habitat was increased as a result
of this assessment to allow the
City flexibility and ability to
optimally plan projects over the
40-year permit term. It is
important to note that even
though the City has the
opportunity to utilize all of the
habitat losses proposed in the
NCCP/HCP, this total use may
not be necessary to implement
the covered projects/activities.
X. Picnic tables were removed from
the recirculated NCCP/HCP, and
they will be removed from the
PUMP at its next update.
XI. See Master Response No. 22.
XII. Cut and fill slopes will be
evaluated per Section 5 of the
NCCP/HCP and managed in
accordance with the Habitat
Impact Avoidance and
Minimization Measures in
NCCP/HCP Sections 5.5 and
F-61
62
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
IV. I should say that I was not pleased that in the past couple of
years the City’s take authorization was increased from that
set forth in the 2004 City Council-approved draft to what
appears in this final draft. I understand that more acreage
was enrolled into the NCCP than had been enrolled in 2004,
but it was always the goal to enroll those additional acres in
the NCCP. People who have contributed money and time to
acquiring more land and to protecting and restoring the
native habitat on the land since 2004 did not know that their
efforts would lead to a larger take allowance (which
translates to greater habitat destruction). We thought we
were building upon what had been started. That said, my
hope is that there will be ever-increasing awareness of the
habitat impact minimization protocols in the NCCP as well
as respect and appreciation for what has gone into the
success of the ecological goals, such that much of the take
allowance will never be drawn from.
V. Nature needs a helping hand and we have an opportunity to
lend that hand. Every day we hear of the awful impacts on
nature wrought by one thing after another—filling in of
wetlands or scraping of habitat to build homes, roads,
infrastructure, agriculture, etc.; plastic and other debris filling
the bellies of sea life; toxins decimating species; impacts of
climate change—the list goes on and on. Here on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula, we have some of the last remaining coastal
sage scrub (CSS) habitat in the world. We have an
opportunity to not only protect the habitat, but to enhance it,
through implementation of the NCCP.
VI. My family and I have contributed thousands—of dollars and
volunteer hours—to protect these Preserve lands and, in
particular, the essential balance of the NCCP that seeks to
facilitate plant and animal species’ success while affording
5.6. It is important to note the
difference between a covered
project and activity. Projects are
well-defined actions that occur
once in a discrete location
whereas activities are
actions/operations that occur
repeatedly in one location or
throughout the NCCP/HCP plan
area. Activities are not expected
to result in permanent loss of
habitat.
XIII. The speed limit for construction
vehicles was reduced from 20
mph to 10 mph in the
recirculated NCCP/HCP as
decided at the March 2018 City
Council Meeting.
XIV., XV., and XVI. The PUMP does
not contain specific language
that states trails should not be
widened for multiuse trails. The
PUMP states, “Generally, trails
are to be maintained or designed
for minimum impact on existing
and potential habitat. Finally, the
public uses and trail
routes/configurations are situated
to be compatible with the
Preserve, avoid disruption of any
native vegetation (including an
emphasis on avoiding or
minimizing impacts to coastal
sage scrub), habitat, or wildlife
F-62
63
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
compatible public access to the Preserve trails. We believe
strongly in this goal.
VII. We humans need this. The PV Nature Preserve enhances our
community and enriches our lives by affording us access to a
bit of nature next door. The Preserve Trails Plan includes
over 30 miles of trails for our enjoyment. Repeated studies
have shown both physical and psychological benefits of
natural open space and our personal experiences bear this
out. Simply put, we feel better having spent time in the
Preserve. Indeed, the Preserve trails have become very
popular. Crowds, particularly at certain entrances and
particularly on holidays and weekends, have presented some
challenges for the City, but nothing that can’t be worked
out. And the vast majority of residents bordering the
Preserve continue to support the passive recreational
opportunities it affords us all.
VIII. There are people whose focus is solely on the recreational
opportunities the Preserve lands might afford and they are
concerned that implementation of the NCCP might deprive
them of those opportunities. They’d like to have unfettered
access to the Preserve lands. For the most part, though,
people understand that public recreational pursuits without
some limitations would destroy the place. We’ve seen it.
IX. My experience on the ground in the PV Nature Preserve tells
me that there are actually particular provisions in the NCCP
that are more permissive of recreational interests and other
uses than they ought to be to advance the conservation,
stewardship and ecosystem goals of the NCCP. I realize that
others will disagree on this, but I want to take this last
opportunity to reiterate some comments previously submitted
that reflect some of my concerns.
X. Allowing picnic tables in the Preserve (Section 5.4.2, bullet
5) is a very bad idea. It’s not enough to consider whether or
as identified in the Natural
Conservation Communities Plan
(NCCP).”
The measurement of trails for the
baseline survey takes into account the 3
widest points, as well as 3 “control
points,” that characterize the overall
trail width. The control points will be
recorded and used for monitoring
purposes.
XVII. The archery range was removed
in the recirculated NCCP/HCP.
XVIII. Comment noted.
F-63
64
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
not the table placement disturbs habitat. The people using the
tables will. And their litter will. We already see that small
benches at the few overlooks we have in the PV Nature
Preserve show concentrations of cigarette butts and other
litter. Removing the litter that migrates into the nearby
habitat then leads to further impacts.
XI. Vehicle trips through the Preserve undoubtedly have impacts
on wildlife. Therefore, it’s not enough to require that
authorized vehicles remain on particular trails that can
accommodate them (Section 5.5, item 2). Vehicle trips
should be minimized, just as other habitat and wildlife
impacts should be minimized. Doing so will contribute to
the overall success of the NCCP goals.
XII. Cut/fill from slopes within the Preserve should be limited to
major Covered Projects and not be permitted as a part of
maintenance activities. (Section 5.5, item 8) We have seen
Public Works and City contractor machinery dig into slopes
in the course of maintenance activities, such as digging for
soil to fill trenches created by rain runoff, disturbing habitat
and leaving scars on the landscape.
XIII. Setting a speed limit for construction vehicles (or any
vehicles) at 20 mph within the Preserve (Section 5.5, item 9)
makes no sense—not for habitat protection, not for species
protection, nor for public safety. The speed limit should be
much lower.
XIV. Regarding trail widths (Section 9.2.2.2), during the two years
that the public weighed in on development of the Public Use
Master Plan (PUMP), we heard many, many opinions on trail
width. It was very clear that there was a nexus between the
goals of the NCCP (minimize habitat impacts) and the public
in general (do not widen trails). Thus, before decisions were
made regarding which user groups would be permitted on
F-64
65
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
particular trails, a commitment was made that trails would
not be widened regardless of the use designation.
XV. I previously made the following suggestions for Section
9.2.2.2, item 1 regarding trail widths: 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 indeed that narrow and widening will
impact the base of plants growing 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.
XVI. Also, in Section 9.2.2.2 item 2c, consider limiting the width
of new trails to 3 feet. Even that is quite wide for the two
areas where new trails are possible per the Preserve Trails
Plan (between Three Sisters and Filiorum and off of Quarry
Trail in Forrestal).
XVII. As a clean-up item, the archery range is no longer within the
Preserve, so bullet 7 of Section 5.4.2 should be deleted.
XVIII. I believe that the best chance of ensuring long-term public
access to the Preserve lands, while enhancing special
species’ conditions and achieving ecological integrity on a
broad scale within the PV Nature Preserve is to get all—land
owner, management, and users—to focus on habitat impact
avoidance and minimization day in and day out, lest the
pendulum swing dramatically in one direction—degradation
accompanied by failure to achieve species conservation
goals—and then the other—minimizing public access in
perhaps a last ditch effort to achieve those conservation
F-65
66
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
goals. On its face, the NCCP seeks to avoid those dramatic
swings and if it takes a leap of faith to believe that is how the
NCCP will be implemented, then let’s take that leap and then
work toward making it so.
80 12/30/18 Sattler Attached please find our comments on the RPV NCCP/HCP.
Attachment
See Specific Response to Comment No.
79 (IV).
All landslide reduction measures within
the Preserve or as projects covered in
the NCCP/HCP will be completed in
compliance with the NCCP/HCP and in
coordination with the Wildlife
Agencies and Preserve Habitat
Manager, PVPLC.
Clarifying language has been added to
Sections 7.5.3 and 5.2.3. Temporary
impacts refer to impacts that will not
result in the permanent loss of the plant.
Transplanted plants are considered
successful mitigation when they meet
the restoration site success goal
described in 7.5.6 of the NCCP/HCP
(e.g., percent cover over a certain
timeframe).
81 12/30/18 Nelson (1) I. The ITPs will be issued over time (as above, NCCP assumes
40 years). How many, items that would have been NCCP ITP
items have been issued over the past year (2018), the past 5
years (2014-2018) by year? My assumption is a very small
number.
II. Cost effectiveness question. The NCCP /HCP will be a new
40-year daily management/maintenance effort covering our
entire city. Additional manpower and costs are estimated to
be?
I. See Master Response Nos. 4 and
32. The City signed a Planning
Agreement for the Palos Verdes
Peninsula NCCP Subarea in
1996, which afforded the City
interim take exemptions under
4(d) of the ESA. Several projects
have been authorized to move
forward with interim habitat loss
permits. Over the past several
F-66
67
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
III. The NCCP specifically focuses on only 3 species Federally
listed in the EA. (2 butterflies, 1 bird) They don't walk across
land, they fly across!!! Why is a significant 'land' corridor for
their benefit being considered? Again, these species don't
walk across land, they fly! There is nothing special about
habitat in the area. These species are found throughout the
preserve and provide plentiful food sources. For years there
was no corridor, it suddenly appeared and now removes
significant, valuable land, from the owner(s) enjoying its use.
Again, the 3 Federally listed species fly, they don't walk!
Remove the corridor! Restore it to what it was.
IV. The inability for private parties to 'opt out.' Why? Until just
recently (a March 2018 Council Video I'm told) it has been
understood that they could. Now the NCCP" includes the
entire boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes" and
private parties are forced into the NCCP. [Intro, pg. SJ Why
was 'opt out' option removed?
V. Affordability - cost question. Ties to #2 above. The city owns
"Open Space Preserve" land and the PVPLC maintains it.
What is the projected additional PVPLC total NCCP
maintenance expense (RPV probably will budget these or be
told to budget them)? PVPLC NCCP maintenance will be
considerable and I feel citizens of RPV deserve to know what
is that number.
VI. Cost follow on question: Fuel modification. RPV and the
PVPLC may say NCCP maintenance cost will be negligible
but - consider fire danger. Open space maintained by PVPLC
is 1,559 acres constituting a tinderbox ready to burn. During
our years of drought PVPLC has made practically no effort at
fuel modification by reducing plant growth in the Preserve.
Instead PVPLC concentrates on annually restoring 5 acres to
native plants (that also burn). So, of the forecasted NCCP
additional cost, how much is being devoted to fuel
years significant public projects
(about eight) are pending and are
expected to be authorized by the
City under the NCCP/HCP.
II. See Master Response No. 31.
Because the City has been
implementing the NCCP since
2004, there will be no new costs
when the permits are issued.
III. See Master Response No. 18. In
addition to the three federally
listed species. The NCCP/HCP
working group also decided to
include unlisted, sensitive
species that could become listed
during the permit term. Under
CEQA, impacts to many of these
sensitive species should be
minimized or avoided. The
corridor described in the
comment has been in place from
initial planning and is included
in the 2004 draft NCCP/HCP.
IV. See Master Response No. 18.
The NCCP/HCP addresses
coverage for all of the land
within the City boundaries. We
had agreements with Mr. York
about the disposition of his
property and its inclusion in the
NCCP/HCP consistent with the
2004 version of the NCCP/HCP.
F-67
68
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
modification to reduce /eliminate the well-known extreme
fire danger to homes near the Preserve or "Open Space
Preserve?" I have attached from RPV's Community
Newsletter for Winter 2019 (the latest) the frontpage article
on our fire risk, including a Cal Fire map of 'Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones' in RPV. It includes PVPLC's 'Open
Space Preserve' land.
VII. Enforcement of the NCCP /HCP /EA. We are talking the
entire city, not just the preserve. These documents place
numerous restrictions on 14,000 lots, thousands of' Open
Space Preserve' acres and public lands. All will need to be
enforced (or this NCCP will quickly be forgotten by our
public). How is RPV prepared to enforce these restrictions?
RPV has two Code Enforcement staff enforcing all of our
codes and now the restrictions of the NCCP. So I'll ask- how
does RPV ever intend to enforce this NCCP? You, as a
Federal Agencies, and our citizens need a concrete answer,
not any 'to be addressed in the future' city 'spin.
VIII. Opting out of/ cancelling the NCCP. How would RPV's
Council go about that? 40 years is a long time. Time
changes. City Council's change. Citizen appetite for these
types of expenses will change. RPV ability to fund will
change. Think of our multi-million dollar active major
infrastructure efforts (stopping the landslide, new civic
center) and pension growth. Citizen appetite for funding
something placing restrictions on use of their property will
wane.
IX. I doubt our public is aware your 'Notice' clearly states on
page 5 'Public use is also identified as a conditionally
allowed use.' So we are paying for it but public use can be
(and most say will be) denied? See questions 5 and 6.
Sentence needs an eraser.
V. See Master Response No. 31.
VI. See Master Response No. 21.
The City is responsible for fuel
modification on City-owned
land. Additionally, in 2019, the
City Council approved additional
funding for fuel modification in
response to increased fuel
modification orders from the Los
Angeles County Agricultural
Commissioner/Weights and
Measures Department. The City
will be looking into
appropriately revegetating fuel
modification areas to reduce
maintenance costs.
VII. See Master Response No. 9
regarding how the NCCP/HCP
will be implemented. The City’s
Code Enforcement Division will
enforce the NCCP/HCP, and the
Division’s policy is to be
reactive, unless dealing with an
issue involving life or safety
such as unpermitted
construction. Moreover, the
City’s has enforcement
personnel that patrol the
Preserve.
VIII. Provisions for termination
(opting out) of the NCCP/HCP
permits are located in Section 21
of the Implementing Agreement
F-68
69
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Attachment and are generally as follows:
Upon 90 working days written
notice to the Wildlife Agencies,
the City and/or PVPLC may
surrender the permits and
unilaterally withdraw from this
agreement. The City shall
provide written evidence to the
Wildlife Agencies that the City
has complied with all take
minimization and mitigation
obligations incurred under the
permits in full compliance with
the NCCP/HCP up to the date of
withdrawal.
IX. See Master Response No. 20.
82 12/30/18 Snell (1) The plan for the City of RPV NCCP/HCP is incomplete and needs
to address:
I. The protection of Indian Well Spring and exclude Spring
from “abatement of the slide” work without permit.
II. Maintenance of the Fire Road for disaster evacuation and fire
truck access to fight fires.
III. Dead non-native branches, trees and weeds need annual
removal in the Preserve at least 500’ from private properties.
IV. Remove all non-native Acacia within the Preserve.
V. Change Vanderlip Driveway in the General Plan from OPEN
SPACE PRESERVATION to RESIDENTIAL.
VI. Allow lot splits in Portuguese Bend Zone 2 so parcels
sharing a boundary with the Preserve can build like all other
lot owners as “...the purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to preserve
I. Projects and activities
implemented under the permit
will be in compliance with the
Habitat Impact Avoidance and
Minimization Measures detailed
in NCCP/HCP Sections 5.5 and
5.6.
II. See Master Response No. 22.
III. See Master Response No. 21.
IV. See Master Response No. 21.
V. Vehicular access to Vanderlip
Drive will be maintained. This
issue will be addressed through
the Preserve Access Protocol
F-69
70
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
contiguous open space areas for species preservation while
allowing compatible economic growth...”
VII. The protection of Indian Well Spring and exclude Spring
from “abatement of the slide” work without permit. The
Indian Well Spring needs to be protected in the Plan and
currently it is not. Former City officials have comments on
record that they can pump the spring dry by circumventing
the permit approval process required by United States Fish
and Wildlife Service & California Department of Fish and
Wildlife by using the provisions in NCCP for “Landslide
Abatement” to drain the over 2,000’ long spring. Indian
Well Spring has served as a watering hole for the wildlife in
what is now known as the Preserve for thousands of years.
VIII. Maintenance of the Fire Road for disaster evacuation and fire
truck access to fight fires.
This Fire Road provided an emergency escape route for those
residences on Upper Narcissa east of Sweetbay and
Vanderlip Driveway. The Plan is incomplete as it needs to
provide maintenance of the Fire Road for use of fire trucks
and those in vehicles evacuating when all other routes are
blocked by fire or Earthquake damage or catastrophic failure
of Portuguese Bend and Klondike slides. This critical Fire
Road was properly maintained for years prior to NCCP
Preserve. Native habitat near the road can be protected
during the maintenance work which can take less than a day
to perform, and it should be performed annually.
IX. Dead non-native branches, trees and weeds need annual
removal in the Preserve. The Plan needs to immediately
provide for the removal of dead trees, brush, and weeds
annually in the Preserve which is within 500 feet of private
property outside of the Preserve for fire protection, especially
in Portuguese Bend. The former owners of the land annually
removed Acacia and mustard weeds along the boundaries
referenced in Master Response
No. 22.
VI. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (I).
VII. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP. We forwarded
the comment to the Community
Development Department.
VIII. See Master Response No. 22.
IX. See Master Response No. 21.
X. See Master Response No. 21.
XI. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
XII. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP. We forwarded
the comment to the Community
Development Department.
F-70
71
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
that were near homes. When the City purchased the property,
the City halted L.A. County from discing weeds and
removing trees long before placing the land in a Preserve.
Now the City uses goats to eat the weeds in a very limited
area which is not adequate.
X. Remove all non-native Acacia within the Preserve. This non-
native flora is a fire hazard and its allowance and continued
growth in the Preserve should be curtailed. There is no
immediate provision for the annual removal.
XI. Change Vanderlip Driveway in the General Plan from OPEN
SPACE PRESERVATION to RESIDENTIAL. Vanderlip
Driveway could be easily removed from Nature Preserve
designation. Grant deeds and easements allow for the 100
year old Vanderlip Driveway and it should not be considered
Nature Preserve -attracting the general public and threatening
future use of the Driveway. A mistake was made by the City
by not deeding back the 100 year old driveway to the
residences. This needs to be corrected.
XII. Allow lot splits in Portuguese Bend Zone 2. The City of RPV
should allow lot splits in Portuguese Bend Zone 2
“...allowing compatible economic growth...” which the City
has no intention of doing. The City of RPV is not allowing
lot splits especially for parcels that share property lines with
the Preserve. New home building is allowed in Portuguese
Bend on already split 1/2 acre lots however lot splits are not
allowed for parcels to be split to one acre lots. This practice
does not provide for “...allowing compatible economic
growth...”
XIII. The Draft Plan needs to go back to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes to correct these errors and more.
Attachment
F-71
72
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
83 12/30/18 Thordarson I am writing in support of the NCCP for the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve, alternative D. I am a long -time resident of Rancho Palos
Verdes and a supporter of open space in our community. Open
space and wide open vistas of the ocean are what makes the palos
verdes peninsula a special place. It is an oasis in the sea of suburbia
that surrounds us. Human needs this type of space to decompress
and get back in touch with nature.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Councils have long supported the NCCP.
I have contributed volunteer hours and money to restore the native
plants of the coastal sage scrub. This is a rapidly disappearing
habitat and one that should be protected. I actually thought that the
NCCP was already a done deal and am surprised that it is not. Let’s
make it permanent once and for all.
Please approve alternative D of the NCCP for the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve.
Comment noted.
84 12/30/18 Wood I think it is vitally important to keep native habitat like the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve as open and natural as possible so diverse
species of plants and animals can thrive in our urban area. Natural
spaces like the Preserve are rare gems that connect people to nature
and to the history of our area (as the people who lived here before -
the Tongva/Gabrioleno - did not used to have so many housing
developments as we do now). Also, the Nature Preserve's habitat
benefit not only those that visit, but also those of us that live in the
region.
As one small example, many years ago, I noticed that the Palos
Verdes blue butterfly had disappeared from my backyard. Now that
habitat has been restored to it, I have been seeing it again. So even
though I live in north Torrance, I still benefit from the Nature
Preserve being there.
Please opt for Alternative D, The Proposed Plan.
Comment noted.
F-72
73
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
85 12/30/18 Wood I love to visit the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve to walk and enjoy
the fresh air, lovely vistas, and see the native plants. Please opt for
Plan D and keep this valuable open land for future generations.
Comment noted.
86 12/31/18 Hastings http://www.rpvca.gov/490/Palos-Verdes-Nature-Preserve-NCCP-
PUMP-H
Please see the map on middle right side showing green. Vanderlip
Drive and the area on Narcissa below our property is green
designating the Nature Preserve.
The NCCP Draft Plan is before the Federal Wildlife Agencies with
the comment period ending 12/31/2018. All announced in RPV
newsletter of 2019.
I thought the plan was to remove Vanderlip Driveway from Nature
Preserve and give everyone more time to review the reports.
I am respectfully making the request that this be done.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this.
See Specific Response to Comment No.
82 (V).
87 12/31/18 Adams As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, I greatly value the PV Nature
Preserve. I have hiked in it for more than thirty years. Having this
open land is vital to my health and well-being. I have seven
grandchildren, ages four to twenty-two. All of them and their
parents have enjoyed the opportunity to utilize this beautiful natural
feature. Before my late husband’s death, he was a docent who led
hikes through the preserve for school-age children. Please keep this
preserve to maintain the ecological diversity needed in our
environment.
Comment noted.
88 12/31/18 Lawson Please see attached documents pertaining to the RPV NCCP/HCP.
Thank you for reviewing and considering my input.
2 Attachments
See Specific Response to Comment No.
82 (V).
89 12/31/18 Holchin I am a 45 year resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. I am an avid
outdoorsman, hiker, backpacker, conservationist and environmental
Comment noted.
F-73
74
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
activist. I would like to see the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and
consequent NCCP be continued in any manner that maximizes
habitat preservation in perpetuity, placing recreational activities in a
secondary position. Specifically, I believe that mountain biking
activity of all forms has shown itself to be in conflict with habitat
preservation, given the destruction that I have observed over the last
many years from that activity. As I expected from the very
beginning, enforcement of the regulations regarding mountain
biking has proven to be ineffective and very expensive as well. No
amount of effort, whether it be voluntary or paid in nature, is
adequate to prevent or deter the destruction of habitat caused by a
significant portion of the mountain biking community.
See Master Response No. 19.
90 12/31/18 Mori I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. Open space preserves and
habitat protection are part of what makes RPV special. As such, the
NCCP now in draft form is necessary to memorialize and formalize
stakeholders’ commitments.
This email is sent to express my support of the NCCP for myriad
reasons: the efficiencies of the NCCP program for the city of RPV
to accomplish needed infrastructure projects, protection of open
space for public enjoyment; and the conservation and restoration of
critical habitat for at risk and endangered species on a broad scale
rather than piecemeal.
Though I prefer Alternative A, I will accept Alternative D.
Comment noted.
91 12/31/19 Snell (2) Comments to Wildlife Agencies
I would like to submit anonymous comments from people living on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula who would like comments and
clarification from RPV Staff but the City has been closed for the
holidays.
I. From Mira Catalina: “Frustrating to hear about this. It sets us
up for potential disaster. Maybe too much money is going
out of the budget to fight or pay (ridiculous) lawsuits instead.
I only took a cursory look. Besides my comment above, i
I. Comments noted. See Master
Response Nos. 3, 4, and 23.
II. See Master Response No. 4.
III. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
IV. See Master Response No. 21.
V. See Master Response No. 16.
Chapter 17.46 of the City’s
F-74
75
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
have to wonder, did they really review this document before
putting it out for comment? Seems it needs a good editor.
There are references to wrong sections. Also, do they still
want to recommend ‘belling’ of cats? Seems outdated. I’d
like to see included in the plan the increasing population of
destructive, nuisance coyotes addressed with more
aggressive measures used as necessary. This is beyond their
education efforts, which are limited in their effect.”
II. From Los Verdes: “Cheap BS right wing propaganda. The
NCCP covers the Nature Preserves only, not the rest of RPV.
At the end of the day, preserving nature will be the only
thing that will preserve the human race. If indeed it can be
preserved.”
III. From Miraleste: “Some of the same staffers on the ground
floor of starting NCCP in RPV are the same staffers who
allowed the Green Hill Mausoleum to be built 8 feet from
townhomes in Lomita when the set back should have been 80
feet. The homeowners didn’t know what the building was
until there was a funeral at eye level from their second floor.
Joel, Chris, etc.”.
IV. From Rolling Hills: “It is not clear to me how much this is
going to impact brush clearance. I am on the trails off Burma
road almost 5 days a week. At the bottom of Gary's gulch
trail the City did some weed whacking 2 months ago to make
the trail wider but left behind massive amounts of dead
brush including dead trees. There is easy access via a
gated road and the area is adjacent to many homes on the
Vanderlip Dr. It is unclear to me why the City did not do
more.”
V. From Portuguese Bend: “A second reading always brings up
new ‘glitches.’ The current RPV Municipal Code does not
require a Conditional Use Permit nor a large Domestic
Animal Permit to keep up to four horses per parcel within
Municipal Code allows the
keeping of up to four large
domestic animals without a
permit in the Q-district
depending on the size of the lot.
A Large Domestic Animal
Permit or Conditional Large
Domestic Animal Permit is
required under certain conditions
in the City’s Q-District. Per the
NCCP/HCP, a new facility
would be subject to the cowbird
trapping program.
VI. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP. Crime should
be reported to the Lomita
Sheriff’s Department.
VII. Comment noted.
F-75
76
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
one of RPV’s four ‘Q Zone’ overly districts. All of Elin
Vanderlip’s original property is in the PB Equestrian
District. New corrals is a whole other issue depending on
how Staff chooses to interpret ‘new’ applications. There used
to be and may still be a cowbird trapping program down
along the bluff top at Trump. As far as I know, even the
Ishibashis never kept any of their mules down
there. Everybody switched to tractors by 1948. Cowbirds
are a ‘fake’ problem. That ‘condition’ should be removed
from the ‘Wildlife Agencies’ approval. If not, our City
Council should nix it if they haven’t got the guts to nix the
whole thing. Like the General Plan update, this version of an
NCCP appears to be too complicated for our current City
Council Members to pick apart. We all need to find a
different way to explain to them the cumulative impacts as
opposed to each of our special interests.”
VI. From Crest: What can be done about the homeless living in
the Preserve who come into the Peninsula Center to shoplift?
VII. There are many more comments from anonymous people
about fire danger and loss of property rights under NCCP
which will be paraphrased in another email. Most of these
individuals did not know about the Draft.
92 1/4/19 Daly I lived in the city of RPV for 24 years and although I’ve recently
moved to Redondo Beach I enjoy hiking the beautiful trails in the
RPV hills, and I keep up with land development activity in that
area.
I would like to express my concern about the recent RPV
NCCP/HCP draft:
I. I do not think it is fair (or possibly legal?) to acquire
privately-owned land without purchasing it. It seems that the
draft NCCP/HCP is stating that the intent is to basically
acquire a private owner’s property in RPV without fair
I. See Master Response Nos. 11-
13.
II. Comment noted.
III. See Master Response No. 19.
IV. Comment noted.
V. See Master Response No. 18.
VI. Comment noted.
F-76
77
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
compensation. When homes are demolished to put in a
freeway aren’t the owners compensated for this “taking”?
II. I would like part of any new nature preserve to include areas
for hiking and bird photography
III. I would like more trails
IV. Please reconsider your position of granting 40 acres of the
York property to the “Preserve”. This is unfair and unjust.
93 1/7/19 Snell (3) I. Why would the City of RPV not be protecting California
Quail and other native birds from Coyotes? RPV could take
the money from their annual fund to pay for counting,
trapping and relocating Peafowl to trapping Coyotes in areas
where the Quail are. Protecting the Quail from Coyotes
should have been addressed in the City of RPV NCCP/HCP
Plan.
II. I would like an extension of time to properly review the
Draft.
I. The NCCP/HCP addresses
impacts and mitigation for
covered projects/activities
proposed by the City and private
entities within the City.
Addressing impacts from
naturally occurring predator –
prey interactions is beyond the
scope of the NCCP/HCP.
94 4/9/19 York I. The current draft of the RPV NCCP/HCP does not appear to
have changed much from the March 2018 draft.
II. The NCCP/HCP continues to contain the requirement that
“any development” on our 94 acre property must require a
minimum dedication of 40 acres to the NCCP/HCP preserve,
regardless of the impact or magnitude of that
development. This requirement is improper on its face
because the NCCP/HCP makes no effort to justify this
arbitrary number of acres for “any development,” while the
remainder of the NCCP/HCP carefully applies ratios of
habitat disturbed to justify habitat required to be
preserved. The NCCP/HCP itself shows that the arbitrary
40-acre demand is, among other things, an illegal and
unconstitutional “taking” of our property.
I. See Master Response No. 18.
II. See Master Response No. 18.
III. No update available at this time.
IV. The section 6 grant proposals
continues to be evaluated by the
Service’s Headquarters.
F-77
78
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
III. As you know, we have filed an application for a 37 lot
residential project on our property. Today, after considerable
additional expenses, we have filed with city staff documents
and answers to respond to their questions on our project
application. Due to topographic, spatial, and other
significant constraints, the arbitrary 40-acre dedication
requirement makes this project impossible! In addition, we
received the City’s “approval letter” for our Landslide
Moratorium Exception Permit and it makes clear that the
City is interpreting the terms of the HCP/NCCP as
authorizing it to demand 40-acres dedicated for the impacts
of a single home. That is an entirely unjustifiable exaction.
IV. Section 4.4 of the NCCP “Other Private and Public Targeted
Lands for Dedication to the Preserve (170.7 acres) states
“The City and/or PVPLC, in coordination with the Wildlife
Agencies, may also apply for a Section 6 Habitat
Conservation Plan Acquisition grant that would complement
the NCCP/HCP.” What is the status of the grant request?
95 5/1/19 Cicoria I. I'm finding some additional items to comment upon in the
NCCP (several are just cleanup items) and in my review have
been looking for the provision in the PUMP that stated trails
will not be widened for use/multi-use. You and I know that
was a condition of the PUMP Committee recommendations
for particular uses (why, for example, Landslide Scarp was
recommended for equestrian/pedestrian use when it is
basically a single track trail) and I recall that was in the
original PUMP document. Can you direct me to that
provision? Section 9.2.2.2 of the NCCP becomes problematic
in discussing "appropriate" trail width, stating "taking into
consideration the PUMP" if the PUMP does not include the
prohibition on widening trails for use.
II. Also, what is the thinking in that section 9.2.2.2 of the NCCP
referring to taking measurements at 3 points along 3 of the
I. There is no specific language
that states trails should not be
widened for multiuse trails. The
PUMP states, “Generally, trails
are to be maintained or designed
for minimum impact on existing
and potential habitat”. Moreover,
public uses and trail
routes/configurations are situated
to be compatible with the
Preserve, avoid disruption of any
native vegetation (including an
emphasis on avoiding or
minimizing impacts to coastal
F-78
79
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
widest trail sections? Again using Landslide Scarp and
Panorama Trails as examples, but it could be any of a
number of trails, there are segments that are several feet wide
(in the case of Panorama, at Burma Rd I'd venture the trail is
8-10 feet wide). It doesn't seem practical or desirable to
categorize these trails as particular widths and I fear provides
yet another entre for those who want to widen trails for use
or managerial "efficiency".
sage scrub), habitat, or wildlife
as identified in the NCCP/HCP.
II. The measurement of trails for the
baseline survey takes into
account the 3 widest points, as
well as 3 “control points,” that
characterize the overall trail
width. The control points will be
recorded and used for monitoring
purposes.
96 5/4/19 Snell (4) I. Reference Figure 2-2. Existing Land Use within Rancho
Palos Verdes Map on page 26 in the Final Draft of March
2018:The lot along Vanderlip Driveway assessor #7572-002-
026 shows on the Legend as Vacant in error. The property is
not vacant and needs to be shown as Single Family
Residential. It appears to be a silly error as multiple Vacant
lots in the area show as Single Family Residences. Even
York’s vacant property that the City wants to “take” shows
as SFR.
II. What does the shading indicate at #6 and the bottom of 10,
20 and 60 indicate? There should be no shading.
III. When will this map be corrected?
I. The map has been corrected and
is included in the NCCP/HCP
that will be for consideration at
the October 29, 2019, City
Council Meeting.
II. The light gray shading indicates
neutral lands. Many figures are
general maps showing
approximate land use
designations.
III. See Specific Response to
Comment I. above.
97 5/4/19 Snell (5) FIGURE 4-17. Neutral Lands pg 83.
I. What are the greyish color marks on the residential parcels at
#6, 10 and 20 Vanderlip Driveway? The map should have no
shaded areas for these parcels and there are NO Neutral
Lands by 4.5 definition.
II. The Neutral Lands shown on the map is way too wide for
Altamira Canyon. Most of the properties that include
Altamira Canyon have been developed since the 1950-1960’s
under LA County approval long before RPV was
I. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 96 (II)
II. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 96 (II)
III. The current definition is correct.
F-79
80
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
incorporated. Why were already build on properties marked
Neutral Lands?
III. Should the explanation of Neutral Lands from “...currently
undevelopable lands...” to “already built on” or “already
developed” or “part of the developed parcel is not built on”?
98 5/4/19 Snell (6) I. Reference FIGURE 4-8 & 4-15. The head of the spring is
located in the East Fork of Altamira Canyon about 1000’
above Vanderlip Driveway and the abandoned Fire Road.
Aka: Indian Well Spring or Kelvin Canyon Spring. Which
Management Unit is the head of the SPRING located in?
II. Why is such a valuable resource not represented in this Plan
with specific comments on what the City is planning to do? I
last heard that the City wanted to pump out the spring water
as a project for ACLAD slide abatement.
III. How is one advised what the City is planning in the creek
beds in both branches of Altamira Canyon?
IV. When will the acacia be removed from the creek area?
I. Filiorum Reserve.
II. This was outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
III. The City provides updates on
upcoming City projects and
activities in the Preserve through
its Preserve listserv group and at
quarterly Preserve Public
Forums. Please visit
www.rpvca.gov for more info.
IV. There is no plan to remove acacia
from the creek area. Fuel
modification is detailed in
Master Response No. 21.
99 5/4/19 Nelson (2) I. Again, only 3 species are Federally listed. We are
adopting RPV’s NCCP at a cost of millions to protect
two Federal species found in the Preserve! Kinda
reminds some of the smelt fiasco up north!
II. Binder: Cover page states the order is 1. NCCP/HCP; 2.
Implementing Agreement. In my copy these were
reversed; the Implementing Agreement was the 1st
section and the NCCP/HCP was in the 2nd section.
Should be reversed to correct to the Cover Sheet or
change the Cover Sheet listing order.
III. Table of Contents: Pgs. iii, iv and v. Two lists of
exhibits; one (pg. v) clearly states what each exhibit
I. See Master Response Nos. 3
and 6. One goal of the
NCCP/HCP is to provide
incidental take permits
associated with covered
projects and activities for
listed species and address
unlisted, sensitive species
that may become listed
during the permit term.
Many of these species are
addressed during the CEQA
process. The intent of the
F-80
81
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
covers; the other (pgs. iii, iv) simply says Exhibit A
through Exhibit E without any further detail. So we need
to state 1. what are these unstated exhibits and 2. correct
Exhibit D contents.
IV. Pg. iii and iv: Now: As follows: no explanation of what
each overs. Exhibit A City of RPV NCCP/HCP, Exhibit
B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E. Each letter should
add what it covers and pages numbers as below: Exhibit
A: pg. 54: Model Certificate of Inclusion, Exhibit B:
pgs. 55-60: City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance,
Exhibit C: pg. 61: Species Covered Under the Plan,
Exhibit D: pgs. 62-82: Management Agreement between
RPV and PVPLC, Following Exhibit D the Table of
Contents omits the following additional Exhibits found
in the Implementation Agreement. Since there are
duplicate letters, change the letter designation shown
and add each to the Table of Contents. Letter shown is
what is in the Agreement’s Exhibits. Exhibit A: pgs. 83-
84: Map of Preserve Properties Managed by PVPLC,
Exhibit B-1: pgs. 85-86: PVPLC Obligations (updated
11/30/2011), Exhibit B-2: pgs. 87-89: City of RPV
Obligations (updated 11/30/2011), Exhibit B-3: pgs. 90-
92: PVPLC Permissive Activities (updated 11/30/2011),
Exhibit C: pgs. 93-104: Oceanfront Estates Management
Requirements, Exhibit D: pgs. 105-108: Donor
Recognition, Naming Criteria, Sites, * Pgs. 109-116:
Amendments to RPV-PVPLC Management Agreement,
*belongs after Exhibit D, pgs. 62-82: “Management
Agreement between RPV and PVPLC,” not here. **
Pgs. 117-118: Preserve Maps, **belongs after 2nd
Exhibit A, pgs. 83-84: “Map of Preserve Properties
Managed by PVPLC, Exhibit E: pgs. 119-132:
Conservation Easement (RPV to PVPLC), Pg. v: Again
lists some Exhibits with explanations but manages to
NCCP/HCP is to provide a
streamlined approach for
projects and conservation
and to provide certainty to
landowners.
II. Correction noted.
III. Correction noted.
IV. Comment noted.
V. Comment noted. Acronyms
and Abbreviations can be
found on Page ix of the
NCCP/HCP.
VI. Comment noted. The reader
is directed to broad sections
of the document where the
entire section applies to the
reference.
VII. Comment noted. The
NCCP/HCP is intended to
be the document that
describes the details
pursuant to the section
10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA
requirements.
VIII. Correction noted.
IX. See Master Response No.
20.
X. See Master Response No.
21.
F-81
82
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
avoid many! Page v should simply be deleted as
correcting as above will complete the Exhibit list
correctly. What got my attention was the Table of
Contents using just letters with no content info, then
calling out 57 pages of Appendix D “Donor recognition,
Naming Criteria, Sites.” I know better! We don’t have
anywhere near 57 pages of Donors! So when I got into
those pages I found what should be and is listed above!
Your call if you make those corrections.
V. Add Acronym list (to avoid reader bewilderment as to
what NEPA, PAP, SSC, ESHA, PHMP, ACOE etc. are
and their added complications. (In my former
employment we had hundreds of acronyms but, if you
used one, you first wrote it out then paren the acronym,
for example, Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV). Should be
mandatory here because many reading / implementing
these requirements may not, in reality, have a clue what
some acronyms mean.
VI. Vague references: Throughout the Implementation doc
the Plan (NCCP) is cited or referred to but without
anything more than something like ‘Section 5.7 of the
Plan.’ Normally you would expect a Plan title and page
number to follow that reference as ‘”section 5.7: title,
pgs. x-x”. I spent hours going back and forth from
Implementation to the NCCP or Appendix double-
checking and writing these details above these vague
references!
VII. Pg. 15: 3rd sentence: ‘All of the lands to be dedicated to
the Preserve are identified in Table 4-1 and figure 4-2 of
the Plan … “THESE REFERENCES ARE NOT IN
THE IMPLEMENTATION DOC, THEY ARE IN THE
NCCP DOC. Might want to make that clear. Readers
could spend considerable time hunting for most
XI. Comment noted.
XII. See Master Response No.
31.
XIII. Comment noted.
XIV. See Master Response Nos. 6
and 18.
XV. Staff time required to
implement the NCCP/HCP
is listed in the cost analysis
located in Appendix C of the
NCCP/HCP. See Master
Response No. 31.
XVI. The Preserve Access
Protocol will be approved
by the City Council at a
public meeting and
implemented consistent with
the NCCP/HCP.
XVII. All code amendments will
be conducted in public
meetings. Again, we do not
expect substantial revisions
because the City has been
implementing the
NCCP/HCP.
XVIII. See Master Response No.
31.
XIX. Assured funding sources are
detailed in Master Response
No. 31. Additionally, the
Wildlife Agencies worked
F-82
83
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
references as they study the implementation
requirements. But why don’t we show immediately in
the Implementation doc what lands are covered? Why go
to a 2nd doc to find that out?
VIII. Pg. 15: 7.3 (Neutral Lands) 2nd sentence:
Approximately 1,696.7 acres … exist outside the
Preserve Boundary (see Section 4.5 and Figure 4-5 of
the Plan). “ Figure 4-5” should be ‘Figure 4.17 Neutral
Lands” found on page 83. Figure 4-5 in the Plan is on
page 66 labeled ‘Figure 4-5: Vista del Norte
Management Plan.” For clarification, might want to
make that change.
IX. Pg. 18: Public Use: “ Public access to the Preserve is
conditionally allowed for passive recreational purposes
… .” The word ‘conditionally’ needs definition. Can be
interpreted (and is in some quarters) as ‘temporary until
Preserve advises city they no longer want the pubic to
access their land (even though city owns it!). Need
something like “Public access is perpetually guaranteed
unless any of the following has occurred … (ex: fire,
landslide).”
X. Pg. 19: Preserve Management: 8.3.3: “… 10)
Maintenance of fire/fuel buffers …” Cannot be
emphasized enough. The Preserve has significantly
burned in the past, taking homes, and today, if you just
give available Preserve fuel a cursory glance as you
drive by, you’ll understand nothing real has been done
for ‘fuel modification’ with the resultant liability to the
city (which owns the land) for the next Portuguese Bend
– Preserve fire.
XI. Pg. 19: 8.6: Restrictions … For Projects/Activities
Abutting and Adjacent to the Preserve: The Plan
(NCCP) includes measures to address Project and
cooperatively with the City
and PVPLC to secure
millions of dollars in state
and Federal grants for the
acquisition of Preserve land,
and resource enhancing
projects. The grant funding
from the Wildlife Agencies
supports the baseline
conservation for the
NCCP/HCP. The City,
Wildlife Agencies and
PVPLC continue to work
cooperatively to identify
grants to augment the
operation of the Preserve.
XX. The EIR referenced in this
section of the Implementing
Agreement is for the
NCCP/HCP. It will not
apply to individual projects
covered by the NCCP/HCP.
XXI. See Master Response Nos.
24 and 26. PVPLC will
continue to restore 5 acres of
habitat annually as
established in the
NCCP/HCP and in the
Management Agreement
between the City and
PVPLC, on the City’s behalf
to meet the City’s
NCCP/HCP habitat
restoration requirements.
F-83
84
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Activities that are abutting or adjacent to the Preserve
”… the CITY shall ensure restrictions and requirements
listed in Section 5.7 of the Plan … .” Plan 5.7: pgs. 114-
115: new developments: fencing, lighting, equestrian,
landscaping, stormwater and urban runoff and might say
that here.
XII. Pg. 22: 10.1 Obligations of the CITY: … “funding of the
Plan (NCCP) … the CITY will fulfill its funding
responsibilities identified in Appendix C (Exhibit C-2)
of the Plan … .” OK. There is no Appendix C in the
Implementation Agreement that corresponds to
‘funding.’ But in the City of RPV NCCP/HCP mammoth
separate ‘Appendix’ section there is! Appendix C is 57
pages; what RPV’s real funding of the Preserve - NCCP
will be, is well hidden! Pg. 47 of C-2) ends at RPV
funding $1,286,209 per year in perpetuity (both term and
post term) vs. PVPLC’s annual $19,460 for term and
$5,000 post-term! And our Council, representing or
42,000 citizens, signed up for those numbers! No other
Palos Verdes city is contributing a dime, at least is not
listed. Starting at $100,000 in 2004, the RPV escalation
deserves serious fiscal investigation – who, what, where,
when, why type of how did our citizens get into this and
do they know? It seems if PVPLC wants anything like a
truck just come to the Council and it’s yours! But what
will the number be like in 10, 20, 30, 40 years? When
will citizens draw the line? It’s been 15 years and the
Preserve amount has grown 1300%! Do the math for the
next 20 years! Do the citizens know? Should they?
Council decision. For two species found in the Preserve!
XIII. Pg. 23: 10.1.1: 3rd line: References the Plan, Table 4-1
and Figure 4.2 which are unreadable. Data too
compressed – probably.
As established in the
Management Agreement,
the City pays the PVPLC the
annual sum of $100,000
(2006) baseline payment in
cash. In addition to the
Preserve management
payment, the City pays
PVPLC the annual sum of
$15,000 (2007) baseline
payment) cash to perform
the habitat and trail
maintenance responsibilities
on the City’s Oceanfront
Preserve properties. Each is
increased annually for
inflation based on the
Consumer Price Index for
Los Angeles County for all
consumer for the month of
February of each calendar
year. The $50,000 figure
refers to the mitigation fee
for private development;
mitigation shall be provided
by the project applicant by
the payment of a Mitigation
Fee to the City’s Habitat
Restoration Fund discussed
in the amount of $50,000
per acre based on the total
mitigation acreage required.
The PVPLC and City
worked together to
determine that $50,000 (in
F-84
85
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XIV. Pg. 23: 10.1.1: 2nd paragraph: ‘Targeted Lands”:
references Plan section 4.4. Plan pg. 78 Section 4.4.5
specifically addresses what I am told is potentially
inverse condemnation and /or ‘taking’ of 40 acres to
provide a land corridor for 2 federal species that fly,
don’t walk. Many question why seize a land corridor for
a butterfly and bird – both fly – don’t walk! Council
decision what to do.
XV. Pg. 23: 10.1.2: Management of the Preserve System:
“The CITY through the PVPLC shall manage the
Preserve in perpetuity in accordance with the PHMP (no
acronym definition provided) and other plans described
in sections 8,0 and 9.0 of the Plan.” Suggest here, in the
Implementation Agreement, we list all the plans that will
have to be done to complete this. Further, in Section
10.1.3 “City Implementation Process” a hint at the
massive workload facing the city: “ interim and
permanent regulatory measures including codes,
ordinances, policies … guidelines for operations and
management of public lands … will provide interim
protection to habitat lands etc..” Then “Entitlements will
not be provided without compliance with … (now pg.
24) General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Grading
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and any other
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code … the
CITY shall amend … General Plan, Municipal Code,
Zoning Map and CEQA Guidelines …” Thought is –
you are here, reading how to implement this and you’ll
not get a clue about any specificity for these extensive
plans, ordinances, etc. that will be required to make this
NCCP work. I took a peak and it is years of employment
for our Planning Staff (drafting, continually revising) or
a chance to favor a consultant with these years!!
2013 dollars) is the amount
needed to restore and
maintain 1 acre of coastal
sage scrub habitat. The
Mitigation Fee will be
reviewed annually by the
City and, if necessary,
adjusted to account for
inflation and/or higher-than-
expected restoration and
management costs. Master
Response No. 31 identifies
financial obligations of
PVPLC, which is a co-
applicant for the permits.
XXII. Please see Page xi. of the
NCCP/HCP for the list of
acronyms and their
associated definitions.
TERPP is an acronym for
Targeted Exotic Removal
Plan for Plants. Section 7.6
of the NCCP/HCP addresses
the TERPP.
XXIII. Section 7.7.1 of the
NCCP/HCP states that
“Reintroduction is not a
requirement of the
NCCP/HCP or Permits.”
Reintroduction may be a
management tool that the
Wildlife Agencies, the City,
and other partners could
F-85
86
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XVI. Pg. 24: 2nd paragraph: “Within 90 days of … Permits …
the City and PVPLC shall develop and submit to the
Wildlife Agencies a PAP (no acronym definition) to
facilitate access by utility agencies and … Public Works
to areas within the Preserve.” Who will approve this for
the CITY? Planning Commission, Council? Might also
want the Portuguese Bend Community Asso (PBCA) to
sign off since much of this travel will be in their area.
XVII. pg. 24: 10.1.5: “Revisions to CITY Ordinances,
regulations … submitted to Wildlife Agencies for review
and comment at least 60 days prior to adoption by City.
Could we include having public input on the revisions?
I’m not in favor of ignoring public input in either these
formulative or revision documents and I don’t find
anything saying there will be any public input. Tells me
the PVPLC and CITY don’t want their citizens involved
… I understand – the rationale is normal citizens won’t
understand what is being proposed so why have them
involved? RPVers are starting to see a lot of this
rationale employed but they are not stupid when it
comes to their elected representatives or tax dollars.
XVIII. Pg. 25: 10.2: PVPLC Obligations: Question why “the
CITY is liable for any violation of the Permits or failure
on the part of the PVPLC during the 40 year (or is it 50
year?) term (isn’t it ‘in perpetuity’) to carry out its
assigned obligations will be under the Plan.” Sentence
reads rough. Think the end should be “assigned
obligations under the Plan,” deleting ‘will be.’
Interesting the City will carry out PVPLC’s obligations
… any cost set aside?
XIX. Pgs. 25, 26: Obligations: It should be noted that when it
comes to funding, this section states the obligations of
our USFWS and CDFW (no acronym provided) include
implement in the figure, if
appropriate.
XXIV. See Specific Response to
Comment No. VII to
Specific Response to
Comment No. 81 above.
XXV. Management goals are
discussed throughout the
NCCP/HCP. Section 9 of
the NCCP/HCP discusses
the assessment that will be
performed every three years
that identifies the
management goals for
specific habitat and species
conservation targets.
Accomplishment of the
management goals will be
measured and reported.
XXVI. See Master Response No.
20.
XXVII. Comment noted.
XXVIII. The Preserve Habitat
Management Plan was
approved by the City
Council at a public meeting
in 2007 as a component of
the draft NCCP/HCP.
XXIX. The annual coordination
meeting is not a public
meeting. The City and
PVPLC coordinate quarterly
F-86
87
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
“cooperate with the CITY in obtaining additional
funding from various sources to implement the Plan.”
How they would do that (put an amount in their budget,
take from their ‘rainy day’ funding, etc.) would be
assurances here that these are real commitments. Maybe
an additional sentence to that effect could be added.
XX. 10.4.1: CEQA: “… the EIR prepared … with this Plan
… will operate as a ‘program’ EIR… the CITY will use
the EIR … in evaluating future land use decisions, and
in issuing any permits or other approvals within the Plan
Area.” SUGGEST THIS DICTA BE SOFTENED. The
Plan Area is defined as all of RPV. This says no land use
decision can be made without applying the forthcoming
NCCP EIR. That just gives staff another reason to say
applications are ‘incomplete,’ something our citizens
realize and duck under with weekend projects rather
than sometimes waiting months for their application to
be complete. Understand, staff has no firm checklist for
what constitutes a complete application. Our citizens can
be told its complete one day and a week later told it is
not! This EIR simply reinforces delays and encourages
work arounds. Soften it. Say staff has x days to issue
permit or assign to Planning Commission.
XXI. Pg. 27: 11.2 Habitat Restoration Plan: “The CITY shall
be required to restore … 5 acres of habitat each year …
Restoration shall … establish native habitat in areas
currently dominated by non-native habitat … based on a
3 year Restoration Plan … developed by the PVPLC in
coordination with the CITY and Wildlife Agencies.” 5
acre restoration has been the job of the PVPLC, not the
CITY. This is new. At what cost? $50,000 per acre?
Think this was PVPLC’s estimate. Right or wrong? Why
is PVPLC determining RPV’s statement of work? Since
City of RPV NCCP/HCP when? This needs revision,
Preserve Public Forums,
which are calendared on the
City’s website. Agendas and
minutes are likewise
published on the City’s
website.
XXX. Thank you. The City will
continue to conduct
activities in perpetuity
pursuant to its obligations.
XXXI. The numbers are correct.
See Master Response No.
31. The costs are broken
into costs to fulfill the
conservation requirements
of the permit, and costs
related to land ownership
and public access.
Additionally, a grand total is
provided. Please see
Appendix C of the
NCCP/HCP for additional
funding information.
XXXII. See Specific Response to
Comment XXXI. Directly
above.
XXXIII. Comment noted.
XXXIV. Comment noted. Changed
Circumstances is a legal
term for the HCP and Acts
of God is not an acceptable
example in this context.
F-87
88
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
back to a PVPLC effort. RPV is in its budget cycle and
where is it in the new budget?
XXII. Pg. 28: 11.3: A reason for acronym definition: “PVPLC
shall conduct weed control activities in fulfillment of the
CITY’s obligation through the TERPP as described in
Section 7.6 of the Plan.” As the person in charge of this
Implementation Agreement, you totally understand all
this, don’t you? 1. What us TERPP? 2. What is Section
7.6 of the Plan?
XXIII. Pg. 24: 11.4: Covered Species Reintroduction. Section
7.7 of the Plan addresses reintroduction of Covered
Species …” But then it says Reintroduction is not a
requirement under the NCCP/HCP or Permits.” So why
is this section included? Obviously the CITY will not
pay for something not part of the NCP! Right? The topic
is not part of these documents! Delete it or get questions
of why talk about it.
XXIV. Pg. 29: 12.0: Monitoring, Management and Reporting:
1st paragraph: 1. “In collaboration with the CITY,
PVPLC shall address management and enforcement
issues … along with remediation or Adaptive
Management strategies.” Adaptive Management is not
explained. Enforcement is the elephant in the NCCP
room! RPV has 2 code enforcement staff, overwhelmed
with idiocy like AirBNB enforcement depriving our
citizens of their livelihood as well as tracking the 4 lots
(out of 14,000) deemed ‘party houses. And we pay over
$500,000 to our Sheriff for Preserve enforcement but …
now we are talking about enforcing the NCCP
restrictions over our entire city. Can I tell you? This will
not happen, despite all the good intentions of the
Agencies and CITY. Stephen Foster composed
‘Beautiful Dreamer’ to cover just such dreams!
XXXV. We cannot identify the
paragraph referenced in this
comment.
XXXVI. Comment noted. See Master
Response No. 4.
XXXVII. Correction noted.
XXXVIII. Thank you for the comment.
The information in the
NCCP/HCP has been
collected for many years and
has been used to help guide
the conservation needs.
Once a permit decision has
been made on the
NCCP/HCP, the Preserve
Habitat Manager will be
updating information such
as species locations and
habitat.
XXXIX. Thank you for the comment.
XL. See Master Response No. 2.
The NCCP/HCP is intended
to streamline and provide
certainty to landowners.
Landowners are able to seek
their own individual
permits; however, the
project and conservation
strategy will need to be
consistent with the
NCCP/HCP.
F-88
89
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XXV. “An assessment of funding needs and management goals
will be provided in the Comprehensive and Annual
Reports.” As most read this, their conclusion is we don’t
know what is either ‘money required’ or ‘what
constitutes management success’ other than the CITY or
PVPLC declaring total victory! ‘Beautiful Dreamer’
may apply! Might want to give some detail – like where
will we find ‘management goals’ or funding
requirements now – citizens can do future escalation and
ask for confirmation from the PVPLC and CITY.
XXVI. Pg. 29: 12.1: Public Use Master Plan: PUMP: Confirms
public use of the Preserve is ‘conditional.’ Also, the
Preserve Trails Plan, “described in section 5.2.8 of the
Plan,” is in the PUMP, approved by “the Wildlife
Agencies.” Never heard of the Preserve Trails Plan – not
part of the current Council trails investigation / research
with the goal of what are real RPV trails without
involving ‘Sunshine,’ who knows! Council decision,
now employing another consultant in this effort!
Suggest: erase ‘conditional.’ Continuation promotes
negative NCCP press. And folks will always find a way
in!
XXVII. Pg. 29: 12.2: Fire and Fuel Modification in the Preserve.
“… management guidelines identified in Section 9.2.3 of
the Plan shall be implemented for performing the
required fuel modification within the Preserve.” FYI –
see pg. 177 of the Plan. Suggest: When the
Implementation Plan references a section of the Plan, at
least give the page in the Plan where it will be found!
Otherwise you will find the implementer doing whatever
gets the job done fast! And, since all of Palos Verdes
Peninsula is a ‘High Fire Danger’ area, per the Agencies,
citizens should know what is the fire drill.
XLI. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 81.
F-89
90
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XXVIII. Pg. 30: 12.6: Reporting: 12.6.1: Preserve Habitat
Management Plan. “The PVPLC has developed an initial
PHMP for the Preserve.” State who approved it and
might mention the public hearing regarding its approval,
assuming there was one – which is very doubtful in
RPV.
XXIX. Pg. 33: 12.6.4: Annual Coordination Meeting: ‘The City
and PVPLC shall meet … once each year to review and
coordinate implementation of the NCCP/HCP … .” Add
that this will be a public meeting, not one held in
PVPLC offices with drawn curtains!
XXX. Pg. 35: 14.0: Funding: This has an excellent summary of
CITY obligations, both funding and services. Of
concern, due to past fires, is fuel modification. Owning
Preserve land, CITY is responsible for almost all fuel
modification with PVPLC responsible only for Lunada
Canyon. However, these are stated to be “in perpetuity”
but nothing is “in perpetuity.” Couldn’t we say these
will be reviewed at the end of the 40 – 50 year Plan
period?
XXXI. Pg. 35: 14.1: Management Budget Analysis: Number
conflict – I think. This paragraph states “Based on the
updated Preserve Management budget, the CITY and
PVPLC total cost of operating the Preserve is estimated
at $1,785,438.” But in the Appendix, section C, pg. C-
44, the number is “$1,305,669” for the Permit Term
period and “$1,291,209” for post Permit term. Budgets
are always fluid numbers and I note we are using an
algorithm from the Center for Natural Lands. Stating
that just muddies the budget waters – an item our
citizens will closely focus on, given it started at
$100,000 years ago. Suggest we use a line item budget /
expense worksheet and eliminate the mumbo-jumbo of
F-90
91
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
any algorithm. Worksheet budgets are understandable
and easily defended when necessary.
XXXII. Pg. 37: 14.3: Non-Wasting Endowment Fund. This title
will make little sense to the average reader. Suggest we
re-name it simply “Endowment Fund.”
XXXIII. Pg. 38: 14.4: Effect of Inadequate Funding: Suggest
rather than describe multiple ‘what ifs,” as found here,
we do what industry does – simply state “the budget will
be examined to determine cutbacks necessary to regain
balance.” That’s what will happen anyway.
XXXIV. Pg. 39: 15.0: Changed Circumstances: Cites Plan:
section 6.9.2 without any description of events believed
to constitute ‘Changed Circumstances.’ Suggest we list
6.9.2 items here: fire, flood, landslide, drought, invasive
species and add ‘Acts of God’ – the universal catchall
for unlisted events.
XXXV. Assuming this (Chief Justice Roberts opinion stated
prior) will be the stance of our new Supreme Court re
environmental items, that the Agencies can be found in
error, this paragraph re changing environmental law,
may be apropos here re habitat and endangered species
that don’t live there.
XXXVI. Pg. 3: 2.18: Rationale for RPV’s NCCP:: “The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes’ NCCP/HCP is the first to occur in
Los Angeles County … .” I’ve been asked many times
‘Why us? Why is no other Palos Verdes Peninsula town
as enthusiastic as RPV?’ The answer is in researching
the then-Council that pushed this forward some 10 years
ago. Fiercely loyal to RPV’s environmentalists voter
subset, that council found the NCCP a must document
even though all this effort applies to only 3 named
F-91
92
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
species, one which hasn’t been seen in RPV Preserve
since the mid-80’s (per the Agencies finding)!
XXXVII. Appendix ‘I’ (Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) pages are
numbered with ‘H,’ not ‘I;’ that is, ‘H-5” instead of ‘I-5’
Might change page numbering to ‘I’ to align with other
Appendices numbering. FYI: Appendix ‘ H’ is the initial
Preserved Habitat Management Plan.
XXXVIII. Appendix ‘H,’ Initial Preserve Habitat Management
Plan, is 181 pages, containing many detailed sections; I
suggest Appendix ‘H’ cover page be expanded to
provide the following Table of Contents listing these
(see attached letter).The assumption a reader must make
is that these remain valid and current, 12 and 13 years
after being written. Out-of-date reports can easily be
cited as meaningless to any discussion. Suggest we get
statements from DUDEK and PVPLC that their reports
included here remain valid. Overall: Many Appendix
entries / reports are dated years ago; obviously, since
they approving these, the Agencies have no problem
with dated information but … for some, challenging the
validity of this data is easy.
XXXIX. Lastly, ‘Final’ versions, might want to remove ‘Draft’
and use ‘Approved – date’ where apropos.
XL. Going out thought: Remove ‘private land owners’ from
this NCCP or reinstate their ability to ‘opt out.’ This
would remove many public concerns, eliminate some
14,000 private lots from needing enforcement and
provide better focus on Preserve lands. Just a thought.
XLI. My Public Comments / Questions from December 2018
(comments follow).
F-92
93
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
100 5/4/19 Pilot (1) I. In a recent series of articles called “Destined to Burn”, the
Palos Verdes Peninsula has been designated as a California
community with some of the worst evacuation routes – “The
Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County, densely
populated with some of the costliest real estate in the United
States, has even more people and fewer lanes leading out,
putting it at more than five times the population-to-lane ratio
as Paradise.”
(https://www.apnews.com/e856b9efef7b426a90fd175510cd5
4dd)
II. Today, I write to you regarding my concerns over the lack of
adequate evacuation routes out of Portuguese Bend, in
Rancho Palos Verdes, and how this is impacted by the
proposed NCCP/HCP. The private neighborhood of
Portuguese Bend yields just two access points, both on Palos
Verdes Drive South, and is home to many residents in
addition to a riding stable, a non-profit therapeutic horse
program, and numerous properties whose owners have horses
and other large animals on site.
III. The neighborhood of Portuguese Bend no longer has a
northern route of escape. As time has passed the route, a fire
road which runs from Vanderlip Drive north to Crenshaw
Blvd. near Del Cerro Park, has not been maintained. While
growing up I have watched many fire crews go through the
double panel chain-link gate on Vanderlip Drive, near a fire
hydrant, and travel up into the open fields to stage vehicles
and personnel to defend my neighborhood and our homes
from oncoming fires. The fire road, which consists of
portions of Gary’s Gulch Trail, Vanderlip Trail, and Burma
Road, was a great asset in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. This
fire road was consistently maintained so the large vehicles of
the various fire departments that come to our aide could
travel it.
I.-VI. See Master Response Nos. 21
and 22. Evacuation routes will be
considered during creation of the
Preserve Access Protocol.
F-93
94
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
IV. Now, when I go for hikes in the Portuguese Bend Reserve I
see this fire road has been reduced to just a trail – narrow in
so many parts, full of large ditches and divots, and in no
condition for a fire truck to drive on it to battle the blazes I
have seen cross those hills. Depending upon the oncoming
direction of a fire threat, many residents and visitors to the
riding facilities would not have an available exit with the
elimination of the fire road. As it stands, none of the streets
in Portuguese Bend allow for street parking as all streets are
designated as fire lanes – only allowing for two-way
traffic. Many of these streets are also cul-de-sacs –
providing a single direction for all on that street to travel in
the event of an evacuation. In some cases, that could mean
travelling into a fire in order to escape. I find this to be quite
troubling. Maintaining evacuation routes for rural
neighborhoods in our city is vital.
V. After reflecting on the recent wildfires, what is the harm in
maintaining a fire road through the preserve? Allows for an
evacuation route for Del Cerro area residents to flee down
the hill. Allows for an evacuation route for Portuguese Bend
resident to flee up the hill. Allows for better access for the
public with various disabilities to enjoy the preserve.
Provides easier access for the rangers who tend the preserve.
VI. Recommitting to the practice of a maintained fire road would
be of great value for our community. I urge you to strongly
consider reestablishing and maintaining the fire road in your
plans.
101 5/5/19 Pilot (2) I. Over the past 10+ years there has been a degradation of the
maintenance of fire breaks surrounding the neighborhoods
which abut the preserve. The proposed NCCP/HCP seems to
continue to create a larger threat to long standing
neighborhoods in Rancho Palos Verdes.
I.-VI. See Master Response No. 21.
F-94
95
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
II. Being raised in Portuguese Bend, I was instilled with a great
respect for fire. Growing up in a wildland-urban interface
will do that. I heard stories of how the 1973 fire destroyed
my family’s property and demolished our home. As a child,
I watched a fire started by a transformer in the canyon just
off Palos Verdes Drive South systemically devour the dead
weeds and brush around it. Then there are the fires that were
large enough and close enough I was packing up possessions
and pets to evacuate, and being told to lead our horses down
the hill. Most recently this was about 10 years ago.
III. Looking back, I remember every year a fire break
surrounding my neighborhood was disced. It was routine. It
was the process that reminded me fire season was
coming. This setback was maintained around Portuguese
Bend to protect it, to create a defensible space so fire crews
could operate, to remove the fuel the fire consumes. This
maintenance by discing was vital; eliminating seedlings from
acacia and other invasive species while knocking down the
prevalent black mustard which burns so easily.
IV. Please note the characteristics of black mustard from the US
Forest Service website, where it is listed in the category of
“Invasive plants and weeds of the national forests and
grasslands in the southwestern region” – Native to Eurasia;
black mustard seeds and foliage have a pungent taste. Black
mustard grows profusely and produces allelopathic chemicals
that prevent germination of native plants; in addition, the
seeds contain an alkaloid and the sinapina the glucoside
sinigrin. This species generally occurs as a weed in wildland
areas of the Southwestern Region rather than as an invasive
plant.” -
https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/invasives/yellowFo
rbs/blackMustard.shtml
F-95
96
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
V. Maintaining defensible space around the neighborhoods that
surround the preserve is vital. Going back to the previous
protocols is important to the residents in our
communities. There is a duty to protect these people, their
homes, and their property. Why was the previous protocol of
creating a disced setback from the neighborhoods
surrounding the preserve abandoned? What is the harm in
maintaining a setback for the neighborhoods which border
the preserve?
VI. Cal Fire states that the law now requires fuel modification to
be done to 100 feet or to the property line; while in high fire
hazard areas a 200 foot setback is suggested. This should be
the standard for the neighborhoods and roads surrounding the
preserve. Additionally, to add a fire break around all electric
poles and wire paths should be considered.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildl
and_codes
102 5/5/19 Pilot (3) I. Lt. Col Jack Downhill USAF (Ret.) who resided at #20
Vanderlip Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes followed the
protocol, paid the fees, and had an engineer submit a request
to the City to allow an exception to the moratorium so he
could apply for a lot split of his 6.94 acres and build homes
similar to what the 47 undeveloped lot owners are now being
allow to do. My understanding is there was never an answer
to his application. Is it true that his application was not
reviewed and responded to?
II. Over his almost 50 years of ownership, Lt. Col. Downhill
paid the ACLAD benefit assessment on his 6+ acres because
he would be able to build additional dwellings after a lot
split, yet to this day neither he nor his heirs have had that
ability authorized by the city. Horan settlement money from
a lawsuit against L.A. County and Rancho Palos Verdes, for
triggering the slide, paid for the sewer laterals placed on Lt.
I.-VII. Comments outside of the scope
of the NCCP/HCP. We
forwarded your comments to
the Community Development
Department.
F-96
97
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Col. Downhill’s investment property preparing for him to
sub-divide and build on his R-1 property. That has not yet
happened. He and others sacrificed to pay taxes and benefit
assessments with little or no return at this point. Why have
there been charges for future benefit if the benefit has not
come? When will that benefit come?
III. The lack of movement on Vanderlip Drive, in Zone 2, should
be considered evidence that the area of Lt. Col. Downhill’s
property is much more stable than many of the lots in Zone 2
where building permits have been issued and building has
commenced without issue.
IV. In retrospect, the situation of Lt. Col. Downhill seems
bewildering. What has the city leadership of Rancho Palos
Verdes been angling for over all this time? Was this process
a means to bend the truth and scheme to gain more property
for the future Preserve? Manipulate ordinances to gain more
Preserve properties and lessen property rights of residents?
V. Why take these property rights, some may argue
constitutional rights, from a war veteran whose flight crew
was the backup for the Normandy invasion in WWII? Lt.
Col. Downhill made this investment in his property to split it,
and it seems that in the turnover of the council over time the
split was not allowed. Some calculations estimate that value
may be $1.5 million per acre lot when split.
VI. It is not too late to grant Lt. Col. Jack Downhill’s children
the right to apply for an exception to the moratorium and
finish their father’s dream to split and develop their
property. In return they may agree to a very attractive
conservation easement for the Preserve.
VII. The PVPLC and RPV have raised millions of dollars in
donations and grants. In the long term the NCCP’s
collections will reach over one billion of dollars in donations,
F-97
98
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
grants, and fee collections from the City based on the
proposed NCCP/HCP. A lot of hard work has gone into the
Nature Preserve and is a true gift to all that use the Nature
Preserve. Please do ensure that the Preserve is a good
neighbor.
VIII. In closing, no subdivision of existing lots within Zone 2 was
designated in ‘Proposed Code Amendments to Exception “P”
of Title 15.20.040 (Landslide Moratorium Ordinance) of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code pertaining to Zone
2’. I ask, will you reconsider and allow the ability for
properties in Zone 2 to execute lots splits to no smaller than
one acre? Will you issue an exception to the moratorium?
103 5/5/19 Houston Keep your hands and laws off my private property!!! See Master Response Nos. 11-13.
104 5/5/19 Cicoria As I commented previously, I support final approval and adoption
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation
Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan for the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve. That said, I have a number of clean-up comments
as well as a few other comments/observations, regarding the
Implementing Agreement and the NCCP, for your consideration.
Implementing Agreement
I. Section 4.44: The language here refers to “access by utility
agencies and the CITY’s Public Works Department”,
whereas, in order to conform to the NCCP language in
Section 6.5.2, item 5, it should refer to “authorized vehicles”.
II. Section 8.3: This section refers to Other Covered Activities
as if it is a defined term, whereas it is only a heading in
NCCP Section 5.4. It’s particularly confusing, because public
use falls within Section 5.4 “Other Covered Activity”, but
does not fit the description in the intro to Section 5.4 nor the
description in Section 8.3, i.e., it is not conducted by the City
or public agency or utility. It is simply a “Covered
Implementing Agreement
I. Comment noted.
II. Comment noted. We will clarify
language.
III. See Master Response No. 7.
Losses of coastal sage scrub and
take have been documented since
the Planning Agreement was
signed in 1996. The City was
allocated allowable coastal sage
scrub losses and was issued
several section 4(d) interim
habitat loss permits. Since the
City began implementing the
NCCP/HCP, there has not been
authorized habitat losses or take
that has occurred under the
unpermitted NCCP/HCP. Once
permit decisions are made on the
F-98
99
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Activity”. Perhaps “Other” should be lower case—“other
Covered Activity”.
III. Section 17: It remains unclear to me how the past take (since
the date the draft NCCP was approved by the City and
parties have been operating as if it were in effect) is applied
and accounted for in these documents when the Permit term
has been modified from 50 years to 40 years. Somewhere in
this document, there should be a table showing cumulative
take to date.
IV. Section 17.4: The acceleration of restoration by PVPLC
beyond 5 acres per year may occur as donors contribute to
enhance the conservation values of the Preserve. That should
not enable early withdrawal by the City from the Plan and
yet I see nothing in the documentation to protect against that.
V. Section 23.1: Is the reference to “Permittee” in this section
more properly “City”?
VI. Section 23.8: In the notice provision, Chairman of the Board
should actually be “President of the Board”. It is correct in
the signature block.
NCCP
I. Section 4.2.2: Shoreline Park may be retained for historical
reference, but it has been wrapped into Ocean Trails Reserve.
II. Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.4: It’s not clear how landslide
abatement activities covered by these two sections will be
distinguishable in practice.
III. Section 5.2.8: The reference to a Public Use Management
Plan is an error; should be Public Use Master Plan.
IV. Section 5.2.8 and Section 5.4: It’s not clear how trails plan
implementation and trails management covered by these
sections will be distinguishable in practice.
NCCP/HCP, the City may
convey its take authority for
projects that result in incidental
take.
IV. Pursuant to Section 17.4 of the
Implementing Agreement, the
City, as the Permittee, may
unilaterally withdraw from the
NCCP/HCP provided it has
complied with all mitigation
obligations incurred under the
requirement of the NCCP/HCP
and associated permits. These
mitigation obligations can
include restoration by PVPLC
beyond the required 5 acres per
year.
V. Comment noted.
VI. Correction noted.
NCCP/HCP
I. Comment Noted.
II. Landslide abatement activities
described in Section 5.2.3 of the
NCCP/HCP are projects that
have associated allowable take.
The landslide abatement
activities in Section 5.4 of the
NCCP/HCP are activities that are
not expected to involve
permanent loss of habitat.
III. Typo noted.
F-99
100
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
V. Section 5.4: I find the paragraph describing Other Covered
Activities in this section to be more properly applied to
Section 5.4.1 activities. See comment for IA Section 8.3,
above.
VI. Section 5.4.1: Is the redundancy within the first and second
bullets and within the fourth and fifth bullet points
intentional? (Note the same redundancies appear in the IA at
Section 8.3.1.)
VII. Section 5.4.1: Why is bullet 7 relating to filming and
photography subject to a different condition than the other
bullets? Shouldn’t all of these activities both 1) avoid
impacts to Covered Species and 2) not involve loss of
Covered Species or habitat (otherwise, presumably, they
would fall under Section 5.2)?
VIII. Section 5.4.1: Regarding bullet 8 relating to law enforcement
activity, is there a requirement for restoration in the event
law enforcement activity results in lost habitat? Related,
recently a car went off the road into the Preserve. How will
restoration after such an incident be addressed?
IX. Section 5.4.2: Either at bullet 6, or at Section 9.2.4 regarding
signage, consider that signs within the Preserve should be
installed as close as practicable to the trail bed to avoid
greater than necessary habitat impacts during sign
maintenance (replacement, graffiti removal, clearing for
visibility, etc.).
X. Section 5.4.3: Based on our experience and routine practice
to date, I think we can anticipate other activities beyond
those identified as Preserve Management Covered Activities,
although the list may not be intended to be exhaustive. Here
are a few things to consider adding as separate list items or as
edits to existing listed items (many of which are done by
IV. Trail implementation activities in
Section 5.2.3 of the NCCP/HCP
are projects that have associated
allowable take. Trail
maintenance activities in Section
5.4 are activities that are not
expected to involve permanent
loss of habitat.
V. Comment noted.
VI. Correction noted.
VII. Correction noted.
VIII. The entity responsible for habitat
damage is responsible for its
repair/restoration.
IX. This practice will be required by
the PUMP and Habitat Impact
Avoidance Minimization
Measures defined in Section 5.5
of the NCCP/HCP.
X. Section 5.4.3 is not intended to
be an exhaustive list of allowable
activities.
XI. Commented noted.
XII. Typo noted.
XIII. Typo noted.
XIV. Comment noted.
XV. Comment noted.
F-100
101
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
PVPLC volunteers, of course with a view to
avoiding/minimizing impacts):
● Monitoring public use and misuse.
● Maintaining signage (e.g. cleaning it, repairing it,
clearing around it).
● Installing and maintaining barriers or access control
mechanisms.
● Trash removal, including retrieving litter from
habitat).
● Seed collection by PVPLC for propagation.
XI. Section 5.5: At item 8, consider adding an exception to the
last sentence of paragraph 12 in the case of government
shutdown.
XII. Section 8, Figure 8-2, p. 170: The table shows data through
2015 but is labelled “. . .-2013”.
XIII. Section 9.2.2.2: The heading should refer to the Public Use
Master Plan, rather than Management Plan.
XIV. Section 9.2.2.2: An awful lot of habitat can be taken under
the “substantial widening” criteria of Section 9.2.2.2 before
restoration is required—two feet over 3 miles of trail (10% of
roughly 30 miles).
XV. Section 9.3.1: Annual reports should not only include
information about the annual take, but a cumulative tally of
the take assessed against take allocations from the beginning
of the initial 50-year Plan term.
My comments are provided as a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes
and not in any other capacity or role.
F-101
102
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
105 5/5/19 Snell (7) I. FIGURE 4-15 Filiorum pg 76
What is the colored dot in the southeast lower corner near the
creek?
II. 4.6 pg 85 Habitat Restoration For fire safety, why not
remove all acacia first at least 1000’ away from Preserve
property lines especially abutting homes in Portuguese
Bend?
III. Brush Management is inadequate. www.fire.lacounty.gov
1). Embers from a wildfire can travel up to 1.5 miles.
2). California native plants were discouraged because they
are more flammable.
The Preserve needs more fire prevention within the
boundaries.
Why not continue the clearance of 8’ high mustard weeds
under power poles and lines so there is not a repeat of the last
bad fire in the Preserve? Is it better to mow non-native grass
now to save CSS from wildfires later? The 1973 fire burned
for 3 days.
IV. FIGURE 5-2 Locations of City Projects
Where are Projects 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19?
V. Will the Water Tank land locked property have continued
access through the Preserve? What the road called? What
map is it on? Where is that covered?
VI. What is “the life of this NCCP/HCP”?
VII. How can items be corrected or changed once the NCCP/HCP
is finalized?
VIII. 5.3.3 Fuel Modification for Private Projects throughout the
City.
Is the fee charged for brush clearance on Preserve property a
one-time fee or annual? Usually property owners are
responsible to provide brush clearance on their own property
I. The dot indicates native habitat.
II. See Master Response No. 21.
III. See Master Response No. 21
IV. Correction to map legend noted.
V. We were unable to identify the
area in question.
VI. See Master Response No. 28.
VII. The NCCP/HCP can be changed
through minor or major
amendments as described in
Sections 6.8.1 and 6.8.2 of the
NCCP/HCP.
VIII. See Master Response No. 21
IX. See Master Response No. 23
X. Quail are not a covered species
under the NCCP/HCP.
XI. It is not possible.
XII. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
F-102
103
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
if their neighbor’s house is within the required set-back. Has
that changed? Was the weed clearance determined prior to
the last fire season? Firefighting ideas have changed since
the bad fires during last fire season and more devastating
wildfires are expected.
IX. What are the plans for coyotes if a coyote bites a hiker?
X. Why doesn’t the City of RPV protect the California Quail
and other native birds from Coyotes? RPV could take the
money from their annual fund that pays for counting,
trapping and relocating Peafowl -to trapping Coyotes in areas
where the Quail are. Protecting the native birds from Coyotes
should have been addressed in the City of RPV NCCP/HCP
Plan.
XI. Is it possible to allow lots abutting a paved street in the
Preserve not considered abutting the
Preserve? Ie: Vanderlip Driveway.
XII. Why won’t the City remove the Open Space Preserve
designation from Vanderlip Driveway? Please understand
that giving it a Nature Preserve designation is most
threatening for those who use the driveway.
F-103
104
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
106 5/5/19 Snell (8) I. 5.2.1. Will the City identified project be limited to the main
branch of Altamira Canyon or include the East Fork? Where
and what is the project?
II. Does the City know that there is a well in the main branch of
Altamira Canyon alongside of the Vanderlip Estate that
Frank Vanderlip used for his water supply in the early
1900’s? Dewatering that well might produce more water
than all of the wells put together. The higher quality water
from the dewatering wells should no longer be piped to the
ocean but used locally.
III. Does the City know that the water entering the Altamira
Canyon at the top of the hill can be taken west and not be
dumped into the slide area only to have ACLAD have to pay
to pump the water out?
IV. 5.2.2. Dewatering Wells. Why does any CSS habitat have to
be disturbed when there are so many non-native grassland
opportunity’s to place Wells?
V. 5.2.3 Does “potentially subject to landslides” mean it
hasn’t moved in 200,000 years and is in ACLAD or is
moving in the PB landslide? If in ACLAD on stable land,
one should protect the gnatcatcher & dudleys by finding
another place for abatement measures.
VI. Neutral Lands Maps 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, etc. pg 43, 45, 47, 49.
Neutral Lands are “currently undevelopable land” How can a
developed property be called Neutral? #6, 10, & 20
Vanderlip Driveway were original homes dating back to the
1940’s that were built for the original developers. All three
properties with homes have had large numbers of
horses, riding rings, jumps, orchards and cactus farms which
fully developed the properties. Please remove the yellow
“Neutral” from all of the private developed property off of
Vanderlip Driveway.
I. The project is not defined at this
time.
II. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
III. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
IV. Dewatering wells are placed in
locations where they optimally
extract ground water. It is
possible that coastal sage scrub
may be impacted. Minimizations
measures will be implemented to
avoid impacts to CSS to extent
possible.
V. Section 5.2.3 of the NCCP/HCP
does not make reference to
“potentially subject to
landslides” but describes
landslide abatement measures.
VI. Neutral lands can be located on
developed or undeveloped lands.
However, neutral lands are that
portion of a lot that cannot be
developed per the City’s
Municipal Code and General
Plan because of extreme slopes
(35% or greater or an open space
hazard designation). The
NCCP/HCP identifies neutral
lands as providing added
biological function and value to
the Preserve. There are no
F-104
105
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
VII. What does “a point location” mean? neutral lands noted on the maps
directly off Vanderlip Drive.
VII. A point location means the
actual spatial location where data
is recorded for documented
species locals or a permanent
point where data can be
collected through time.
107 5/5/19 Day Just to let you know we really object to including private properties
in the NCCP. Overreach, for sure. Not necessary.
See Master Response Nos. 11-13.
108 5/5/19 Butler I object to private properties being included in the NCCP. See Master Response Nos. 11-13.
109 5/5/19 Snell (9) I. Does the City understand that when selling or refinancing
developed properties within 500’ of the Preserve, the 500’
abutment restrictions will have to be disclosed? Property
values will go down for those properties that abut the
Preserve.
II. Does the 17.4 acre Del Cerro Buffer Property protect any
private residences from the 500’ restrictions? Is the Del
Cerro Buffer in the Preserve? If not, what can the less
fortunate owners of properties abutting the Preserve do to get
a buffer too?
III. What specific restrictions will be in effect for
those developed properties within 500’ of Preserve?
IV. What fees are associated with items requiring approval for
those developed properties within 500’ of the Preserve?
I. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
II. The Del Cerro Buffer is part of
the Preserve. It is not a “buffer”
for residents’ homes.
III. See Master Response No. 16.
IV. Fees are dependent on the
specific permit requested as
established per City Council
resolution. Thus, a specific fee
cannot be identified as a
response to this comment
because it is unclear what
specific permit is being
considered.
F-105
106
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
V. If only one part of a developed lot is within 500’ of the
Preserve, does the other part of the developed lot further than
500’ fall under the restrictions also? If so, why? Where is
that explained?
VI. As a courtesy, were the home owners living within 500’ of
the Preserve notified by U.S. mail of the potential loss of use
and added burden of being next to the Preserve? If the
residences were not notified of the 500’ restrictions, why
not?
VII. Will the property owners with homes 500’ from the Preserve
be compensated for loss of use and/or having to comply with
additional burdens? If not, why not?
VIII. Since the Preserve is so spread out, why place an extra
burden on home owners who live within 500’ of
Preserve? Is this just a way to charge fees and regulate more
property to support the Preserve?
IX. It’s bad enough for me having about 1000’ of a shared
property line on an asphalt driveway with the Preserve
without the 500’ penalty. Can properties abutting the
Preserve boundary with a driveway be considered differently
since the abutting Preserve is asphalt?
X. Why not plant fire safe native plants and specific CSS next
to the Preserve boundaries that will buffer the Preserve
making the Preserve self-contained?
XI. Will it be legal for coyotes to be trapped on private property
located within 500’ of the Preserve?
XII. What can be done with the fire engines, paramedics, Sheriff,
RPV trucks, Land Conservancy trucks, California Bird vans
and many more vehicles that park on my private property to
access the Preserve?
V. See Master Response No. 16.
VI. The NCCP/HCP has been
noticed and reviewed at
numerous public meetings, the
most recent being the October
14, 2019, Quarterly Preserve
Public Forum and the Special
City Council Meeting held
October 29, 2019.
VII. See Master Response Nos. 16
and 17.
VIII. See Master Response Nos. 16
and 17.
IX. Properties abutting the Preserve
boundary are not considered
differently if improved as a
driveway with asphalt. New
projects abutting the Preserve
will be reviewed to ensure that
they avoid and minimize impacts
to covered species habitat. It is
not expected that many
landowners will have projects
that will impact the Preserve.
Please see Section 5.7 of the
NCCP/HCP for additional
details.
X. See Master Response No. 21.
Section 5.7 of the NCCP/HCP
describes measures to be
implemented for new
developments adjacent to the
F-106
107
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XIII. What is being done about the Homeless people living in the
Preserve who walk down the driveway to catch a bus at the
bottom of the hill? What can be done about gang members
who also come out of the Preserve? What can be done about
the Homeless living in the Preserve who shoplift in Peninsula
Center?
XIV. What is being done about the heavy trail use that caused a
wash out that flooded over the driveway during the rains?
XV. What is being done for those who live off of Crest and
Crenshaw having horrible traffic and parking congestion due
to Preserve vehicle traffic?
XVI. Please remove the 500’ restrictions on developed properties
as those who live next to the Preserve do not need more grief
than they already have. It is an unnecessary “taking” of
property rights. The Preserve should be self contained. Be
respectful of property rights of those whose properties abut
the Preserve and there will be more generous contributions.
Attachments
Preserve. These measures are
designed to limit impacts from
new developments on the
Preserve. Limits on trespass,
domestic animals, lighting,
invasive plants, and stormwater
are typical adjacent to Preserves
to allow the Preserves to support
the plants and wildlife they were
established to protect. Without
these measures, new
developments may cause
unanticipated impacts that the
Preserve Habitat Managers and
the City are not equipped to
address.
XI. See Master Response No. 23.
XII. Question outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP. See Master
Response No. 22.
XIII. Refer crime to the Lomita
Sheriff’s department.
XIV. Most trail damage caused by
recent storms was due to
unusually high volume of rain,
and trails lacking water control
measure (like grade dips and
water bars). The City coordinates
with PVPLC to install trail
improvements to improve
maintenance and condition of
trails.
F-107
108
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XV. The City is working directly with
the Del Cerro and Island View
HOAs to mitigate negative
impacts to their neighborhoods
stemming from public use of the
Preserve. This question is related
to impacts of public access in the
Preserve and is not directly
relevant to the NCCP/HCP as the
NCCP/HCP does not require
public access.
XVI. Comment noted. Please see
comments addressed above.
110 5/6/19 Birkey On behalf of York Point View Properties, LLC, attached are
comments on the Recirculated Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation
Plan and related documents.
Attachment
Comments noted. See Specific
Response to Comment No. 67
above.
111 5/6/19 Snell (10) 4.2.2 City-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (1,123) page 60
I. The 100 year old Vanderlip Driveway used by multiple
homes on the driveway should have been deeded back to the
homeowners when the City purchased 7572-001-903, but it
wasn’t.
II. Why can’t Vanderlip Driveway and stripes on Narcissa that
land-locks three homes on the east and two homes on the
west on Narcissa and about 25 homes off of Vanderlip
Driveway be kept as Single Family Residential and not
changed to Nature Preserve on the Maps? A private
driveway is not a Nature Preserve.
III. Why not record a permanent easement for the landowners
using Vanderlip Driveway and the two strips on Narcissa?
I. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
II. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
III. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
IV. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
V. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
VI. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
F-108
109
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
IV. Does the City understand that the homeowners may not be
able to refinance due to being land-locked by the Nature
Preserve designation?
V. Does the City understand that, when selling, the homeowner
must declare that the only ingress-egress is over Nature
Preserve land that has only had access protected in RPV’s
Municipal Codes that can be changed at any time? Potential
loss of value would be hundreds of thousands of dollars, if
not more.
VI. When did the City know they purchased the private driveway
for 25 homes? Was there any attempt to try to correct the
situation as the City has with other properties? Or did the
City wish to control the access?
VII. What Nature Preserve restrictions will be placed on
Vanderlip Driveway?
VIII. Will Vanderlip Driveway be “...in the Preserve to ensure it’s
conservation in perpetuity.”?
IX. Will the City allow those bordering the driveway to maintain
the historical Olmsted designed plantings: geraniums,
pittosporum undulatum and pepper trees currently on
Preserve property? Allow homeowners to use the irrigation
lines and pay for the water meter?
X. Will the City be paying their fair share to maintain the
asphalt driveway as the water department has to access the
fire road?
XI. Does the City have a copy of the Grant Deed for 7572-001-
903?
XII. Shouldn’t the easements for residences using Vanderlip
Driveway noted in the Grant Deed be covered in this Plan?
If not, why not?
VII. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
VIII. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
IX. See Master Response No. 16.
X. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
XI. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP. We forwarded
the comment to the Recreation
and Parks Department.
XII. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP.
XIII. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
XIV. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 82 (V).
F-109
110
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XIII. How can a private easement for 25 homeowners be changed
to Nature Preserve designation?
XIV. The ingress egress on Vanderlip Driveway needs to be
addressed and included in this Plan or the Plan will be
incomplete.
Please be a good neighbor.
Attachment
112 5/6/19 Snell (11) 5.7 Restrictions and Requirements for Projects/Activities Abutting
and Adjacent to the Preserve.
7.4 Non-Native Animal Species Management
I. All NCCP sections that protect endangered species that are
not in the Preserve should not come into force until the
specific endangered species are confirmed and verified in the
Preserve.
II. There is no need for residences to hire a biologist to check
for and control Cowbirds in new horse caring facilities
because there are no gnatcatchers. There should be no
Cowbird Trapping.
III. To control feral cat populations, have the cats trapped,
neutered and returned.
IV. Create a Preserve that is self contained so it won’t be taking
away private property rights of those within 500’ of the
Preserve.
“Owned or regulated by the community as a whole” = Socialism.
Be a good neighbor. Don’t take property rights.
I. Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly have
not be found recently in the Plan
Area; however, this species was
historically observed in the Agua
Amarga Canyon, the Filiorum
parcel, Portuguese Bend, the
Forrestal Parcel, the
Switchbacks, and neutral Lands
near Trump National/Ocean
Trail HCP. The species
historically occupied lands
within the City. The City and
NCCP/HCP Working group
decided to cover this species
under the NCCP/HCP. The
Preserve may be able to support
this species again and aid in its
recovery; therefore, the species
was addressed in the
NCCP/HCP.
II. Coastal California gnatcatchers
persist within the NCCP/HCP
plan area, and recent
documentation exists in the
2013-2015 Preserve
F-110
111
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
Comprehensive Report available
on the City’s webpage.
III. Comment outside scope of
NCCP/HCP.
IV. Section 5.7 of the NCCP/HCP
describes measures to be
implemented for new
developments adjacent to the
Preserve. These measures are
designed to limit impacts from
new developments (associated
structures) on the Preserve.
Limits on trespass, domestic
animals, lighting, invasive
plants, and stormwater are
typical adjacent to Preserves to
allow the Preserves to support
the plants and wildlife they were
established to protect. Without
these measures, new
developments may cause
unanticipated impacts that the
Preserve Habitat Manager and
the City are not equipped to
address.
113 5/6/19 Snell (12) 1.0 Introduction.
I. “A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) must
identify and provide for the regional or area-wide protection
and management of natural wildlife diversity while allowing
for compatible and appropriate development and growth.
I. and II. Comment noted.
III. Comment outside of the scope of
the NCCP/HCP. Comment
forwarded to the Community
Development Department.
IV. See Master Response Nos. 11-
13.
F-111
112
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
II. The NCCP Act is intended to promote cooperation and
coordination among public agencies, landowners, and other
interested organizations or individuals.”
III. With the City not allowing lot splits off of Vanderlip
Driveway in Zone 2 when 40 lots on less stable land are able
to build, the City is not adhering to the NCCP Act. The City
needs to be a good neighbor or not participate in an NCCP.
IV. I am for a “self-contained” Preserve with very limited killing
of any animals. NCCP should not be City wide. No private
property owners should have their property rights taken or be
burdened with regulations due to the Preserve.
V. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes must maintain
control of the Preserve.
V. Comment noted.
114 5/6/19 Snell (13) Please confirm if the PVP Watch Newsletter is correct:
I. No Blue butterfly’s
II. 2No Gnatcatcher’s (may soon be removed from endangered
species list?)
III. 3Why no recent documentation of Gnatcatcher’s?
IV. 4Why is there a Preserve when the reasons for the Preserve
don’t exist?
V. 5Is the entire city in the NCCP area? Please explain.
VI. How can the homeowner who is dissatisfied with the
management of the Preserve change anything? Now we can
vote out the City Council.
I. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 112 (I).
II. See Specific Response to
Comment No. 112 (II).
III. See Specific Response to
Comment II. above.
IV. See Master Response No. 3.
V. See Master Response Nos. 3 and
9.
VI. A homeowner dissatisfied with
the management of the Preserve
should reach out to the City’s
Recreation and Parks
Department at trails@rpvca.gov,
or may escalate the concern to
the City Council.
F-112
113
Quote
PVP Watch Newsletter – May – 3 - 2019
Section 1 – Purpose and Need
Section 1.1 - Introduction; the proposed NCCP planning area
encompasses the 13.6 square mile coastal city of Rancho Palos
Verdes. Inclusion will include the endangeredPalos Verdes blue
butterfly, the endangered El Segundo blue butterfly and
the endangered coastal California gnatcatcher. In addition to the
three listed species, the Draft NCCP addresses the conservation of
seven additional species, six plant species and one bird species that
are not currently listed as endangered.
Under the proposed action, the PVPLC (Palos Verdes Peninsula
Land Conservancy) would act as Preserve Habitat Manager for the
City.
Section 1.2 - Purpose and Need for Federal Action; Listed species
present or historically present within the City include the federally
endangered El Segundo Blue Butterfly, the federally endangered
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly and the federally threatened coastal
California gnatcatcher.
This section continues with “although the PV Butterfly is not
currently known to be present within RPV, there is designated
critical habitat for the Blue Butterfly should it return.”
The population of threatened coast al California gnatcatchers that
occur in RPV and in other within the Peninsula is considered
isolated from the reminder of the United States population.
Section 1.4 – Developing the NCCP/HCP; The NCCP sub region
includes the entire Peninsula, however, only RPV has entered into
an NCCP/HCP planning document. RPV residents should be
concerned…….
Editor: We recognize that targeting of the NCCP is narrow but the
amount of information at 885 pages is overwhelming thus the need
to target critical NCCP issues confronting RPV residents.
F-113
114
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
The NCCP includes ALL RPV properties, in the NCCP. Also, the
fact that RPV gives NCCP control to the PVPLC for 40 years. The
10 year history of Preserve management by the PVPLC, so far,
clearly demonstrates that the PVPLC does what it desires without
input of RPV resident or RPV City Hall. There is no logical reason
why RPV City Hall is including private properties in the NCCP.
This is but another attempt of City Hall attempting governmental
control of private properties. There is already excessive control of
private properties by City Hall.
The NCCP almost ignores that there are NO Blue Butterflies and no
findings of gnatcatchers in the RPV area as well... What is not being
reported is that there are an abundance of gnatcatchers in the
Huntington Beach / Orange County area as well as further South
and into Mexico. There has been NO recent documentation of
gnatcatchers in RPV. Residents are also not being told that there is a
pending lawsuit that removes gnatcatchers from the Endangered
Species list. If there are no Blue Butterflies or gnatcatchers a bigger
question becomes why is there a Preserve when the reasons for
the preserve don’t exist?
End quote.
Attachment
115 5/7/19 Snell (14) Largest fire on the Peninsula in history. The pink burn area is very
close to the NCCP area! Additional clearance within the Preserve is
needed. LA County can maintain the fire roads and make fire
breaks as they are doing throughout Los Angeles.
Attachment
See Master Response No. 21.
116 5/7/19 Wold It is alarming, as private homeowners in the city of Rancho Palos
Verdes, to learn that we are being included, without our permission,
of your control of our property in the NCCP.
We purchased our land, built our home, pay all taxes on it and
maintain our property.
See Master Response Nos. 11-13.
F-114
115
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
We make decisions on our PRIVATE home and land. Not you.
It’s decisions like these which are eroding our support of PVPLC.
117 5/7/19 Ilsen This is to inform you that I am vehemently oppose inclusion of any
private property under the National Community Conservation
Plan.
Rancho Palos Verdes exists as a perfectly happy and very attractive
community without additional 850 pages of regulations and a new
team of parasitic snoops to enforce them.
I think that there is already more than enough various self-
appointed do-gooders that are happy to intrude on my privacy for
their feeling of accomplishment and entertainment.
I will make an effort to find out who are the busy bodies promoting
this harassment scheme and will do my best to defeat them in the
nearest election.
See Master Response Nos. 11-13.
118 5/9/19 DeLong I. The following comments were posted in the PVP Watch
newsletter (www.pvpwatch.com / Newsletters page) posted
5-3-2019
II. The NCCP (National Community Conservation Plan) has
returned and is now 885 Total Pages broken into Section 1 1
Draft Implementation Agreement (132 pgs.), Section 2 Draft
Final NCCP (199 pgs), Appendix (463 pgs) and Draft
Environmental Assessment (91 pgs).
III. RPV residents should recall that the proposed NCCP was
available for review during the recent Holiday Season and
the comment period ended December 31, 2018.
IV. The NCCP has been updated with a reported 885 “red Line”
pages including staff / Council changes made since March,
2018.
III. The NCCP/HCP was also
recirculated for public comment
for an additional 30 days.
VI. See Master Response No. 6.
Including non-listed species in a
NCCP/HCP can avoid the
requirement of a new HCP and
permit application or
burdensome amendments to the
HCP in the event that a species
becomes listed prior to
completion of the permit term.
The NCCP/HCP Working Group
and the City chose to include the
cactus wren as a protected
species in its NCCP/HCP in
anticipation that it is likely that it
F-115
116
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
V. The following comments are from Section 1 – Purpose and
Need
VI. Section 1.1 – Introduction; the proposed NCCP planning area
encompasses the 13.6 square mile coastal city of Rancho
Palos Verdes. Inclusion will include the endangered Palos
Verdes blue butterfly (no longer found in RPV), the
endangered El Segundo blue butterfly and threatened coastal
California gnatcatcher. In addition to the three listed species,
the Draft NCCP addresses the conservation of seven
additional species, six plant species and one bird species that
are not currently listed by any Federal Agency as endangered
VII. Under the proposed action, the PVPLC (Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy) would act as Preserve Habitat
Manager for the City.
VIII. Section 1.2 – Purpose and Need for Federal Action; Listed
species present or historically present within the City include
the federally endangered El Segundo Blue Butterfly, the
federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly and the
federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher.
IX. This section continues with “although the PV Butterfly is not
currently known to be present within RPV, there is
designated critical habitat for the Blue Butterfly should it
return.
X. Section 1.4 – Developing the NCCP/HCP; The NCCP sub
region includes the entire Peninsula, however, only RPV has
entered into an NCCP/HCP planning document. RPV
residents should be concerned……
XI. Editor: We recognize that targeting of the NCCP is narrow
but the amount of information at 885 pages is overwhelming
thus the need to target critical NCCP issues confronting RPV
residents.
will be listed at some time over
the span of its 40 year permit
term. Thus, by including the
cactus wren, the City’s
NCCP/HCP is covered and there
is no need to obtain additional
permits from the Wildlife
Agencies. The conservation
measures will also support the
CEQA process for projects.
X. See Master Response Nos. 4 and
11-13.
XI. Comment noted.
XII. See Master Response Nos. 24,
26, 27, and 11-13. We do not
believe that the NCCP/HCP
encumbers property rights.
XIII: Annual surveys confirm that
coastal California gnatcatchers
persist within the Preserve. The
most recent survey was part of
the 2013-2015 Comprehensive
Management and Monitoring
Report which is available on the
City’s website.
F-116
117
No. DATE COMMENTOR COMMENT RESPONSE
XII. The NCCP includes ALL RPV properties, in the NCCP.
Also, the fact that RPV gives NCCP control to the PVPLC
for 40 years. The 10 year history of Preserve management by
the PVPLC, so far, clearly demonstrates that the PVPLC
does what it desires without input of RPV residents or RPV
City Hall. There is no logical reason why RPV City Hall is
including private properties in the NCCP. This is but another
effort of City Hall attempting governmental control of
private properties. There is already excessive control of
private properties by City Hall.
XIII. The NCCP almost ignores that there are NO Blue Butterflies
and no recent no findings of gnatcatchers in the RPV area as
well. What is not being reported is that there are an
abundance of gnatcatchers in the Huntington Beach / Orange
County area as well as further South and into Mexico. There
has been NO recent documentation of gnatcatchers in RPV.
Residents are also not being told that there is a pending
lawsuit that removes gnatcatchers from the Endangered
Species list. If there are no Palos Verdes Blue Butterflies or
gnatcatchers a bigger question becomes why is there a
Preserve when the reasons for the preserve don’t exist?
XIV. PVP Watch urges ALL RPV residents to make your
opposition to the NCCP including all private properties in
RPV known to RPV City Hall.
1- A brief message to the RPV Council (cc@rpvca.org)
stating that you object to including private properties
in the NCCP will suffice.
2- Suggest sending an Email copy to
fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Include “City of RPV
NCCP/HCP” in the subject line.
F-117
Compliments of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail Project 2/19/2013
Yellow:
Gold:
Blue:
Pink:
The Peninsula Wheel Trails Network
The Palos Verdes Loop Trail (The Rim)
The Top of the Hill Loop Trail (The Hub)
The Spokes (Numbered clockwise, #1 is Crenshaw Tunnel to top of Westfield)
The California Coastal Trail (Oregon to Mexico)
F-118
This is a concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and
assign to a master plan application, a minimal, ultimate objective and avoid repeated
environmental impact studies, reports etc. prior to when funding becomes available
for actual Engineering, improvement or repair of a trail.
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4. 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging .
TYPE GRADE PRISM** TREAD***
Average Maximum Distance+ Vertical Horizontal Minimum Width
1 3% 5% 30 ' 12' 8' 5'
2 5% 10% 100' 15' 12' 8'
3 5% 15% 100' 15' 10' 8'
4 10% 15%++ 100' 12' 8' 6 '
5 10% 18%++ 100' 12' 6' 4 '
6 10% 20%++ 100' 12' 5' 3 '
7 15% 20%++ 100' 12' 4 ' 2 '
These "guidelines" are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi-use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another.+++ For instance:
TYPE 1 -Wheelchairs. (ADA compliant.)
TYPE 2-Large emergency vehicles. (Fire Department compliant.)
TYPE 3-Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
emergency vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 -Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 -Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6-Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7-Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Note: Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones
should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism". Any hardscape (such as a
driveway) that crosses a trail tread should have an anti-skid surface. Vertical
obstructions (such as curbs and water bars) should be no more than six inches high .
Access to ADA compliant alternate routes should be provided.
* A criterion is a standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
** A trail "prism" is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread. Nothing
higher than six (6) inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2) linear
feet along the trail. The trail tread need not be centered in the prism particularly
for "line of sight", big old tree, and/or "safety triangle" considerations.
*** The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side with
water drainage considerations.
+ There should be a level distance of at least eight (8) feet or a level turnout
before and after any instance where the trail tread reaches the maximum
grade for the maximum distance.
++ Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination,
it must meet the average for the trail TYPE. (User expectation signage.)
+++ A "destination" is a trailhead, vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE
can change without leaving someone stuck and having to backtrack,
unintentionally. Identify them with GPS waypoints.
A-1-L F-119
Compliments of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail Project 2/19/2013
• • ••• Trail enhancements to be "avoided" per the 2018 draft NCCP
The Peninsula Wheel Traits Network
Yellow: The Palos Verdes Loop Trail (The Rim)
Gold: The Top of the Hill Loop Trail (The Hub)
Blue : The Spokes (Numbered clockwise, # is Crenshaw Tunnel to top of Westfield)
Pink: The California Coastal Trail (Oregon to Mexico)
F-120
December 26,2018
Dear Sirs/Mesdames,
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen's Association cherishes the open space and recreational
opportunities that the Preserve affords us, especially the ability to ride our horses within the Preserve.
We are writing this letter to express our concerns about some of the provisions in the Draft Rancho Palos
Verdes NCCP, as follows.
I . The notion that use of the Preserve for passive recreation is "conditionally approved" is
concerning . Inappropriate use should , of course , not be allowed , but characterizing passive
recreational use as "conditionally approved " suggests an overarching belief that the importance of
preserving the habitat supplants the rights of the public to use the Preserve for which many
private donations were made so this open space could be acquired , used and enjoyed by the
public .
2. Limiting the width of any new trails to 5 feet, or precluding the widening of existing trails, is
problematic in that narrow trails are not appropriate for multi-use and , unfortunately, the
competing interests of b icycli s ts has resulted in m any ex istin g trail s being designated as multi-use
w he n they do not meet sta nda rds for multi-use safety. A mu lt i-use trail needs to be wide enough
to accommodate hikers, horses and bikes, and the grade of the trail , as well as visibility/lines of
sight are critical components to be determined before designating a t rail multi-use. We suggest
that the NCCP be modified to allow for wider new trails , widening (as necessary) of existing
multi-use trails to enhance safety; otherwise call for the reduction in the number of trails that are
now designated multi-use.
3. We are concerned about the provisions of the NCCP that contemplate closure of trails during
breeding season. As it is, there are far fewer trails in the Preserve than existed on the land before
the Preserve was created, and the reduction in the number of approved trails has been such that
we do not believe seasonal closures are warranted under any circumstances other than following
rain.
4. The keeping of horses on property zoned for horse keeping (the Q Overlay Zone) should not be at
risk of being curtailed because a property is within 500 feet of the Preserve. The need for
monitoring for cowbirds which have not been shown in the NCCP to be an issue anywhere on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula where horses are kept in large numbers , much less in the Preserve, and
seems utterly unnecessary and overly burdensome to private horse property owners . Furthermore ,
if the City and/or PVPLC wants to provide , at their expense and not that of the property owner,
for such monitoring and implementation of any mitigation meas ures resulting from a finding of
presence of cowbirds in the Preserve, it needs to be clear in the NCCP that any mitigation
measures will not include deprivation of the right to keep the horse(s).
Thank you for considering these comments as you review the NCCP for final approval.
Respectfully submitted ,
F-121
COX CASTLE
NICHOLSON
December 27,2018
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Karen Goebel
Attn: City of RPV NCCP/IICP
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk A venue, Suite 2 50
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Rc: City of'RPV NCCI>!IICP
Dear Ms. Goebel :
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Scull B. Birkey
415 262 .5162
sbirkc~Nt coxcastlc .com
File No OXO'H2
On behalf of our client York Point View Properties, LLC (" Y m~k"), we submit the
following comments on the Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community
Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan ("Draft NCCP/HCP") and the Draft
Environmental Assessment ("Draft EA") for the Draft NCCP/HCP proposed for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California ("City").
Although York supports an NCCP/HCP in concept, the Draft NCCP/liCP and the
Draft EA include a number of legal deficiencies, ambiguities, and other defects that arc
concerning. One of the most egregious example of such a defect is the completely unsupported
and legally improper requirement that "if any type of development project" is approved on
certain lands owned by York, then York "will be required to dedicate a minimum of40 acres·· of
those lands to the Preserve managed pursuant to the Draft NCCP/JICP. This requirement should
be eliminated from the Draft NCCP/HCP. If the City or the resource agencies want such a
dedication on the Property, which dedication would be in excess of the typical mitigation
requirements set forth for development elsewhere covered under the Draft NCCP/IICP, then the
government must pay the requisite fair market value for the land in compensation to York.
BACKGROUND
York is the owner of the Lower Fi liorum property ('"P_r:Qpj;rty") idcnti fied in the
Draf1 NCCP/IICP. York acquired the Property in approximately 1994. At that time, the
Property was undeveloped except for a kitchen (cook shack) and bathroom structure, built in
1961 and comprising approximately 400 square feet. This structure was accessed by a dirt road
extending from Narcissa Drive within the adjacent, private Portuguese Bend community. i\
portion of the Property is located in the City's Landslide Moratorium area, which has been in
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange ··ountY.I , an P nlll c i ~co
J\-(,1-F-122
Karen G oebel
D ec ember 27,2018
Pa ge 2
place since approximately 1972, even though there has been no documented active landslide on
the Property.
ln or about 2004, York submitted an application to the City for a proposal to
develop the Property as a residential planned community containing 84 single-family residences
and related community amenities and a cohesive landscape design concept. York submitted to
the City a Landslide Moratorium Exclusion Request supported by extensive geotechnical
investigations confirming that the proposed development would not aggravate or make worse
any existing landslide conditions. The City did not approve the Landslide Moratorium Fxclusion
Request, and York withdrew its application for this development proposal on that basis.
One element of that proposal was the setting aside o1'40 acres orland within the
project area, which would have allowed development on the remaining 54 acres of the Properly
Those set-aside acreages were calculated based on the potential impacts of the Property to
coastal sage scrub habitat and non-native grasslands. Although no NCCP or HCP had been
adopted, impacts related to that proposal would have been mitigated based on conceptual
mitigation ratios applied to the loss of 7.3 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and 59.0 acres of
non-native grasslands. The resulting mitigation would have been the dedication of 40 acres
onsite and some ofTsite mitigation, leaving approximately 54 acres of developable land on the
balance of the Property.
In 2012 , York submitted a new application to the City Cor a proposal to allow up
to 25.5 acres of agricultural uses , the hosting of special events and motion picture filming, and
the installation of circulation improvements, including a paved and landscaped access driveway .
The City's staff report recommending approval of this proposal stated that "the subject property
is not part of the City's NCCP Preserve, but the City's NCCP document docs identify
development of the subject property as a project covered by the City's NCCP." The staff report
further noted: "The NCCP document approved by the City in 2004 identities coverage for a
residential development project proposed in 2004 that was expected to result in a loss of 7.3
acres of[ coastal sage scrub habitatl and 59 acres of non-native grassland. l'hcse losses or habitat
would be mitigated by the project proponent dedicating 40, on-site, acres to the City's Preserve.''
However, as noted above York withdrew its application for a "residential development project"
and abandoned that 2004 proposal. The City's own actions demonstrate that , in the absence of a
proposal resulting in the requisite habitat loss, a 40-acre dedication requirement a s mitigation for
an unspecified deve lopment proposal is not a ppropriate or prolitable.
On January 8, 2013, the City's Planning Commission approved the application for
the 2012 proposal, and as mitigation for that development, the City required payment or
mitigation fees in the amount ot· $97,800 to account for the removal of non-native grasses and
installation of up to 25 .5 acres of agricultural uses related to the 2012 proposal. Notably, the
City's staff report for the 2012 proposal stated that "no mitigation in the t<mn orland dcdicatiun
or habitat restoration is required as there is no m:xus f()r such dedication or restoration .. , i\s
F-123
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 3
such, no mitigation in the form of land dedication or habitat restoration was required for thl' 2012
proposal.
As ofthc date of this letter, the special event hosting facilities and some of the
agricultural uses related to the 2012 proposal have been installed on the Propl:rty, and all
required mitigation fees have been paid. York continues to explore other development
opportunities on the Property, including possible residential uses where authorized by the City's
General Plan and zoning. Recently, York submitted applications to the City Planning
Department for residential development on the Property, including a 3 7 -lot subdivision for
single-family homes.
LEGAL DEHCIENCIES IN 'l"IIH DRAFTNCCP/l/CP
In concept, an NCCP/HCP to guide environmentally responsible development
may make some sense on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. However, as currently drafted, the Draft
NCCP/HCP contains a number of legal deficiencies and other defects that make it untenable for
private landowners--and, ti·ankly, for York in particular, in light of the Dratt NCCP/IICP's
onerous land dedication requirement for any development on York's Property. The !)raft
NCCP/IICP suffers rrom a number ol'legal deCects under the state's Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act and the fCdcrall~ndangcrcd Species Act and should be revised and
recirculated Cor public review and comment. Because of these legal derects, the Draft r·:A is also
inadequate and should be revised and recirculated.
First, this dedication requirement grossly exceeds the burdens that may be
imposed to minimize and mitigate the impacts or incidental take. Section 10 or 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. § 153l)(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 or the takc where to do more would
not be practicable." (National Wildlife Fed'n v Norton, 306 F. SLtpp. 2d 920, lJ28-929 (L .D . Cal.
2004).) Requiring York to dedicate a portion of its land in exchange for the right to develop
without any metric or based upon any principled rationale is excessive and far beyond Section
I O's practicability requirement. Any mitigation requirement for impacts from development on
this land should be grounded in applicable mitigation ratios based on vegetation community,
rather than some arbitrarily established bright-line requirement untcthered fi·om the law, science.
or reason. This is not a case in which the agencies can simply assume a "one-size-fits-all"
approach to mitigation.
Second, 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 York. This requirement effectively burdens the 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
F-124
Karen Goebel
December 27. 2018
Page 4
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 aprlicant" take steps
to minimize its own take).)
Moreover, case law indicates that mitigation imposed under Section I 0 is
constrained by basic principles of proportionality . 'Tf]he statutory language I of Section 101
does not suggest that an applicant must ever do more than mitigate the effect of its take or
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 Endangcn.:d
Species Act, "[TJo 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 Cal~fi:Jrnia Dep 't o/Fore.11ry & Vire
Protection , 44 Cal. 4lh 459,511 (2008).)
These same principles apply to Natural Community Conservation Plans under thl:
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 York to dedicate
land tor a wildlife corridor that is effectively intended to offset the entire Preserve system, the
Draft NCCP/1-ICP would improperly require York to shoulder burdens and offset impacts caused
by other property owners.
1'/tird, the Draft NCCP /I ICP fails to analyze or even describe the impacts
associated with development on the 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)(i)), and it is inconsistent with the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act, which requires that an NCCP must identify "the impacts of permitted activities'·
on Covered Species (Cal. Fish & Game Code§ 2820(a)(6)). Without an analysis of that
development or the impacts that will likely result from any take associated with that
development, the Draft NCCP/HCP cannot in good faith identify land dedication or any other
kind of mitigation to offset those impacts because any such impacts are at thi s time unknown and
speculative. That analysis of impacts cannot be deferred to some future time . (See , e.g,
Southwest Centerfor 13iological Diversity v Bartel, 470 r:. 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 rcrrnit).)
Fourllt , the Drafl NCCP/HCP will result in an unconstitutional taking of the
Property. The lJ nitcd 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 ofTiRard, 512 U.S.
374 ,391 (1994).) As structured , the NCCPIIICP fails on both accounts.
F-125
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 5
As discussed above, the Draft NCCP/HCP requires that "any type of development
... approved on the Lower filiorum property" be conditioned on York dedicating 40 acres of
land lo the City. By its express language, this would include development even within areas that
arc subject to prior approvals, that have been substantially disturbed or altered, and for which
mitigation fees have already been paid. The Draft 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
development. The City and the resource agencies appear 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 Draft NCCPIHCP is fatally defective.
In addition, applying the Drati NCCP/HCP to the Property will result in a total
taking of the land. (See, e.g, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 li.S. 1003, I 016
(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 2004 project. In response to City direction, York redesigned thc
Project to remain outside of the Landslide Moratorium area. However, such development would
require additions! 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
outside ofbolh the Landslide Moratorium area and the Draft NCCP/I-ICP dedication area would
require substantial grading and related development work within the boundaries of such areas
with the net d'fect that future development would be completely predudc~d.
Fi{tll, the Property is being treated ditTcrently and unfairly under the Dralt
NCCP/HCP as compared to other similarly situated private properties. for example, section
5.3.2 states in part: "For the Private Projects to be covered under the City's Plan, vegetation
removal shall be offset by the project applicant paying a Mitigation Fee into the City's I Iabitat
Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native grasslands r I occurring in areas
greater than 0.3 acres." No such mitigation calculation is available for the Property under the
Draft NCCP/HCP.
Notably, York objected to the disparate treatment of its Property. The agenda
package for the March 29,2018 meeting ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
includes a letter from York's legal counsel summarizing the development history of the Properly,
asserting that the 40-acre dedication requirement as written was unlawful, and requesting that the
City defer approval of the Dralt NCCP/HCP to address these concerns. At the conclusion ofthc
hearing, the City Council nonetheless voted to approve the Draft NCCP/HCP as written, which
included the 40-aere dedication requirement. York has never consented to, and instead has
expressly opposed. this requirement.
F-126
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 6
COMMENB' ON TilE DRAFTNCCP/IJCP
• The changes in the Draft NCCP/1-ICP ti·om 2004 to 2018 were not properly and
adequately evaluated. One notable example ofthis is the fact that the 2004 version ol'
the Draft NCCP/HCP did not provide a specitlc location lor the 40-acre dedication or
reserve corridor contemplated for the Property. By contrast, section 5.3 .1 of the 20 1 R
version of the Draft NCCP/HCP specifically provides that a wildlife corridor be
located on the southern edge of the Property ''connecting" to the Abalone Cove
portion of the Preserve, within the propc1iy boundaries depicted in the 2018 version
ofthe Draft NCCP/HCP. This description in section 5.3.1 alluding to "connectivity"
fails to account tor the existence of Palos Verdes Drive South, a major thoroughfare
which appears to be an about 1 00-foot wide, divided, and heavily traveled paved
roadway, separating the Property from the Abalone Cove portion of the Preserve.
The Draft NCCP/1 ICP otTers no rationale for why a major, heavily traveled roaJ
somehow promotes, rather than severs, the desired habitat connectivity. Moreover.
the Draft NCCP/I lCP never explains why maintaining basic agricultural uses on part
of the Property, which were already approved and fully mitigated pursuant to the
prior proposal on the Property, would sever "connectivity." Presumably, if the
Covered Species identified in the Draft NCCP/HCP can somehow co-exist with and
cross Palos Verdes Drive South, they can also co-exist with and cross the agricultural
and other landscaped uses elsewhere on the Property.
• The Portuguese Rend Nature Preserve is a major fire hazard. There is a history of
major rircs in this area. Dry coastal sage scrub and dead and dying acacia and pine
trees in this area make the situation worse.
• There is no provision for l'unding to acquire private property. Moreover, the Dratl
NCCP/HCP provides almost no description of funding sources for the City's
implementation of the Draft NCCP/HCP. The NCCP/IICP simply states that it relies
on "dedicated funding sources" (p. 161 ), but it provides no detailed description of
those sources or how reliable those sources may be during the duration of the
NCCP/HCP "permit" or the "associated perpetual management of the Preserve .'' This
is insufficient in light of the USFWS's own guidance in its Habitat Conservation
Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (2016) that "funding
amounts and sources in an HCP are adequate, sufticient, reliable and will meet the
purposes of the conservation strategy .... " The Draft NCCP/1-ICP t~tils to address
where the agencies anticipate getting these funds and the reliability of any such runds
in the near term and in perpetuity for preserve management. If the USFWS and the
CDFW are unable to address these funding assurances requirements, then they will be
unable to make findings regarding adequate funding requir~;;ments for the
NCCP/HCP.
F-127
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 7
• The Draft NCCP/HCP defers discussion of the public access to the Preserve to the
Public Use Master Plan, or "PUMP". (p. 101) The Draft NCCP/IICP explains that
the PUMP has somehow been incorporated into the Plan, but the Draft NCCP/1 lCP
provides no summary or even conceptual description of proposed public access to the
Preserve. The public needs to be provided better access to trails and to the Preserve.
but without a discussion of those needs and potential means of access in th~.? Draft
NCCP/HCP, it is unclear whether the NCCP/HCP has adequately accounted for the
public access to the trails and to the Preserve.
• The Draft NCCP/HCP's preserve system runs roughshod over private property rights .
For some properties, there is no "rough proportionality" between impacts and
mitigation required under the Draft NCCP/llCP. One glaring example of this is the
Lower Filiorum Parcel, a property which is burdened by the Drall NCCP/IlCP vvith
giving away 40 acres to the Draft NCCP/f ICP's preserve system regardless of' the
impacts that may be caused by any development on that property. Particularly
egregious is the fact that the Draft NCCP/I ICP itself acknowledges that the dedication
of this land is not even ''necessary for the" Draft NCCP/HCP or the preserve cwatcd
by the Drafl NCCP/1 ICP. (pp. 51 & 61) Regardless of the necessity of the
dedication, a categorical 40-acre dedication requirement, without any grounding in
actual science or project impacts, makes little sense when a more tailored-made and
sliding-scale mitigation approach is possible, such as, for example, a 2:1 mitigation
ratio for impacts to coastal sage scrub and a 0. 5: 1 mitigation ratio for impacts to non-
native grassland.
• The Draft NCCPIHCP is inconsistent with the California Legislature's fundamental
policies underlying the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act that seck to
strike a balance between conserving natural resources and encouraging economic
development. The Draft NCCP/HCP ignores policies established by S~::ction 2801 o I'
the Act, such as:
(a) addressing the ''need for broad-based planning to provide !or effective
protection and conservation of' the stale's wildlife heritage Hhi/e
continuing to allo'rv appropriate development and gl'Owth''~
(b) ·'protecting California's natural diversity while reducing conf1icts between
protection of the state's wildlife heritage and reasonable use ofnatuml
resources/or economic development'';
(c) facilitating "early coordination to protect the interests ofthe state, the
federal government, and local public agencies, land01vners, and other
pri vatc parties";
F-128
Karen Goebel
December 27, 201 &
Page 8
(d) providing an ·~early planning framework for proposed deve!opmenr
projecf.\' within the planning area in order to avoid, minimi/c, and
compmsate for project impacts to wildlife'';
(c) encouraging '·the active parricipalion and support of/andowners and
others in the conservation and stewardship or· natural resources in the plan
area during plan development using appropriate measures, including
incentives."
• The Draft NCCP/HCP is also inconsistent with one of the defining elements of a
"Natural Community Conservation Plan" under the Act, namely that the plan must
"identify and provide tor those measures necessary to conserve and manage
biological diversity within the plan area vvhile allowing compatihle and appropriate
economic development, growth, and other human uses."
• Because the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the only participant in the Draft
NCCP/IICP, the Plan is of limited value and utility. The species at issue under the
Plan are located throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula, not simply within the
political boundaries of Rancho Palos Verdes. Because of its limited size and irregular
shape, the Plan area is not conducive to creating "unffagrnenred habitat areas,'' which
is a policy mandate specified in the Act.
• The proposed ''Preserve Properties" in the NCCP/I ICP are divided into 12
geographical management units without any cohesive or logical relationship. In
generaL they are scattered throughout the City, and they appear to have been included
within each "Reserve An:a" solely because they are already-existing open spaces or
lands owned by the City. A pattern of isolated and arbitrarily-established preserves
docs not "promotc[l conservation of unfragmcntcd habitat areas,'' as mandated by the
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
• The science underlying the Draft NCCP/I ICP is out-of-date and no longer reflects the
"best available scientific information," as required under the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act and the Endangered Species Act. 1 he Draft NCCP/f IC P
is based on vegetation mapping and gnatcatcher and cactus wren distribution data that
was compiled in 1994 and l<lter updated in 1999. The most recent data mapping
effort was done in 2007, over 10 years ago .
• The Draft NCCP/HCP inconsistently ilnd seemingly arbitrarily allows project
activities within certain preserve areas. For example, the Draft NCCP/HCP includes
an Abalone Cover Management Unit for a 65.2-acre preserve on the ·'Abalone Cove
Property," which is owned by the City's successor agency to the Redevelopment
;\gency However, the Draft NCCP/IICP also authorizes an ·'Abalone Cove Beach
F-129
Karen Goebel
December 27. 201 S
Page 9
Project," that includes a restroom/storage area, gate house, parking lot, shade
structures, and improved trails to accommodate vehicular traffic.
• The risk of wildfire has not been properly evaluated or addressed by the Draft
NCCP/HCP. The Draft NCCP/T fCP summarily states that "in situations where fuel
modilicalion must occur in the Preserve, impacts are already addressed by the City
dedicating 1,402.4 acres to the Preserve." (p. 98) The Draft NCCP/1 ICP provides no
clear analysis Cor why the mere fact the City is dedicating these acres to the Preserve
will somehow offset the dangers created by wildfires.
• Th<:: Dral't NCCP/IICP docs not describe the scope, intensity, or magnitude of any of
the preserve management activities described as "Covered Activities.'' (p. 1 03)
Many ofthcsc activities may impact adjoining landowners and properties. For
example, vehicular access, invasive species control, predator controL reintroduction
or Covt~red Species, and maintenance of tire/fuel buffers could have '·spill-over"
effects onto nearby properties. The Draft NCCP/1 ICP ignores this possibility, and
instead merely lists these activities as if they existed in a vacuum.
COMMENJS ON TilE livJPLEMI'..'NTINGAGREtMENT
• Section 5.0 of the Implementing Agreement indicates that the USFWS and CDFW
have issued "findings" essentially concluding that the Draft NCCP/HCfl is consistent
with the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act and the Endangered Species
Act. These findings have not been includeJ in the Implementing Agreement or any
other document circulated in connection with the Draft NCCP/HCP. The findings
should be circulated Cor public review and comment.
• Section 10 .3 of the Implementing Agreement identifies a number of USFWS
obligations. One of those obligations is compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the issuance of a biological opinion in connection with the Dran
NCCP/HCP. That biological opinion should be circulated for public review and
comment.
• Section 14.0 of the Implementing Agreement suffers from the same defect as the
Draft NCCP/l-ICP regarding the description of funding sources for the
implementation of the Draft NCCP/HCP. This section states: "The City shall fully
fund all obligations assigned to it under the Plan and is ultimately responsible for
funding all of the obligations under the Plan assigned to PVPLC, or its successor, as
the City's Preserve Habitat Manager.'' However, there is no description of this
funding source or how reliabk the source may be.
F-130
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 10
COM/~'lfo'NTS ON TilE' DllAFT E>J
• The Draft EA includes a No Action Alternative and four Action Altematives, all of
which ditTer in only one respect the configuration of a preserve design. This is an
inadequate range of alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act
C"NGI?1~"). Other potential altcrnutives could have included, for example, an
alternative that focused on restoring disturbed lands, rather than locking up preserve
lands; or a set of alternatives that evaluated more or fewer Covered Activities or
Covered Species; or an alternative that used a different permit duration; or an
alternative that reflected a broader, truly regional NCCP/J !CP that covered more
comprehensively required habitat types for the Covered Species, even if the lands
subject to that NCCP/TICP would be within the jurisdictions o[' local governments
that did not wish to participate in a NCCP/1 lCP.
• The Draft EA fails to adequately describe the environmental consequences related to
each ofthc Covered Activities as they arc implemented within each of the
Alternatives. For example, the Draft. E/\ docs not describe whether implementation
of the Covered Activities and the environmental impacts associated with those
Covered Activities will be better or worse in the context of' the Alternatives. lt is
insufficient under NEPA to simply assume that the size of the Preserve is the only
metric for evaluating environmental impacts associated with the Draft NCCP/1 lCP.
• The Draft EA improperly defers analysis of certain key environmental topics. for
example, the Draft EA indicates that any of the Preserve alternatives will include 2.3
acres ofjurisdictional wetlands (riparian scrub). 1/owcver, the Draft FA does not
evaluate the likely environmental impacts to these wetlands associated with Covered
Activities taking place within the Preserve. For example, invasive species or other
preserve management activities may have significant deleterious impacts to these
wetlands. Without an analysis of those impacts, neither the decision makers nor the
public will understand the magnitude of those impacts or whether and how any such
impacts could be mitigated or avoided.
• The Draft EA evaluates only six topical areas: biological resources, geology and
soils, land usc, air quality, water resources and water quality, and cultural resources.
By contrast, the City's Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the Rancho
Palos Verdes NCCP/IICP prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act("~'') evaluates seventeen topical areas eleven more topical areas than the
Draft EA. The NEP A analysis for the Draft NCCP/IICP should be modeled on the
CEQA analysis, and an Environmental Impact Statement, rather than an FA should
be prepared for the Draft NCCP/HCP.
F-131
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 1 1
* * *
For all of the above reasons, the Draft NCCP/HCP, Implementing Agreement, and
Draft EA should be revised and recirculated for further review and comment. A key aspect of
that revision effort, and of particular interest to York, is the elimination of the legally improper
and biologically unsubstantiated requirement that York dedicate 40 acres of land to the City for
any development proposed for the Property. Put simply, York wishes to be treated fairly and
seeks consistent application of the mitigation ratios set out elsewhere in the Draft NCCP/IICP,
including credit for the mitigation York already implemented for the project proposal approved
by the City in 2012. If the City or the resource agencies instead decide to ignore the relevant
mitigation ratios, and continue to demand a 40-acrc dedication on the Property, then the
government must pay the requisite fair market value for the land in compensation to York.
cc : City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmembers
Doug Willmore, City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian, Community Development Director, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mary Beth Woulfe, U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service
David A. Mayer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
080942\ I 0250546v3
F-132
To Whom it may concern:
I have been a volunteer for the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy since 2013, and
recently completed my certification to become a California Naturalist. I am now
working with Megan Wolff, on The Adopt-a-Plot Program for Lunada Bay Trail
to plant coastal sage scrub and help restore the trail in an effort to bring back
the endangered California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren. I am writing to
support the approval of the NCCP, Alternative D.
I travel all over California and live in Redondo Beach. Palos Verdes is the closest
place to escape and experience solitude and the wonder nature has to offer.
It's hard for me to understand why any agency or local group would try to
thwart the plans of the NCCP. Nature needs us. We have very few wide open
spaces left. We live in one of the most beautiful places in the world, and have
an opportunity to protect, preserve, educate and share our natural preserves
with others.
Over the course of the past several years, I have taken dozens of people on our
hiking trails across our many reserves. It has created an awareness and
appreciation for those who I have shared these experiences with.
I hope that my voice is just one of many who stand to support the NCCP,
alternative D.
Respectfully,
Sue Wilkinson
California Naturalist
Adopt-A -Plot Volunteer
PVLC Volunteer Trail Watch
F-133
Karen Goebel
Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Via email to: fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov
December 30, 2018
Re: City of RPV NCCP/HCP
Dear Ms. Goebel,
Please finalize and approve the Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), Alternative D, as soon as possible.
We have been strong supporters of the NCCP/HCP and involved in the planning process since the early
start of the plan. We also, like many others in the community, have personally contributed financially
towards the acquisition of properties for the Preserve and towards the management of the Preserve
area by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC). We continue to support the NCCP/HCP .
A comprehensive regional plan is much better than no plan at all.
The approval process has taken an exceptionally long time, and in the interim the City of RPV and the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy have been functioning more or less as if the plan were already
finalized. This has led many people to believe that the NCCP/HCP is already approved-we ourselves
had actually been under that impression until early this year. When the Draft NCCP/HCP was first
presented in 2004 there was a very strong public awareness and support of the NCCP/HCP, and a great
deal of celebration when the draft plan was approved by the City Council. Today, that broad support for
the NCCP/HCP still exists, and the Preserve has become extremely popular in the broader Los Angeles
region. However, few people realize that the approvals are still pending, and as a result, you may hear
fewer voices at the federal level during this comment period (which incidentally coincides with the busy
holiday season).
Like many other individuals and organizations, we donated funds towards the acquisition of land for the
Preserve because we love and value the land, the native plants and the native wildlife, and wish to
maximize the area preserved. We did not make those donations in order to accrue acreage for a
mitigation bank to enable ambitious infrastructure projects by the City of RPV beyond what was
envisioned as necessary in 2004.
We are concerned that the revised draft has substantially increased the acreage allowed for impacts
from Covered Projects. In 2004, the city was allowed to impact 40.2 acres of coastal sage scrub. That
allowance has increased to 115.8 acres in 2018. Likewise, impacts to non-native grassland have
increased from an allowance of 106.3 acres to 303.7 acres. Impacts allowed for private projects have
similarly increased.
Although we understand that the increased dedication of acreage to the Preserve since 2004 is being
counted towards mitigation of those impacts, it is disconcerting to the public to see that land that they
paid to protect is still quite vulnerable to degradation.
Sattler 12-30-2018 re RPV NCCP/HCP
0 F-134
2
At this point in time the City of RPV is engaged in considering various options for landslide abatement.
Much ofthe area of concern lies within the PV Nature Preserve. It is critical that the NCCP/HCP be in
place as a guideline for this major proposed infrastructure project. It is also important that the city keep
in mind how highly the public values the preservation of the natural lands within the Preserve. The city
must continue to strive to minimize impacts to the natural areas in the Preserve as it implements the
Covered Projects.
It has been particularly difficult to review proposed changes to the Draft NCCP/HCP over time. This is
partly because ofthe long time period from the initial2004 draft to today. This difficulty is compounded
by the lack of any identifying version numbers on the pages of the draft as it evolves and by a lack of
clarity in the document name and title page to clearly identify the draft version number. It is
frighteningly easy to get confused about which is the most current version ofthe draft after having
downloaded every version over time.
We were under the impression that some changes were going to be made to the draft document after
the March 2018 City Council meeting. However, although the document's file size is slightly changed,
we could not clearly see where any changes might have been made, and the title page still identifies it as
a draft from March 2018. We had submitted comments to the City and the Wildlife Agencies in an email
to Mr. Mihranian and Ms. Woulfe on March 27, 2018. It is not clear to us whether those comments
were ever considered in the latest draft; therefore we are restating them, as follows:
The wording of the following sections (5.2.3; 5.5; 7.5.3} of the revised NCCP/HCP may be
misinterpreted 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?
Please make these sections more clear. We suggest the addition of the underlined wording to the
following sections:
5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures
A plan [or re -vegetation of CSS habitat of areas of temporarv CSS disturbance will be
initiated as earlv as possible in the early planning stage of/andslide abatement
measures. That plan should take into account all of the restoration guidelines
incorporated in tl1is NCCP/HCP. Re -vegetation o(impact areas w ill then be implemented
as soon as possible after completion of abatement.
Sattler 12-30-2018 re RPV NCCP/HCP
F-135
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.
7.5.3 Restoration Design
The fallowing will be included in the habitat restoration design criteria:
1 ..... Transplantation of appropriate salvaged plants, as specified bv the Wildlife
Agencies and the Preserve Habitat Manager, from impacted sites (e.g., cacti) is
encouraged to be incorporated into the restoration design.
Thank you for your continued efforts to make the NCCP/HCP a reality and for your support for the
preservation of sensitive species and habitat. We look forward to seeing the RPV NCCP/HCP/HCP,
Alternative D approved as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Alfred and Barbara Sattler
cc: Mary Beth Woulfe, Fish and Wildlife Services
Eric Porter, Fish and Wildlife Services
RPV City Council
Ara Mihranian, RPV
Doug Willmore, RPV
Adrienne Mohan, PVPLC
Allen Franz, PVPLC
Sattler 12-30-2018 re RPV NCCP/HCP
3
F-136
Robert Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
cfo Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue
Mailed:Dec20,2018
Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 90008
Attn: Karen Goebel, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Public Comment on:
FR Doc. 2018-23762 (/a/2018-23762) Filed 10-30-18; 8:45am
Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan 1 Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) and
Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) ofthis NCCP /HCP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, 90275
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this ema;J do not necessarily reflect the view(s),
opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City'?. It should be interpreted
solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as
the official position direction or decision of the City.
Going in thought: Remove 'private land owners' from this NCCP or reinstate their ability to
'opt out.' This would remove many public concerns, eliminate some 14,000 private lots
from needing enforcement and provide better focus on Preserve lands. Just a thought.
Primarily for those who are reading this for the first time and choose not to delve Into RPV's
breathtaking saga covering their decade long NCCP saga, a few comments! Then I raise 8
questions I would like answered -only 8!
As presented this NCCP covers the "entire boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,"
"8,616.6 acres," for a period of"40 years." (Notice by Fish and Wildlife Service (Notice) on 10/31/18,'
pgs. 4,5)
The purpose is to provide RPV Incidental Taking Permits (ITP) covering Federally listed
wildlife. The 'Environmental Assessment' (EA) lists:
2 species on the Federal En dan ered Species Act (ESA):
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis)
El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni)
and 1 Federal Threatened species:
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
[all EA, Introduction)
These 3 species are the only Federally listed wildlife applicable to the ITP.
Six additional plants and one bird are shown as 'Unlisted,' and no Federal concerns for these
species are found. Simply put, US Fish and Wildlife is being asked to include 7 not listed
species to accommodate the California Native Plant Society. {ibid, Introduction] Why?
F-137
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Again, only 3 species are Federally listed, not 10. (ibid, Introduction)
The obvious conclusion is this NCCP /HCP /EA covers 3 Federally listed species and applies to
the entire city's 8,616.6 acres (private and public lands), not just open space or a 1,559.1 acre
total preserve. (Notice, pg. 5, 6)
We have arrived here after years of attempts, drafts and land use changes. Much of this involved
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservatory (PVPLC), requests of RPV's Council, various
environmental organizations, our city and occasional public inputs.
The three documents for public comment are professional, detailed and massive! The draft
NCCP itself is I believe over 400 pages, a challenge for any unpaid reader!
I admit I was there at the start, testifying before the then-city council in favor. Throughout the
years I've followed the long delays between milestones and am impressed and proud that at last,
we are here.
My Public Comment questions
Since Council's recent activity on the NCCP, I've been asked some hard questions, questions I
could not answer and, where I was told, 'well, you should know, don't you think?' Some of these
follow.
I am hoping you will have time to answer. I am not interested in responses we often see that say
'not in the requirements so cannot be answered,' or are obvious spins so to avoid answering a
pithy question. An example would be throwing a question's answer to PVPLC or RPV for future
response. I feel you, as our Federal representatives in this, should know these for your use.
1. The ITPs will be issued over time (as above, NCCP assumes 40 years). How many, items
that would have been NCCP ITP items have been issued over the past year (2018),
the pastS years (2014-2018) by year? My assumption is a very small number.
2. Cost effectiveness question. The NCCP /HCP will be a new 40-year daily management I
maintenance effort covering our entire city. Additional manpower and costs are
estimated to be ?
3.
Why is a significant 'land' corridor for their benefit being considered?
Again, these species don't walk across land, they fly! There is nothing special about
habitat in the area. These species are found throughout the preserve and provide plentiful
food sources. For years there was no corridor, it suddenly appeared and now
removes significant, valuable land, from the owner(s) enjoying its use. Again, the 3
Federally listed species fly, they don't walk!
Remove the corridor! Restore it to what it was.
4. The inability for private parties to 'opt out.' Why? Until just recently (a March 2018
Council Video I'm told) it has been understood that they could. Now the NCCP
"includes the entire boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes" and private parties are
forced into the NCCP. (lntro, pg. 5) Why was 'opt out' option removed?
5. Affordability-cost question. Ties to #2 above. The city owns "Open Space Preserve"
land and the PVPLC maintains it. What is the projected additional PVPLC total NCCP
page 2
F-138
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
maintenance expense (RPV probably will budget these or be told to budget them)?
PVPLC NCCP maintenance will be considerable and I feel citizens of RPV deserve to know
what is that number.
6. Cost follow on question: Fuel modification. RPV and the PVPLC may say NCCP
maintenance co5>t will be negligible but-consider fire danger. Open space maintained by
PVPLC is 1,559 acres constituting a tinderbox ready to burn. During our years of drought
PVPLC has made practically no effort at fuel modification by reducing plant growth in the
Preserve. Instead PVPLC concentrates on annually restoring 5 acres to native plants (that
also burn). So, of the forecasted NCCP additional cost, how much is being devoted to
fuel modification to reduce I eliminate the well-known extreme fire danger to
homes near the Preserve or "Open Space Preserve?"
I have attached from RPV's Community Newsletter for Winter 2019 (the latest) the front-
page article on our fire risk, including a Cal Fire map of'Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones' in RPV. It includes PVPLC's 'Open Space Preserve' land.
7. Enforcement of the NCCP /HCP /EA. We are talking the entire city, not just the preserve.
These documents place numerous restrictions on 14,000 lots, thousands of'Open
Space Preserve' acres and public lands. All will need to be enforced (or this NCCP will
quickly be forgotten by our public). How is RPV prepared to enforce these restrictions?
RPV has two Code Enforcement staff enforcing all of our codes and now the restrictions
of the NCCP. So I'll ask-how does RPV ever intend to enforce this NCCP? You, as a
Federal Agencies, and our citizens need a concrete answer, not any 'to be addressed
in the future' city 'spin.
8. Opting out of I cancelling the NCCP. How would RPV's Council go about that? 40
years is a long time. Time changes. City Council's change. Citizen appetite for these types
of expenses will change. RPV ability to fund will change. Think of our multi-million dollar
active major infrastructure efforts (stopping the landslide, new civic center) and pension
growth. Citizen appetite for funding something placing restrictions on use of their
property will wane.
9. I doubt our public is aware your 'Notice' clearly states on page 5 'Public use is also
identified as a conditionally allowed use.' So we are paying for it but public use can
be (and most say will be) denied? See questions 5 and 6. Sentence needs an eraser!
These are the questions I look forward to being answered in your formal response to pubic
comments.
In the past, having been in your shoes answering pages of prickly questions, I know this
responding task is daunting. But thank you for this opportunity and your answers!
Bob Nelson
cc:
Mary Beth Woulfe, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Scott Sobiech (Acting Field Supervisor), Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
page 3
F-139
City of RPV NCCP I HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Dr. Jones shared stories of these famous and little-known disasters.
and included insights into how Peninsula resid ents can and should be
prepa red to respond to and recover from the threat of disasters posed
by the hazards that are unique to our area, particularly the risk of wildfire
and earthquake .
Wn Df 11 ~r 10 r HE ( -~~~E NEST 1 ~1 s 1<.
ON THI ~ I)AI .OS VEI<D LS I)FNIN SlJLA
As Dr. Jones alluded to in her recent
presentation, wi ldfire poses the greatest
risk to life and property on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula. Maps prepared by
the....California D.epartmentof Forestry .
and Fire Protection (CaiFireJ depict
nearly the entire City of Rancho Palos
Verdes as falling within a Very High Fire
Hazards severity zone (VHFHSZJ. The
only area excluded from the VHFHSZ
is the area east of Western Avenue,
shaded gray on the map below. It
should also be noted that the entirety
of the other Peni nsula cities-Palos
Verdes Estates , Rolling Hills and Rolling
Hills Estates-are also in the VHFHSZ.
Oct. 2017 Fire Near RPV City Hall
Rancho Palos Verdes
Very High Fire Hazard Severi ty Zones in LRA
As Ucconuucndt>d l>y \L FLR t:
/
j
·--.
page 4
F-140
December 30, 2018
The plan for the City of RPV NCCP/HCP is incomplete and needs to address:
1. The protection of Indian Well Spring and exclude Spring from "abatement of the slide" work without
permit.
2 . Maintenance of the Fire Road for disaster evacuation and fire truck access to fight fires.
3. Dead non-native branches, trees and weeds need annual removal in the Preserve at least 500' from
private properties.
4. Remove all non-native Acacia within the Preserve.
5. Change Vanderlip Driveway in the General Plan from OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION to
RESIDENTIAL.
6 . Allow lot splits in Portuguese Bend Zone 2 so parcels sharing a boundary with the Preserve can build
like all other lot owners as " ... the purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to preserve contiguous open space areas
for species preservation while allowing compatible economic growth ... "
1. The protection of Indian Well Spring and exclude Spring from "abatement of the slide" work without
permit.
(Indian Well Spring, aka Kelvin Canyon Spring originates within the NCCP
Preserve in East Fork of Altamira Canyon 1000' above Vanderlip Drive at
the Fire Road.)
The Indian Well Spring needs to be protected in the Plan and currently it is
not. Former City officials have comments on record that they can pump the
spring dry by circumventing the permit approval process required by United
States Fish and Wildlife Service & California Department of Fish and
Wildlife by using the provisions in NCCP for "Landslide Abatement" to drain
the over 2,000' long spring. Indian Well Spring has served as a watering
hole for the wildlife in what is now known as the Preserve for thousands of
years .
2. Maintenance of the Fire Road for disaster evacuation and fire truck access to fight fires .
be performed annually.
(Unmaintained Fire Road and former emergency escape route from
Vanderlip Driveway to Crest Rd and Crenshaw Blvd located in the
Preserve.)
This Fire Road provided an emergency escape route for those residences
on Upper Narcissa east of Sweetbay and Vanderlip Driveway. The Plan is
incomplete as it needs to provide maintenance of the Fire Road for use of
fire trucks and those in vehicles evacuating when all other routes are
blocked by fire or Earthquake damage or catastrophic failure of Portuguese
Bend and Klondike slides.
This critical Fire Road was properly maintained for years prior to NCCP
Preserve. Native habitat near the road can be protected during the
maintenance work which can take less than a day to perform, and it should
F-141
3. Dead non-native branches, trees and weeds need annual removal in the Preserve
(Non-native dead branches, trees, and brush within the protected NCCP
1400 acre Preserve is located 40 feet from private property creating a great
fire hazard to the residences.)
The Plan needs to immediately provide for the removal of dead trees,
brush, and weeds annually in the Preserve which is within 500 feet of
private property outside of the Preserve for fire protection, especially in
Portuguese Bend. The former owners of the land annually removed Acacia
and mustard weeds along the boundaries that were near homes. When the
City purchased the property, the City halted L.A. County from discing
weeds and removing trees long before placing the land in a Preserve. Now
the City uses goats to eat the weeds in a very limited area which is not
adequate.
4. Remove all non-native Acacia within the Preserve .
(Non-native Acacia growing like weeds in NCCP Project area and next to
private property causing great fire danger.)
This non-native flora is a fire hazard and its allowance and continued
growth in the Preserve should be curtailed. There is no immediate
provision for the annual removal.
5. Change Vanderlip Driveway in the General Plan from OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION to
RESIDENTIAL.
(Vanderlip Driveway-private access for the many residences on the drive .
It was placed in the "Open Space Preservation" in the General Plan,
located on the boundary of NCCP Preserve.)
Vanderlip Driveway could be easily removed from Nature Preserve
designation. Grant deeds and easements allow for the 1 00 year old
Vanderlip Driveway and it should not be considered Nature Preserve -
attracting the general public and threatening future use of the Driveway. A
mistake was made by the City by not deeding back the 100 year old
driveway to the residences . This needs to be corrected.
F-142
6. Allow lot splits in Portuguese Bend Zone 2
The City of RPV should allow lot splits in Portuguese Bend
Zone 2 " ... allowing compatible economic growth ... "
which the City has no intention of doing. The City of RPV is
not allowing lot splits especially for parcels that share
property lines with the Preserve. New home building is
allowed in Portuguese Bend on already split 1/2 acre lots
however lot splits are not allowed for parcels to be split to
one acre lots. This practice does not provide for " ... allowing
compatible economic growth ... "
The Draft Plan needs to go back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to correct these errors and more .
Kathy Snell
8 Vanderlip Driveway
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
310 707 8876
F-143
Resubmitted to agencies via email12/31/2018 as part of NCCP/HCP submittals.
ie: to fwBcfwocomments@fws.gov, aram@rpvca.gov
Bob Nelson Hand Delivered 9/4/18
6612 Channelview Court
RPV, CA 90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council
Subject: City Council Meeting 9/18/2018
Approval of Updates to our General Plan, Land Use Map
Vanderlip Drive: Land Use Disconnect
RECEIVED
SEP042018
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(12/31/18: I would appreciate our agencies giving consideration to this request. When
we look at 40 years of oncoming NCCP contractual responsibilities, those and the
associated costs for RPV are ones your agency could eliminate. Thank you for
reviewing this issue. BN)
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this letter and attachment do not necessarily reflect the
view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City'). It should be
interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied
upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City .
Attached is a page illustrating what follows.
In Portuguese Bend, coming off Narcissa, there is a private road, Vanderlip Drive, serving
as a private drive leading to several homeowners .
On May 24, 2001, our Planning Commission approved numerous changes to RPV and use . At
that time Vanderlip Drive was labeled as R <= 1.
Now the map you will approve ,s""'h,_,o,_,w~s"----'V,_,a"'n'-'-d=e.:..;rl~i "'-':::..:..;:..:....:::...=:..:..::c.=:..:..::..:..:.=~""'-'-='-=~
'0 en S ace Preserve that is NCCP Preserve ro er . The impact to our city and
homeowners is something I ask you weigh -with the objective you direct staff to
return its May 24, 2011, designation.
Obviously, as stated elsewhere Preserve ro ert is owned b our cit so once
Council a roves Vanderli Drive and entrance area as '0 enS ace
Preserve' ou will own it and be ex ected to both maintain it and acce t
liabilit)l for accidents. And I'm told homeowners are afraid this could limit access to
their homes as Preserve property closes at 7 PM (which here would be asinine at
best!).
Just thought you should be made aware . This item has been raised to me as a RPV citizens
concern and, I believe, our city doesn't need any more conflicts that, once subject to a Council
decision, rr in error, as you know, can take staff years to correct.
Key point-once you approve this update to our Land Use Map-as here, it could be over 40
years before it is updated again!
Let's take time to get our land -use map update right in every respect. Give staff corrections
direction and bring it back again so you can see those were actually made in the
document you approve ("of course, we'll do that" should not apply here) -and maybe
'again' a couple of times until you see it is is done exactly as you want it. After 40 years
there is no hurry.
(Original is signed)
Bob Nelson
F-144
Resubmitted to agencies via email12/31/2018 as part of NCCP I HCP submittals.
ie: to fwBcfwocomments@fws.gov, aram@rpvca.gov
Lisa A. Lawson
Trustee, Jack Downhill Estate
20 Vanderlip Drive
RPV,CA90275
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council
RECEIVED
SEP 0 6 2018
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(12/31/2018: We cannot find where this was considered I implemented. As part of NCCP we
are asking for our agencies to consider implementing this request.)
City Council Meeting 9/18/2018
Land Use Map Update: Vanderlip Drive
Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro-Tern Duhovic, Councilmembers Cruikshank, Alegria and Dyda
As a RPV homeowner at 20 Vanderlip Drive, I am concerned about a change on our Land Use
Map being approved tonight along with our General Plan Update.
This sa request to have you, as our City Council:
Remove Vanderlp Drive as Open Space Preserve on this Land Use map revision and :
Restore its original designations as 'Equestrian Overlay District' and 'Residential
<=1 du/acrE;) retaining Vanderlip Drive as a 'private drive.'
1. 'Open Space Preserve' definition will provide more of the public access onto Vanderlip
Drive and then into Portuguese Bend community with possibility of an increase in crime,
trash, city liability and fire.
2 Is our city planning to maintain Vanderlip Drive, when designated 'Open Space Preserve,'
as our city will own the road, as it does 'Preserve' properties?
3. Have other Vanderlip Drive owners been notified of this change and what are their
opinions?
4. I do not see how this should be an issue under our unapproved Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP). 'Open Space Preserve' designation will not benefit this gated
community nor benefit the safety and quiet enjoyment of your Portuguese Bend
residents.
5 The inclusion of Vanderlip Drive as 'Open Space Preserve' does nothing to improve the
ecosystem. It only promotes the public invasion of our property.
In conclusion, !strongly object to this change and request you, our City Council, reconsider
approving Vanderlip Drive being shown on our updated Land Use Map before you as 'Open Space
Preserve,' retaining the drive's current designations.
Respectfully,
z%~~
Lisa A. Lawson
F-145
Bob Nelson: pg.2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/1812018
GENERAL PLAN ITEM: LAND USE MAP: CONFLICTED LAND USE
Official General Plan Land Use Map Planning Commission
Approved 5/24/2011
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
OPEN SPACE HAZARD
D RESIDENTIAL 1-21 OPEN SPACE
CJ RESIDENTIAL < .. 1 DU/5 ACRE
D RESIDENTIAL <•1 DU/ACRE
[.=!RESIDENTIAL 1·2 DU/ACRE
VANDERLIP DRIVE HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO 'PRESERVE,'
FROM PRIOR 2011 APPROVAL.
HAS SIGNIFICANT CITY AND
HOMEOWNER IMPACT.
Vanderlip Drive (not Road as in city maps) is designated
"Open Space Preserve" in Land Use Map you'll approve.
1. City owns Preserve property (Vanderlip Drive)
2. Vanderlip Drive is a private road in Portuguese Bend.
3. So tonight you will assume maintenance (city property)
and the associated liability of horse falls, etc.
CURRENT
CITY
GIS
MAPS
These show it is not an 'overlay' error; if approved ... it is. We know that!
F-146
Robert Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
cfo Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue
Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 90008
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Attn: Karen Goebel, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Public Comment on:
Nelson Public Comment
eMailed: May4, 2019
Mailed: May 4, 2019
Recirculation of Draft of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) Natural Community Conservation Plan/
Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) and
Draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California, 902 75
The view(s), opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s),
opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City''). It should be interpreted
solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as
the official position, direction or decision of the City.
Requested Action: If asked now, my vote would be to do nothing, vote to stop our
NCCP /HCP /EA effort.
My reasoning: readers should know RPV was founded as a 'low tax' city. For our 42,000
residents and 14,000 parcels this million dollar expense will be on top of significant, on-
coming multi-millions city expenses for underfunded pensions, new large civic center,
stopping the landslide, building a new Ladera Linda facility including maybe buying soccer fields
for parking and, very important, whatever new major items come up over project's 40 -50
year period. It is not enforceable since it covers the entire city (RPV has 2 Code Enforcement
staff]. Most citizens will never know when it is applicable and when it is not! Weekend
projects will ignore it. Finally, as I've found out, RPVers do not like being told their city is
forcing them to ... and all are experts at work-arounds!. But-
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to RPV's actual draft NCCP /HCP /EA, now including
changes RPV's City Council made and staff technical and clarifying edits made but not included in
the original circulated draft of last December. My understanding of this item:
This NCCP is to provide RPV Incidental Taking Permits (ITP) covering Federally listed
wildlife. The 'Environmental Assessment' (EA) lists:
2 species on the Federal Endan ered Species Act (ESA):
**Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (PVB-Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis)
El Segundo Blue Butterfly (ESBB-Euphilotes battoides allyni) and
1 Federal Threatened species:
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
These 3 species are the only Federally listed wildlife applicable to ITPs. **Actually, it's 2 species.
F-147
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
**Appendix H: pg. H-50: "Currently the PVB is known to occur only at the Naval Fuel
Depot in El Segundo, south of Palos Verdes Drive North, Malaga Dunes and was recently
reintroduced to the Chandler Preserve." That is, Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly is not
found the Preserve so staff, consultants and Agencies are doing all this for two
species, a butterfly and a bird -whose 'Threatened' classification is being
challenged I am told!
Six additional lants and one bird are shown as 'Unlisted ' and no Federal concerns for these
species are found. Simply put, US Fish and Wildlife is being asked to include 7 not listed
species to accommodate the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Why? Is any other Palos
Verdes city recognizing the 7? Remove these, CNPS invited themselves to this effort and just
complicate enforcement, cost, etc .. Doubt if these could be readily identified anyway.
Again, only 3 species are Federally listed. We are ado tin RPV's NCCP at a cost of millions
to rotect two Federal s ecies found in the Preserve! Kinda reminds some of the smelt fiasco
u no rth!
My review and comments apply to the re-circulated Implementing Agreement and Appendix.
I did this since there is no question our current Council has decided RPV must have this NCCP
(after long years of consultant I staff efforts) and implementation is our next major step.
Realizing that, to understand what to expect, I concentrated on Implementation.
Two areas of my public comments:
1. Format whoops, typos and potential corrections.
2. Brief philosophical comments.
My review and comments on NCCP's Implementation Agreement:
Comment format: page numbers as found in our 'Track Change Version," chosen so I could see
the changes Council and staff made after March 2108 version commented on last December).
Binder: Cover page states the order is 1. NCCP IHCP; 2. Implementing Agreement. In my copy
these were reversed; the Implementing Agreement was the 1st section and the NCCP IHCP was in
the 2nd section. Should be reversed to correct to the Cover Sheet or change the Cover Sheet
listing order.
Title Sheet: Date shown is March 2018; sfb July 2019 (the date our Council will approve the
documents is July 16, 2019, (per their scheduled meeting items) -giving you only probably 8
weeks to incorporate any changes you want I need to the +800 pages!
Table of Contents:
Pgs. iii, iv and v. Two lists of exhibits; one (pg. v) clearly states what each exhibit covers; the
other (pgs. iii, iv) simply says Exhibit A through Exhibit E without any further detail. So we need
to state 1. what are these unstated exhibits and 2. correct Exhibit D contents.
Pg. iii and iv:
Now: As follows: no explanation of what each overs.
Exhibit A
page 2
F-148
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Each letter should add what it covers and ages numbers as below:
Exhibit A: pg. 54: Model Certificate of Inclusion
Exhibit B: pgs. 55-60: City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance
Exhibit C: pg. 61: Species Covered Under the Plan
Exhibit D: pgs. 62-82: Management Agreement between RPV and PVPLC
Nelson Public Comment
Following Exhibit D the Table of Contents omits the follow·n additional Exhibits found in
the Implementation Agreement. Since there are duplicate letters, change the letter
designation shown and add each to the Table of Contents. Letter shown is what is in the
Agreement's Exhibits.
Exhibit A: pgs. 83-84: Map of Preserve Properties Managed by PVPLC
Exhibit B-1: pgs. 85-86: PVPLC Obligations (updated 11/30/2011)
Exhibit B-2: pgs. 87-89: City of RPV Obligations (updated 11/30/2011)
Exhibit B-3: pgs. 90-92: PVPLC Permissive Activities (updated 11/30/2011)
Exhibit C: pgs. 93-104: Oceanfront Estates Management Requirements
Exhibit D: pgs. 105-108: Donor Recognition, Naming Criteria, Sites
* Pgs. 109-116: Amendments to RPV-PVPLC Management Agreement
*belongs after Exhibit D, pgs. 62-82: "Management Agreement between RPV and
PVPLC," not here.
** Pgs. 117-118: Preserve Maps
**belongs after 2nd Exhibit A, pgs. 83-84: "Map of Preserve Properties Managed by
PVPLC
Exhibit E: pgs. 119-132: Conservation Easement (RPV to PVPLC)
Pg. v: Again lists some Exhibits with explanations but manages to avoid many! Page v should
siml!!r be deleted as correcting as above will complete the Exhibit list correctly.
What got my attention was the Table of Contents using just letters with no content info,
then calling out 57 na es of A endix D "Donor Reco nition Namin Criteria Sites." I
know better! We don't have anywhere near 57 pages of Donors! So when I got into those pages I
found what should be and is listed above! Your call if you make those corrections.
The Document:
1. Add Acronym list (to avoid reader bewilderment as to what NEPA, PAP, SSC, ESHA, PHMP,
ACOE etc. are and their added complications. (In my former employment we had hundreds of
acronyms but, if you used one, you first wrote it out then paren the acronym, for example,
Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV). Should be mandatory here because many reading/ implementing
these requirements may not, in reality, have a clue what some acronyms mean.
2. NCCP covers all of RPV.
Contrary to some Council members public statements, pg. 9 ( 4.42) clearly defines 'Plan
Area' as "the boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP /HCP, consisting of
approximately 8,616.5 acres within the CITY'S municipal boundaries, Los Angeles
California, as depicted in Fig. 2-1 ofthe NCCP /HCP." This diagram is of our entire city.
page 3
F-149
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Further clarification is in 2.17 on pg. 3: "The Plan developed by the CITY ... encompasses the
entire jurisdiction of the CITY (Plan Area) ... approximately 8,616.5 acres .... "
Council members need to be dear on this. They did away with our earlier ability to 'opt out' so
we are all in.
3. Vague references: Throughout the Implementation doc the Plan (NCCP) is cited or
referred to but without anything more than something like 'Section 5. 7 of the Plan.'
Normally you would expect a Plan title and page number to follow that reference as
"'section 5.7: title, pgs. x-x". I spent hours going back and forth from Implementation to the
NCCP or Appendix double-checking and writing these details above these vague references!
Pg. 15: 3rd sentence: 'All of the lands to be dedicated to the Preserve are identified in Table 4-1
and figure 4-2 of the Plan ... " THESE REFERENCES ARE NOT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION DOC,
THEY ARE IN THE NCCP DOC. Might want to make that clear. Readers could spend considerable
time hunting for most references as they study the implementation requirements. But why don't
we show immediately in the Implementation doc what lands are covered? Why go to a 2nd
doc to find that out?
Pg. 15: 7.3 (Neutral Lands) znd sentence: "Approximately 1,696.7 acres ... exist outside the
Preserve Boundary (see Section 4.5 and Figure 4-5 of the Plan)." Figure 4-5" should be 'Figure
4.17 Neutral Lands" found on a e 83. Fi ure 4-5 in the Plan is on a e 66 labeled 'Fi ure
4-5: Vista del Norte Mana ement Plan." For clarification, might want to make that change.
Pg. 18: Public Use: "Public access to the Preserve is conditionally allowed for passive
recreational purposes .... "The word 'conditionally' needs definition. Can be interpreted (and is in
some quarters) as 'temporary until Preserve advises city they no longer want the pubic to access
their land (even though city owns it!). Need something like "Public access is perpetually
guaranteed unless any of the following has occurred ... (ex: fire, landslide)."
Pg. 19: Preserve Management: 8.3.3: " ... 10) Maintenance offireffuel buffers .. .''Cannot be
emphasized enough. The Preserve has significantly burned in the past, taking homes, and
today, if you just give available Preserve fuel a cursory glance as you drive by, you'll
understand nothing real has been done for 'fuel modification' with the resultant liability to
the city (which owns the land) for the next Portuguese Bend-Preserve fire.
Pg. 19: 8.6: Restrictions ... For Projects/ Activities Abutting and Adjacent to the Preserve:
The Plan (NCCP) includes measures to address Project and Activities that are abutting or adjacent
to the Preserve " ... the CITY shall ensure restrictions and requirements listed in Section 5. 7 of the
Plan .... "Plan 5. 7: pgs. 114-115: new developments: fencing, lighting, equestrian, landscaping,
stormwater and urban runoff and might say that here.
Pg. 22: 10.1 Obligations ofthe CITY: ... "funding of the Plan (NCCP) ... the CITY will fulfill its
funding responsibilities identified in Appendix C (Exhibit C-2) of the Plan .... " OK. There is no
Appendix C in the Implementation Agreement that corresponds to 'funding.' But in the
page 4
F-150
City of RPV NCCP IHCP
Nelson Public Comment
mammoth separate 'Appendix' section there is! Appendix Cis 57 pages; what RPV's real
funding of the Preserve-NCCP will be, is well hidden! Pg. 47 of C-2) ends at RPV funding
$1,286,209 per year in perpetuity (both term and post term) vs. PVPLC's annual $19,460 for
term and $5,000 post-term! And our Council, representing or 42,000 citizens, signed up for those
numbers! No other Palos Verdes city is contributing a dime, at least is not listed. Starting at
$100,000 in 2004, the RPV escalation deserves serious fiscal investigation-who, what,
where, when, why type of how did our citizens get into this and do they know? It seems if PVPLC
wants anything like a truck just come to the Council and it's yours! But what will the number be
like in 10, 20, 30, 40 years? When will citizens draw the line? It's been 15 years and the
Preserve amount has grown 1300%! Do the math for the next 20 years! Do the citizens
know? Should they? Council decision. For two species found in the Preserve!
Pg. 23: 10.1.1: 3rd line: References the Plan, Table 4-1 and Figure 4.2 which are unreadable.
Data too compressed -probably.
Pg. 23: 10.1.1: 2nd paragraph: 'Targeted Lands": references Plan section 4.4. Plan pg. 78
Section 4.4.5 specifically addresses what I am told is potentially inverse condemnation and I
or 'takin of 40 acres to rovide a land corridor for 2 Federal s ecies that fl don't walk.
Many question why seize a land corridor for a butterfly and bird -both fly-don't walk!
Council decision what to do.
Pg. 23: 10.1.2: Management ofthe Preserve System: "The CITY through the PVPLC shall
manage the Preserve in perpetuity in accordance with the PHMP (no acronym definition
provided) and other plans described in sections 8,0 and 9.0 of the Plan." Su est here in the
lm Lementation A reement we list all the laos that will have to be done to com lete this.
Further, in Section 10.1.3 "City Implementation Process" a hint at the massive workload facing
the city: " interim and permanent regulatory measures including codes, ordinances,
policies ... guidelines for operations and management of public lands ... will provide
interim protection to habitat lands etc .. " Then "Entitlements will not be provided without
compliance with ... (now pg. 24) General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Grading Ordinance,
Subdivision Ordinance and any other applicable provisions ofthe Municipal Code ... the
CITY shall amend ... General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Map and CEQA Guidelines ... "
Thought is -you are here, reading how to implement this and you'll not get a due about any
specificity for these extensive plans, ordinances, etc. that will be required to make this NCCP
work. I took a peak and it is years of employment for our Planning Staff (drafting,
continually revising) or a chance to favor a consultant with these years!!
Pg. 24: znd paragraph: "Within 90 days of ... Permits ... the City and PVPLC shall develop and
submit to the Wildlife Agencies a PAP (no acronym definition) to facilitate access by utility
agencies and ... Public Works to areas within the Preserve." Who will approve this for the
CITY? Planning Commission, Council? Might also want the Portuguese Bend Community Asso
(PBCA) to sign off since much of this travel will be in their area.
Better question: Shouldn't this document state the CITY'S approving bodies I processes for
these docs? Some can be over-the-counter (very minor, hopefully), then Planning Commission
(as the body charged by state law responsible for 'land use' reviews, decisions) or our
Council? Any appeal process? Good place in doc to finalize these questions.
pageS
F-151
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Pg. 24: 10.1.4: 'City Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance." Requires that "The CITY Urgency
Ordinance and final Ordinance will be reviewed and approved by the Wildlife Agencies
before adoption by the CITY." Deserves careful watching-not the way Council handles
'urgency ordinances,' which usually receive minimal public input and get crisis approval with
immediate implementation. Council will have to sit for awhile on this ... interesting ...
CANNOT ADOPT UNTIL REVIEWED BY AGENCIES!!! Watch!
Pg. 24: 10.1.5: "Revisions to CITY Ordinances, regulations ... submitted to Wildlife Agencies
for review and comment at least 60 days prior to adoption by City. Could w e include bavin
public input on the revisions? I'm not in favor of i norin u blic in ut in e ithe r th e se
formulative or revision documents and I don't find an thin sa ring there will be any public
input. Tells me the PVPLC and CITY don't want their citizens involved ... I understand-the
rationale is normal citizens won't understand what is being proposed so why have them
involved? RPVers are starting to see a lot of this rationale employed but they are not stupid
when it comes to their elected representatives or tax dollars.
Pg. 25: 10.2: PVPLC Obligations: Question why "the CITY is liable for any violation of the
Permits or failure on the part of the PVPLC during the 40 year (or is it 50 year?) term (isn't it 'in
perpetuity') to carry out its assigned obligations will be under the Plan." Sentence reads
rou h. Think the end should be "assi ned obli ations under the Plan " deletin 'will be.'
Interesting the City will carry out PVPLC's obligations ... any cost set aside?
Pgs. 25, 26: Obligations: It should be noted that when it comes to funding, this section states the
obligations of our USFWS and CDFW (no acronym provided) include "cooperate with the CITY in
obtaining additional funding from various sources to implement the Plan." How they would do
that (put an amount in their budget, take from their 'rainy day' funding, etc.) would be
assurances here that these are real commitments. Maybe an additional sentence to that effect
could be added.
Pg. 26: 10.4.1: CEQA: " ... the EIR prepared ... with this Plan ... will operate as a 'program' EIR
... the CITY will use the EIR ... in evaluating future land use decisions, and in issuing any
permits or other approvals within the Plan Area." SUGGEST THIS DICTA BE SOFTENED. The
Plan Area is defined as all of RPV. This says no land use decision can be made without
applying the forthcoming NCCP EIR. That just gives staff another reason to say applications are
'incomplete,' something our citizens realize and duck under with weekend projects rather than
sometimes waiting months for their application to be complete. Understand, staff has no firm
checklist for what constitutes a complete application. Our citizens can be told its complete one
day and a week later told it is not! This EIR sim I r e inforces dela s a n d encoura es work
arounds. Soften it. Sa staff has x da s to issue ermit or assi n to Plannin Commission.
Pg. 27: 11.2 Habitat Restoration Plan: "The CITY shall be required to restore ... 5 acres of
habitat each year ... Restoration shall ... establish native habitat in areas currently
dominated by non-native habitat ... based on a 3 year Restoration Plan ... developed by the
PVPLC in coordination with the CITY and Wildlife Agencies.'' 5 acre restoration has b een the
'ob of the PVP LC n o t the CITY. This is new. At what cost? $50,000 per acre? Think this was
PVPLC's estimate. Right or wrong? Wh i s PVPL C de te rminin RPV 's stateme nt of work? Si n ce
page 6
F-152
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
when? This needs revision back to a PVPLC effort. RPV is in its bud
in the new bud et?
Pg. 28: 11.3: A reason for acronym definition: "PVPLC shall conduct weed control activities
in fulfillment of the CITY's obligation through the TERPP as described in Section 7.6 ofthe
Plan." As the person in charge of this Implementation Agreement, ou totally understand all
this don't ou? 1. What us TERPP? 2. What is Section 7.6 ofthe Plan?
Pg. 24: 11.4: Covered Species Reintroduction. Section 7.7 ofthe Plan addresses
reintroduction of Covered S ecies ... "But then it sa s "Reintroduction is not are uirement
under the NCCP HCP or Permits." So why is this section included? Obviously the CITY will
not a for somethin not art of the NCP! Ri ht? The topic is not part of these documents!
Delete it or get questions of why talk about it.
Pg. 29: 12.0: Monitoring, Management and Reporting: 1st paragraph:
1. "In collaboration with the CITY, PVPLC shall address management and enforcement
issues ... along with remediation or Adaptive Management strategies." Adaptive
Management is not explained. Enforcement is the elephant in the NCCP room! RPV has 2 code
enforcement staff, overwhelmed with idiocy like AirBNB enforcement depriving our citizens of
their livelihood as well as tracking the 4lots (out of 14,000) deemed 'party houses. And we pay
over $500,000 to our Sheriff for Preserve enforcement but ... now we are tal kin about
enforcin the NCCP restrictions over our entire cit . Can I tell ou? This will not ha en
despite all the good intentions of the Agencies and CITY. Stephen Foster com osed 'Beautiful
Dreamer' to cover just such dreams!
2. "An assessment of funding needs and management goals will be provided in the
Comprehensive and Annual Reports." As most read this. their conclusion is we don't know
what is either 'mone re uired' or 'what constitutes mana ement success' other than the
CITY or PVPLC dedarin total victor ! 'Beautiful Dreamer' may apply!
Might want to giy~sowe detail-lil(e where will we find 'mana . ~ment goals' o d.Yrtding
requirements now-citizens can do future escalation and ask for confirmation from the PVPLC
and CITY.
Pg. 29: 12.1: Public Use Master Plan: PUMP: Confirms public use ofthe Preserve is
'conditional.' Also, the Preserve Trails Plan, "described in section 5.2.8 of the Plan," is in the
PUMP, approved by "the Wildlife Agencies." Never heard of the Preserve Trails Plan-not
art of the current Council trails investi ation research with the goal of what are real RPV
trails without involvin 'Sunshine' who knows! Council decision, now em lo in another
co sulta t in this effort! Suggest: erase 'conditional.' Continuation promotes negative NCCP
press. And folks will always find a wa in!
Pg. 29: 12.2: Fire and Fuel Modification in the Preserve." ... management guidelines
identified in Section 9.2.3 of the Plan shall be implemented for performing the required
fuel modification within the Preserve.'' FYI-see Rg.177 of the Plan. Suggest: When the
Implementation Plan references a section of the Plan, at least give the page in the Plan
where it will be found! Otherwise you will find the implementor doing whatever gets the job
done fast! And, since all of Palos Verdes Peninsula is a 'High Fire Danger' area, per the Agencies,
citizens should know what is the fire drill.
page 7
F-153
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Pg. 30: 12.6: Reporting: 12.6.1: Preserve Habitat Management Plan. "The PVPLC has
developed an initial PHMP for the Preserve." State who a roved it and mi ht mention the
public hearing re arding its auproval assumin there was one-which is ver doubtful in RPV.
Pg. 33: 12.6.4: Annual Coordination Meeting: 'The City and PVPLC shall meet ... once each
year to review and coordinate implementation of the NCCP /HCP .... " Add that this will be a
ublic meetin not one held in PVPLC offices with drawn curtains!
Pg. 35: 14.0: Funding: This has an excellent summary of CITY obligations, both funding and
services. Of concern, due to past fires, is fuel modification. Owning Preserve land, CITY is
responsible for almost all fuel modification with PVPLC responsible only for Lunada Canyon.
However, these are stated to be "in er etuit "but nothin is "in er etuit ."Couldn't we
sa these will be reviewed at the end of the 40 -50 ear Plan eriod?
Pg. 35: 14.1: Management Budget Analysis: Number conflict-I think. This paragraph states
"Based on the updated Preserve Management budget, the CITY and PVPLC total cost of
operating the Preserve is estimated at $1,785,438." But in the Appendix, section C, pg. C-44,
the number is "$1,305,669" for the Permit Term period and "$1,291,209" for post Permit term.
Budgets are always fluid numbers and I note we are using an algorithm from the Center for
Natural Lands. Stating that just muddies the budget waters-an item our citizens will closely
focus on, given it started at $100,000 years ago. Su est we use a line item bud et ex ense
worksheet and eliminate the mumbo-·umbo of an al orithm. Worksheet bud
understandable and easil defended when necessa .
Pg. 36: 14.2: Habitat Management Funding: This paragraph refers to Plan: section 8.2 and
Appendix section C. That makes 3 areas of the NCCP docs that have to have match in
fundin numbers. We learned from our General Plan (GP) saga multiple sites for the same
information is like keeping 3 balls in the air! Seems they never match and we had to bring
multiple consultants in the case of the GP. Su est we have one Im lernentation section
where aU finapcial information is centralized, anal}'Zed and is readily avaiLable for the
numerous re uired NCCP re orts. Three areas with the same information is asking for time
consuming checking and re-checking activities.
Pg. 37: 14.3: Non-Wasting Endowment Fund. This title will make little sense to the average
reader. Suggest we re-name it simply "Endowment Fund."
Pg. 38: 14.4: Effect of Inadequate Funding: Suggest rather than describe multiple 'what ifs," as
found here, we do what industry does-simply state "the budget will be examined to
determine cutbacks necessary to regain balance." That's what will happen anyway.
Pg. 39: 15.0: Changed Circumstances: Cites Plan: section 6.9.2 without any description of
events believed to constitute 'Changed Circumstances.' Suggest we list 6.9.2 items here: fire,
flood, landslide, drought, invasive species and add 'Acts of God'-the universal catchall for
unlisted events.
page 8
F-154
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Pg. 41: 17.4: Withdrawal by the CITY: Key words:" ... the CITY ... may unilaterally withdraw
from the Plan .... "With very limited future development requiring taking, RPV will probably at
some future date have a Council that will realize monies to maintain the Plan for the 3 species
covered, can be better employed elsewhere. Currently RPV's significant future fiscal outlays are
not publicly realized (Civic Center, stopping the landslide, new Ladera Linda, soccer fields, staff
pay raises and pension fnding, etc.) and, when they are realized by the citizens paying for these
CITY expenses, the millions being spent here may be deeply questioned. So, personally, glad to
see this out for us.
Pg. 49: 23.2: Changes in Environmental Laws: Suggest you read Supreme Court of The
United States: Weyerhaeuser Co. vs. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al: No. 17-71:
Argued October 1, 2018; Decided November 27, 2018. Specific findings against the USFWS
are below but basically our new Supreme Court unanimously held that 'Habitat' is where the
endangered specie currently lives, not where it did live but is no longer found (Palos Verdes Blue
Butterfly). Also, that 'habitat' is a noun, 'critical' is an adjective. From this opinion:
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Endangered Species Act directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon listing a species as
endangered, to also designate the "critical habitat" of the species. A group of landowners whose
property was designated as critical habitat for an endangered frog challenged the designation.
The landowners urge that their land cannot be critical habitat because it is not habitat,
which they contend refers only to areas where the frog could currently survive. The court
below ruled that the Act imposed no such limitation on the scope of critical habitat.
The Act also authorizes the Secretary to exclude an area that would otherwise be included as
critical habitat, if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. The
landowners challenged the decision of the Secretary not to exclude their property, but the
court below held that the Secretary's action was not subject to judicial review ....
Weyerhaeuser's claim-that the agency did not appropriately consider all the relevant
statutory factors meant to guide the agency in the exercise of its discretion-is the sort of
claim that federal courts routinely assess when determining whether to set aside an
agency decision as an abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals should consider in the first instance the question whether the
Service's assessment of the costs and benefits of designation and resulting decision not to
exclude Unit 1 was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Pp. 10-15.
827 F. 3d 452, is vacated and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined,
except KAVANAUGH, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case."
Assuming this will be the stance of our new Supreme Court re environmental items, that the
Agencies can be found in error, this paragraph re changing environmental law, may be apropos
here re habitat and endangered species that don't live there.
Pg. 3: 2.18: Rationale for RPV's NCCP:: "The City of Rancho Palos Verdes' NCCP /HCP is the first
to occur in Los Angeles County .... " I've been asked many times 'Why us? Why is no other Palos
Verdes Peninsula town as enthusiastic as RPV?' The answer is in researching the then-Council
that pushed this forward some 10 years ago. Fiercely loyal to RPV's environmentalists voter
page 9
F-155
City of RPV NCCP IHCP
Nelson Public Comment
subset, that council found the NCCP a must document even though all this effort applies to only 3
named species, one which hasn't been seen in RPV Preserve since the mid-80's (per the Agencies
finding)!
END OF 'IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT' REVIEW I COMMENTS
APPENDIX REVIEW AND COMMENT
Appendix 'I' (Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) pages are numbered with 'H,' not 'I;' that is,
'H-5" instead of 'I-5' Might change page numbering to 'I' to align with other Appendices
numbering. FYI: Appendix' H' is the initial Preserved Habitat Management Plan.
Appendix 'H,' Initial Preserve Habitat Management Plan, is 181 pages, containing many
detailed sections;l.M!ggest Ap___nendix 'H' cover page be expanded to provide the following
Table of Contents listing these:
page
2007 Preserve Habitat Management Plan for the Portuguese
Bend Nature Preserve: Consultant: Dudek H-1
Executive Summary H-2
2006 Initial Management and Monitoring Report: Consultant: Dudek H-4
Appendix A: Vascular Plant Species Observed (2006) H-62
Appendix B: Wildlife Species Observed (2006) H-74
Appendix C: Plant & Wildlife Survey: Field Data Form Example H-80
Appendix D: Gnatcatcher, Wren Species Accounts H-83
PVPLC: 2007: Predator Control Plan for the Portuguese Bend Nature
Preserve for the Rancho Palos Verdes Draft NCCP IHCP
Appendix A: Sample Property Review Form
H-104
H-115
2007: Habitat Restoration Plan for Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve's
Alta Vicente Ecological Reserve: Consultant: Dudek H -119
Appendix A: Wildlife Species Observed at Alta Vicente H-158
Appendix B: Vascular Plant Species Observed at Alta Vicente H-162
PVPLC: 2007: Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants for the
End
Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve for the Rancho Palos
Verdes Draft NCCPIHCP H-168
H-181
The assumption a reader must make is that these remain valid and current, 12 and 13 years
after being written. Out-of-date reports can easily be cited as meaningless to any discussion.
Suggest we get statements from DUDEK and PVPLC that their reports included here remain
valid.
Overall: Many Appendix entries I reports are dated years ago; obviously, since they
approving these, the Agencies have no problem with dated information but ... for some,
challenging the validity of this data is easy.
END OF 'APPENDIX' REVIEW I COMMENTS
page 10
F-156
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Lastly, 'Final' versions mi ht want to remove 'Draft' and use 'A groved-date' where
apropos.
Program length: The words 'in perpetuity' appear often. So does '40 years.' Times change and
our citizens appetite may fade, for both funding and limitations on their properties. Particularly
if we realize significant oncoming financial obligations they could face: stopping the Portuguese
Bend landslide, a new civic center, building a new Ladera Linda including buying existing soccer
fields for Preserve trailhead parking plus numerous other capital projects not on the stage now.
Councils' political thoughts change as citizens change what they want in their
representatives and I always point out there is an 'out' in every contract, including our
NCCP. But lets hope, once this is adopted, the obligations of our citizens (funding et al) do not
expand exponentially and parties declare new 'musts.' Considering this effort covers 1 butterfly
and 1 bird, I urge agencies to contain costs, staying below 'cost' radar.
Goin out thou ht: Remove ' rivate land owners' from this NCCP or reinstate their abili
to 'ogt out.' This would remove many public concerns, eliminate some 14,000 private lots
from needing enforcement and provide better focus on Preserve lands. Just a thought.
We have arrived here after years of attempts, drafts and land use changes. Much of this involved
the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservatory (PVPLC), requests of RPV's Council, various
environmental organizations, our city and occasional public inputs.
The three documents for public comment are professional, detailed and massive! The draft
NCCP itself is, I believe, at 200 pages, a challenge for any unpaid reader!
I admit I was there at the start, testifying before the then-city council in favor. Throughout the
years I've followed the long delays between milestones and am impressed that at last, we are
here. Just want the product to be worth all the time, effort and citizen monies it has taken.
M Public Comments uestions from December 2018:
Since Council's recent activity on the NCCP, I've been asked some hard questions, questions I
could not answer and, where I was told, 'well, you should know, don't you think?' Some are ...
I am hoping you will have time to answer. I am not interested in responses we often see that say
'not in the requirements so cannot be answered,' or are obvious spins so to avoid answering a
pithy question. An example would be throwing a question's answer to PVPLC or RPV for future
response. I feel you, as our Federal representatives in this, should know these for your use.
1.
the ast 5 ears 2014-2018 b [_y ear? My assumption is a very small number.
2. Cost effectiveness question. The NCCP /HCP will be a new 40-year daily management I
maintenance effort covering our entire city. Additional manpower and costs are
estimated to be ? and are verified by our Finance Advisory Committee (FA C).
3.
Why is a significant 'land' corridor for their benefit being considered?
page 11
F-157
City of RPV NCCP /HCP
Nelson Public Comment
Again, these species don't walk across land, they fly! There is nothing special about
habitat in the area. These species are found throughout the preserve and provide plentiful
food sources. For years there was no corridor, it suddenly appeared and now
removes significant, valuable land, from the owner(s) enjoying its use. Again, the 2
Federally listed species in the Preserve fly, they don't walk!
Remove the corridor! Restore it to what it was.
4. The inability for private parties to 'opt out.' Why? Until just recently (a March 2018
Council Video I'm told) it has been understood that they could. Now the NCCP
"includes the entire boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes" and private parties are
forced into the NCCP. Why was 'opt out' option removed?
5. Answered in Appendix C-2.
6. Cost follow on question: Fuel modification. RPV and the PVPLC may say NCCP
maintenance cost will be negligible but-consider fire danger. Open space maintained by
PVPLC is 1,559 acres constituting a tinderbox ready to burn. During our years of drought
PVPLC has made practically no effort at fuel modification by reducing plant growth in the
Preserve. Instead PVPLC concentrates on annually restoring 5 acres to native plants (that
also burn). So, ofthe forecasted NCCP additional cost, how much is being devoted to
fuel modification to reduce f eliminate the well-known extreme fire danger to
homes near the Preserve or "Open Space Preserve?"
7. Enforcement of the NCCP /HCP /EA. We are talking the entire city, not just the preserve.
These documents place numerous restrictions on 14,000 lots, thousands of'Open
Space Preserve' acres and public lands. All will need to be enforced (or this NCCP will
quickly be forgotten by our public). How is RPV prepared to enforce these restrictions?
RPV has two Code Enforcement staff enforcing all of our codes and now the restrictions
of the NCCP. So I'll ask-how does RPV ever intend to enforce this NCCP? You as a
Federal A encies and our citizens need a concrete answer so ou'll know our efforts
are not bein wasted throu h non-enforcement of the NCCP throu bout RPV. Right?
8. I doubt our public is aware your 'Notice' clearly states on page 5 ' ublic use is also
identified as a conditionall allowed use.' So we are paying for it but public use can
be (and most say will be) denied? See questions 5 and 6. Sentence needs an eraser!
In the past, having been in your shoes answering pages of prickly questions, I know this
responding task is daunting. But thank you for this opportunity and your answers!
Bob Nelson
cc:
Mary Beth Woulfe, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Scott Sobiech (Acting Field Supervisor), Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
page 12
F-158
I~ COX CASTLE
NICHOLSON
May 6, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Karen Goebel
Attn: City ofRPV NCCP/HCP
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262-5199
Scott B. Birkey
415.262.5162
sbirkey@coxcastle.com
File No. 080942
Re: City ofRPV NCCP/HCP; Comments on Re-Circulated NCCP/HCP Documents
Dear Ms. Goebel:
On behalf of our client York Point View Properties, LLC ("York"), we submit the
following comments on the recirculated Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community
Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan ("R ecirculat ed Draft N CC P/HCP"), the
recirculated Implementing Agreement for the Draft NCCP/HCP ("Recircul a ted IA"), and the
recirculated Draft Environmental Assessment ("Recir cula te d Draft EA''). These comments
should he read in the context of our December 27, 2018, letter ("2018 York Letter"), which
commented on the versions of these documents issued in 2018 for public review.
We are disappointed that the Recirculated Draft NCCP/HCP does not address-or
even acknowledge-the comments we made in the 2018 York Letter. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service ("S e rv ice ") and the Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") have
missed an opportunity to resolve the legal infirmities and factual discrepancies we identified in
the 2018 York Letter. Because of this, we feel compelled to submit this letter on the
Recirculated Draft NCCP/HCP and its related documents to yet again remind the Service,
CDFW, and the City of Rancho Palo Verdes ("City") that the NCCP/HCP's treatment of our
client and his Lower Filiorum property ("Property") is illegal and unfair.
As a preliminary matter, we note that York is continuing to work with the City to
process his application for a 3 7-lot subdivision for single-family homes on the Property. This
project is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the zoning for the Property. Most
recently, the City's geologist has approved the project's geological and geotechnical aspects.
We also wish to point out that, separately from this project, York received from
the City a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit, which would enable York to develop within
the Landslide Moratorium Area on the Property. Currently, York anticipates applying for a
development permit to construct an approximately 8,000 square-foot single-family residence,
-ItO
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange Co
F-159
May 6, 2019
Page 2
which includes a second unit, in this area. However, York has had to appeal this Permit because,
among other things, it incorporates a City staff report that refers to the improper 40-acre
dedication for "any development" on the Property, citing the NCCP/HCP. In effect, the Permit's
reference to the 40-acre dedication requirement demonstrates that the construction of one single-
family residence located on a relatively small pot1ion of the Property could trigger an automatic
requirement that 40 acres of land (in a preordained configuration 300-feet wide), must be
dedicated for a wildlife corridor, without any analysis, nexus study, or other rationale. This
scenario makes clear the absurdity of the 40-acre dedication requirement.
With respect to our review of the Recirculated Draft NCCP/HCP and related
materials, instead of restating here all the deficiencies in the NCCP/HCP that are discussed in the
2018 York Letter, we incorporate by reference the 2018 York Letter, attached to this letter as
Attachment A.
Nonetheless, one concern we raised in the 20 18 Y ark Letter bears repeating here:
the requirement that York dedicate 40 acres of land to the City for any development proposed
for the Property is legally improper and biologically unsubstantiated. As we explained in the
2018 York Letter, York simply wishes to be treated fairly and seeks consistent application of the
mitigation ratios set out elsewhere in the NCCP/HCP, including receiving credit for the
mitigation he already implemented for the project proposal approved by the City in 2012.
We also note that text in the recirculated documents pertaining to private
properties that may be acquired and dedicated for the Preserve has now been qualified by
deleting language such as "not considered essential to the proposed Preserve design" (see
Recirculated lA Section 7.2), and "[s]ince 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" (Recirculated Draft NCCP/HCP at p.62).
This deleted text suggests that private properties-such as York's Property-have
in fact been included in the Preserve design, further suggesting that it is a foregone conclusion
that these properties will be counted as mitigation lands under the incidental take permits. If so,
then this raises a serious concern regarding the NCCP/HCP's Preserve design and whether it is
based on sheer speculation that private properties will be acquired and dedicated for the Preserve
to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the NCCP/HCP. (See National Wildlife Fed'n v.
Babbitt, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1294-95 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (holding that speculation and
uncertainty as to funding sources for an HCP is inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act's
mandate that incidental take permit applicants ensure adequate funding).)
For all of the above reasons, and in light of the significant concerns we identified
in the 2018 York Letter, the Recirculated Draft NCCP/HCP, Recirculated lA, and Recirculated
Draft EA should be revised to take into consideration York's comments and further recirculated
for additional public review and comment.
F-160
May 6, 2019
Page 3
We close by pointing out that York has made several good faith efforts to reach
out to Service and CDFW staff regarding the agencies' possible acquisition of some portion of
the Property. As recently as April 29, 2019, York had a lengthy discussion with Mary Beth
Woulfe at the Service regarding the Endangered Species Recovery Land Acquisition Grant
Program and whether funds from that program might be used to acquire a portion of the
Property. York wishes to continue this productive dialogue, and he is hopeful that such an
acquisition by the agencies will resolve his dispute with the Service, CDFW, and the City as to
the improper taking associated with the 40-acre dedication requirement.
Sincerely,
~~.
Scott B. Birkey
Attachment
080942\10658496v3
cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmembers
Doug Willmore, City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian, Community Development Director, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mary Beth Woulfe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
David A. Mayer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
F-161
ATTACHMENT A
F-162
COX CASTLE
NICHOLSON
December 27,2018
VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Karen Goebel
Attn: City of RPV NCCP/HCP
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Rc: City of RPV NCCP/IICI,
Dear Ms. Goebel:
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Scott B. Birkey
415 262 5162
sbirkcy·/i)coxcastle com
File No Ol!O'J!I2
On behalf of our client York Point View Properties, LLC ("York"), we submit the
following comments on the Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community
Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan ("Draft NC P/IlCP'') and the Draft
Environmental Assessment ("Draft ;A") for the Draft NCCP/HCP proposed for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California ("City").
Although York supports an NCCP/HCP in concept, the Draft NCCP/!ICP and the
Draft EA include a number of legal deficiencies, ambiguities, and other defects that arc
concerning. One of the most egregious example of such a defect is the completely unsupported
and legally improper requirement that "if any type of development project" is approved on
certain lands owned by York, then York "will be required to dedicate a minimum of 40 acres'' of
those lands to the Preserve managed pursuant to the Draft NCCP/l ICP. This requirement should
be eliminated from the Draft NCCP/HCP. If the City or the resource agencies want such a
dedication on the Property, which dedication would be in excess of the typical mitigation
requirements set forth for development elsewhere covered under the Draft NCCP/IICP, then the
government must pay the requisite fair market value for the land in compensation to York.
BACKGROUND
York is the owner of the Lower f<iliorum property ("Prop ·rty") identilied in the
Draft NCCP/HCP. York acquired the Property in approximately 1994. At that time, the
Property was undeveloped except for a kitchen (cook shack) and bathroom structure, built in
1961 and comprising approximately 400 square feet. This structure was accessed by a dirt road
extending from Narcissa Drive within the adjacent, private Portuguese Bend community. I\
p01tion of the Property is located in the City's Landslide Moratorium area, which has been in
www.coxcastlc:.colll Los Angeles I 01·ange County I S;lll francisco
F-163
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 2
place since approximately 1972, even though there has been no documented active landslide on
the Property.
In or about 2004 , York submitted an application to the City for a proposal to
develop the Property as a residential planned community containing 84 single-family residences
and related community amenities and a cohesive landscape design concept. York submitted to
the City a Landslide Moratoriwn Exclusion Request supported by extensive geotechnical
investigations confirming that the proposed development would not aggravate or make worse
any existing landslide conditions. The City did not approve the Landslide Moratorium Exclusion
Request, and York withdrew its application for this development proposal on that basis.
One element of that proposal was the setting aside of 40 acres of land within the
project area, which would have allowed development on the remaining 54 acres of the Property .
Those set-aside acreages were calculated based on the potential impacts of the Property to
coastal sage scrub habitat and non-native grasslands. Although no NCCP or HCP had been
adopted, impacts related to that proposal would have been mitigated based on conceptual
mitigation ratios applied to the loss of 7.3 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and 59.0 acres of
non-native grasslands. The resulting mitigation would have been the dedication of 40 acres
onsite and some offsitc mitigation, leaving approximately 54 acres of developable land on the
balance of the Prope1iy.
In 2012, York submitted a new application to the City for a proposal to allow up
to 25.5 acres of agricultural uses, the hosting of special events and motion picture filming, and
the installation of circulation improvements, including a paved and landscaped access driveway.
The City's staff report recommending approval of this proposal stated that "the subject property
is not part of the City's NCCP Preserve, but the City's NCCP document does identify
development of the subject propc11y as a project covered by the City's NCC'P ." The staff report
further noted: "The NCCP document approved by the City in 2004 identifies coverage for a
residential development project proposed in 2004 that was expected to result in a loss of 7.3
acres of [coastal sage scrub habitat] and 59 acres of non-native grassland. l'hcsc losses of habitat
would be mitigated by the project proponent dedicating 40, on-site, acres to the City's Preserve."
However, as noted above York withdrew its application for a "residential development project"
and abandoned that 2004 proposal. The City's own actions demonstrate that , in the absence of a
proposal resulting in the requisite habitat loss, a 40-acre dedication requirement as mitigation for
an unspecified development proposal is not appropriate or profitable.
On January 8, 2013, the City 's Planning Commission approved the application for
the 2012 proposal, and as mitigation for that development, the City required payment of
mitigation fees in the amount of $97,800 to account for the removal of non-native grasses and
installation of up to 25 .5 acres of agricultural uses related to the 2012 proposal. Notably, the
City's staff report for the 2012 proposal stated that "no mitigation in the form of land dedication
or habitat restoration is required as there is no nexus for such dedication or rt:storation ." As
F-164
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 3
such, no mitigation in the form of land dedication or habitat restoration was required for the 2012
proposal.
As of the date ofthis letter, the special event hosting facilities and some of the
agricultural uses related to the 2012 proposal have been installed on the Property, and all
required mitigation fees have been paid. York continues to explore other development
opportunities on the Properly, including possible residential uses where authorized by the City's
General Plan and zoning. Recently, York submitted applications to the City Planning
Department for residential development on the Property, including a 37-lot subdivision for
single-family homes.
LEGAL DEFICIENCIES IN TilE DRAFT NCCP/HCP
In concept, an NCCP/HCP to guide environmentally responsible development
may make some sense on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. However, as currently drafted, the Draft
NCCP/HCP contains a number of legal deficiencies and other defects that make it untenable for
private landowners -and, frankly, for York in particular, in light of the Draft NCCP/1 ICP's
onerous land dedication requirement for any development on York's Property. J'hc Draft
NCCP/IICP suffers from a number of legal defects under the state's Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act and the federal Endangered Species Act and should be revised and
recirculated for public review and comment. Because of these legal defects, the Draft EA is also
inadequate and should be revised and recirculated.
Fir~"f, this dedication requirement grossly exceeds 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. C'al.
2004).) Requiring York to dedicate a portion of its land in exchange for the right to develop
without any metric or based upon any principled rationale is excessive and far beyond Section
lO's practicability requirement. Any mitigation requirement for impacts from development on
this land should be grounded in applicable mitigation ratios based on vegetation community,
rather than some arbitrarily established bright-line requirement untcthered from the Jaw, science,
or reason. This is not a case in which the agencies can simply assume a "one-size-fits-all"
approach to mitigation.
Second, 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 York. This requirement effectively burdens the 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
F-165
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 4
only for the impacts caused by an applicant's development, not impacts caused by the
development of others. (16 U.S.C. § l539(a)(2)(A)(ii) (requiring that "the applicant" take steps
to minimize its own take).)
Moreover, case law indicates that mitigation imposed under Section 10 is
constrained by basic principles of proportionality. "[TJhe statutory language [of Section 1 OJ
does not suggest that an applicant must ever do more than mitigate the effect of its take of
species." (National Wildl(fe 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 Foresi!J! & f<'ire
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 York to dedicate
land for a wildlife corridor that is effectively intended to offset the entire Preserve system, the
Draft NCCP/HCP would improperly require York to shoulder burdens and offset impacts caused
by other property owners.
Third, the Draft NCCP/HCP fails to analyze or even describe the impacts
associated with development on the 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)(i)), and it is inconsistent with the Natural Community Conservation
Planning Act, which requires that an NCCP must identify "the impacts of permitted activities"
on Covered Species (Cal. Fish & Game Code § 2820(a)(6)). Without an analysis orthat
development or the impacts that will likely result from any take associated with that
development, the Draft NCCP/HCP cannot in good faith identify land dedication or any other
kind of mitigation to offset those impacts because any such impa<.:ts 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 i'. 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).)
Fourth, the Draft 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 o(Tigard, 512 U.S.
374,391 (1994).) As structured, the NCCP/HCP fails on both accounts.
F-166
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 5
As discussed above, the Draft NCCP/HCP requires that "any type of development
... approved on the Lower Filiorum property" be conditioned on York dedicating 40 acres of
land to the City. By its express language, this would include development even within areas that
arc subject to prior approvals, that have been substantially disturbed or altered, and for which
mitigation fees have already been paid. The Draft 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
development. The City and the resource agwcies appear 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 Draft NCCP/IICP is fatally defective.
In addition, applying the Draft NCCP/HCP to the Property will result in a total
taking ofthe 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 or Landslide Moratorium Exclusion Request in conjunction with the
terminated and abandoned 2004 project. In response to City direction, York redesigned the
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 ofthe Property. Indeed, any development ofthe limited portion of the Property
outside of both the Landslide Moratorium area and the Draft 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.
Fi{tlt, the Property is being treated differently and unfairly under the Draft
NCCP/HCP as compared to other similarly situated private properties. For example, section
5.3.2 states in part: "For the Private Projects to be covered under the City's Plan, vegetation
removal shall be offset by the project applicant paying a Mitigation Fee into the City's I labitat
Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native grasslands [] occurring in areas
greater than 0.3 acres." No such mitigation calculation is available for the Propetty under the
Draft. NCCP/HCP.
Notably, York objected to the disparate treatment of its Property. The agenda
package for the March 29, 2018 meeting of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
includes a letter from York's legal counsel summarizing the development history of the Property,
asserting that the 40-acre dedication requirement as written was unlawful, and requesting that the
City defer approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP to address these concerns. At the conclusion of the
hearing. the City Council nonetheless voted to approve the Draft NCCP/HCP as written, which
included the 40-acrc dedication requirement. York has never consented to, and instead has
expressly opposed, this requirement.
F-167
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 6
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFTNCCP/1/CP
• The changes in the Draft NCCP/HCP from 2004 to 2018 were not properly and
adequately evaluated. One notable example of this is the fact that the 2004 version of
the Draft NCCP/HCP did not provide a specific location for the 40-acre dedication or
reserve corridor contemplated for the Property. By contrast, section 5.3.1 of the 2018
version of the Draft NCCP/HCP specifically provides that a wildlife corridor be
located on the southern edge of the Property "connecting" to the Abalone Cove
portion ofthe Preserve, within the property boundaries depicted in the 2018 version
of the Draft NCCP/HCP. This description in section 5.3 .1 alluding to "connectivity''
fails to account for the existence of Palos Verdes Drive South, a major thoroughfare
which appears to be an about 1 00-foot wide, divided, and heavily traveled paved
roadway, separating the Property from the Abalone Cove portion of the Preserve.
The Draft NCCP/HCP offers no rationale for why a major, heavily traveled road
somehow promotes, rather than severs, the desired habitat connectivity. Moreover,
the Draft NCCP/I-ICP never explains why maintaining basic agricultural uses on part
of the Prope11y, which were already approved and fully mitigated pursuant to the
prior proposal on the Property, would sever "connectivity." Presumably, if the
Covered Species identified in the Draft NCCP/HCP can somehow co-exist with and
cross Palos Verdes Drive South, they can also co-exist with and cross the agricultural
and other landscaped uses elsewhere on the Property.
• The Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve is a major fire hazard. Then: is a history of
major fires in this area. Dry coastal sage scrub and dead and dying acacia and pine
trees in this area make the situation worse.
• There is no provision for funding to acquire private property. Moreover, the Draft
NCCP/1-ICP provides almost no description of funding sources for the City's
implementation of the Draft NCCP/HCP. The NCCP/HCP simply states that it relies
on "dedicated funding sources" (p. 161 ), but it provides no detailed description of
those sources or how reliable those sources may be during the duration of the
NCCP/HCP ''permit" or the "associated perpetual management of the Preserve." This
is insufficient in light of the USFWS's own guidance in its Habitat Conservation
Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (20 16) that "funding
amounts and sources in an HCP are adequate, sufficient, reliable and will meet the
purposes of the conservation strategy .... " The Draft NCCP/IICP fails to address
where the agencies anticipate getting these funds and the reliability of any such funds
in the near term and in perpetuity for preserve management. Tf the USFWS and the
CDFW are unable to address these funding assurances requirements, then they will be
unable to make findings regarding adequate funding requirements for the
NCCPIHCP.
F-168
Karen Goebel
December 27, 2018
Page 7
• The Draft NCCP/HCP defers discussion of the public access to the Preserve to the
Public Usc Master Plan, or "PUMP". (p. 101) The Draft NCCP/1-ICP explains that
the PUMP has somehow been incorporated into the Plan, but the Draft NCCP/IICP
provides no summary or even conceptual description of proposed public access to the
Preserve. The public needs to be provided better access to trails and to the Preserve,
but without a discussion of those needs and potential means of access in the Draft
NCCP/HCP, it is unclear whether the NCCP/1-ICP has adequately accounted for the
public access to the trails and to the Preserve.
• The Draft NCCP/HCP's preserve system runs roughshod over private properly rights.
For some properties, there is no "rough propmiionality" between impacts and
mitigation required under the Draft NCCP/HCP. One glaring example of this is the
Lower Filiorum Parcel, a property which is burdened by the Draft NCCP/IICP with
giving away 40 acres to the Draft NCCP/HCP's preserve system regardless of the
impacts that may be caused by any development on that property. Particularly
egregious is the fact that the Draft NCCP/IICP itself acknowledges that the dedication
of this land is not even "necessary for the" Draft NCCP/HCP or the preserve created
by the Draft NCCP/HCP. (pp. 51 & 61) Regardless of the necessity of the
dedication, a categorical 40-acre dedication requirement, without any grounding in
actual science or project impacts, makes little sense when a more tailored-made and
sliding-scale mitigation approach is possible, such as, for example, a 2:1 mitigation
ratio for impacts to coastal sage scrub and a 0. 5:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to non-
native grassland.
• The Draft NCCP/HCP is inconsistent with the California Legislature's fundamental
policies underlying the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act that seek to
strike a balance between conserving natural resources and encouraging economic
development. The Draft NCCP/IICP ignores policies established by Section 2801 of
the Act, such as:
(a) addressing the "need for broad-based planning to provide for ctTcctivc
protection and conservation of the state's wildlife heritage wh;/e
continuing to allow appropriate development and growth";
(b) "protecting California's natural diversity while reducing conflicts between
protection of the state's wildlife heritage and reasonable use of natural
resources.for economic development";
(e) facilitating "early coordination to protect the interests of the state, the
federal government, and local public agencies, landowners, and other
private parties";
F-169
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 8
(d) providing an "early planning framework for proposed development
projects within the planning area in order to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for project impacts to wildlife";
(e) encouraging "the active participation and support oflandowners and
others in the conservation and stewardship of natural resources in the plan
area during plan development using appropriate measures, including
incentives."
• The Draft NCCP/HCP is also inconsistent with one of the defining elements of a
"Natural Community Conservation Plan" under the Act, namely that the plan must
"identify and provide for those measures necessary to conserve and manage
biological diversity within the plan area while allowing compatible and appropriate
economic development, growth, and other human uses."
• Because the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the only participant in the Draft
NCCP/IICP, the Plan is of limited value and utility. The species at issue under the
Plan are located throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula, not simply within the
political boundaries of Rancho Palos Verdes. Because of its limited size and irregular
shape , the Plan area is not conducive to creating "unfragmented habitat areas," which
is a policy mandate specified in the Act.
• The proposed "Preserve Properties" in the NCCP/IICP are divided into 12
geographical management units without any cohesive or logical relationship . In
general, they are scattered throughout the City, and they appear to have been included
within each "Reserve Area" solely because they are already-existing open spaces or
lands owned by the City. A pattern of isolated and arbitrarily-established preserves
does not "promote[] conservation ofunfragmented habitat areas ,'' as mandated by the
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
• The science underlying the Draft NCCP/HCP is out-of-date and no longer reflects the
"best available scientific information," as required under the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act and the Endangered Species Act. The Draft NCCP/IICP
is based on vegetation mapping and gnatcatcher and cactus wren distribution data that
was compiled in 1994 and later updated in 1999. The most recent data mapping
effort was done in 2007, over 10 years ago.
• The Draft NCCP/HCP inconsistently and seemingly arbitrarily allows project
activities within certain preserve areas. For example, the Draft NCCP/IICP includes
an Abalone Cover Management Unit for a 65.2-acre preserve on the "Abalone Cove
Property," which is owned by the City's successor agency to the Redevelopment
Agency. However, the Draft NCCP/HCP also authorizes an "Abalone Cove Beach
F-170
Karen Goebel
Decem bcr 27 , 20 18
Page 9
Project," that includes a restroom/storage area, gate house, parking lot, shade
structures, and improved trails to accommodate vehicular traffic.
• The risk of wildfire has not been properly evaluated or addressed by the Draft
NCCP/I-ICP. The Draft NCCP/IICP summarily states that "in situations where fuel
modification must occur in the Preserve, impacts are already addressed by the City
dedicating 1,402.4 acres to the Preserve." (p. 98) The Draft NCCP/IIC'P provides no
clear analysis for why the mere fact the City is dedicating these acres to the Preserve
will somehow offset the dangers created by wildlires.
• The Draft NCCP/IICP does not describe the scope, intensity, or magnitude of any of
the preserve management activities described as "Covered Activities." (p. 103)
Many of these activities may impact adjoining landowners and properties. For
example, vehicular access, invasive species control, predator control, reintroduction
of Coven:d Species, and maintenance of fire/fuel buffers could have "spill-over"
effects onto nearby properties. The Draft NCCP/HCP ignores this possibility, and
instead merely lists these activities as if they existed in a vacuum.
COMMENTS ON 11/E IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
• Section 5.0 of the Implementing Agreement indicates that the USFWS and CDFW
have issued "findings" essentially concluding that the Draft NCCP/HCP is consistent
with the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act and the Endangered Species
Act. These findings have not been included in the Implementing Agreement or any
other document circulated in connection with the Draft NCCP/HCP. The findings
should be circulated for public review and comment.
• Section I 0.3 of the Implementing Agreement identifies a number ofUSFWS
obligations. One of those obligations is compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the issuance of a biological opinion in connection with the Draft
NCCP/HCP. That biological opinion should be circulated for public review and
comment.
• Section 14.0 ofthe Implementing Agreement suffers from the same defect as the
Draft NCCP/HCP regarding the description of funding sources for the
implementation of the Draft NCCP/HCP. This section states: "The City shall fully
fund all obligations assigned to it under the Plan and is ultimately responsible for
funding all of the obligations under the Plan assigned to PVPLC, or its successor, as
the City's Preserve Habitat Manager." However, there is no description of this
funding source or how reliable the source may be.
F-171
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 10
COMMENTS ON TilE DRAFT EA
• The Draft EA includes a No Action Alternative and four Action Alternatives, all of
which differ in only one respect -the configuration of a preserve design. This is an
inadequate range of alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA"). Other potential alternatives could have included, for example, an
alternative that focused on restoring disturbed lands, rather than locking up preserve
lands; or a set of alternatives that evaluated more or fewer Covered Activities or
Covered Species; or an alternative that used a different permit duration; or an
alternative that reflected a broader, truly regional NCCP/HCP that covered more
comprehensively required habitat types for the Covered Species, even if the lands
subject to that NCCP/HCP would be within the jurisdictions of local governments
that did not wish to participate in a NCCP/I ICP.
• The Draft EA fails to adequately describe the environmental consequences related to
each of the Covered Activities as they are implemented within each of the
Alternatives. For example, the Draft EA does not describe whether implementation
of the Covered Activities-and the environmental impacts associated with those
Covered Activities·· will be better or worse in the context of the Alternatives. It is
insufficient under NEPA to simply assume that the size of the Preserve is the only
metric for evaluating environmental impacts associated with the Draft NCCP/1 !CP.
• The Draft EA improperly defers analysis of certain key environmental topics. for
example, the Draft EA indicates that any of the Preserve alternatives will include 2.3
acres of jurisdictional wetlands (riparian scrub). However, the Draft EA does not
evaluate the likely environmental impacts to these wetlands associated with Covered
Activities taking place within the Preserve. For example, invasive species or other
preserve management activities may have significant deleterious impacts to these
wetlands. Without an analysis of those impacts, neither the decision makers nor the
public will understand the magnitude of those impacts or whether and how any such
impacts could be mitigated or avoided.
• The Draft EA evaluates only six topical areas: biological resources, geology and
soils, land use, air quality, water resources and water quality, and cultural resources.
By contrast, the City's Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the Rancho
Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA ") evaluates seventeen topical areas eleven more topical areas than the
Draft EA. The NEP A analysis for the Draft NCCP/HCP should be modeled on the
CEQA analysis, and an Environmental Impact Statement, rather than an l~A, should
be prepared for the Draft NCCP/HCP.
F-172
Karen Goebel
December 27,2018
Page 11
* * *
For all of the above reasons, the Draft NCCP/HCP, Implementing Agreement, and
Draft EA should be revised and recirculated for further review and comment. A key aspect of
that revision effort, and of particular interest to York, is the elimination of the legally improper
and biologically unsubstantiated requirement that York dedicate 40 acres of land to the City for
any development proposed for the Propet1y. Put simply, York wishes to be treated fairly and
seeks consistent application of the mitigation ratios set out elsewhere in the Draft NCCP/IICP,
including credit for the mitigation York already implemented for the project proposal approved
by the City in 2012. If the City or the resource agencies instead decide to ignore the relevant
mitigation ratios, and continue to demand a 40-acre dedication on the Property, then the
government must pay the requisite fair market value for the land in compensation to York.
Sincerely, , --~
.J-~.~.{:
Sc(l 't · ~. Birkl:y '-_)
cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmembers
Doug Willmore, City Manager, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian, Community Development Director, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mary Beth Woulfe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
David A. Mayer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
0809~2\ 1 0250546v3
F-173
F-174
on the map are the areas
mo~t severely damaged by_£.(
day's brush f)re on the. Palos
--' Verdes Peninsula)Firemen esti-
mate at least 12 homes were
burned and by 11 p.m., with the
IOU lNG
,. J
~ .-.:..':· ••• · ••.. ·: . . ·. , ·, .:r , .. .. -............ ,.... •..:
blaze 50 per cent contained,
nearly 500 acres were affected
by the fire. F-175