CC SR 20191119 01 - NCCP-HCP
PUBLIC HEARING: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED ON 10/29/19
Date: November 19, 2019
Subject: Consideration and possible action to adopt the final Rancho Palos Verdes Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)
Recommendation: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, thereby adopting the final Rancho Palos
Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(NCCP/HCP)
(2) Initiate code amendment proceedings to amend the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code to reflect the NCCP/HCP as follows:
a. Title 15 (Fire Code);
b. Title 16 (Subdivision Ordinance);
c. Chapter 17.41 (Coastal Sage Scrub Ordinance);
d. Chapter 17.70 (Site Plan Review);
e. Chapter 17.72 (Coastal Permit Process); and
f. Chapter 17.76 (Grading Ordinance);
(3) Direct Staff to prepare the Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) for the City
Council adoption at a future duly-noticed public meeting; and
(4) Authorize Staff to record the NCCP/HCP-required conservation easements
for the Preserve properties.
Subject Property/Location: Citywide
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Duhovic
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Duhovic
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/19/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to adopt the final Rancho Palos Verdes Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, thereby adopting the final Rancho Palos Verdes
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)
(2) Initiate code amendment proceedings to amend the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code to reflect the NCCP/HCP as follows:
a. Title 15 (Fire Code);
b. Title 16 (Subdivision Ordinance);
c. Chapter 17.41 (Coastal Sage Scrub Ordinance);
d. Chapter 17.70 (Site Plan Review);
e. Chapter 17.72 (Coastal Permit Process); and
f. Chapter 17.76 (Grading Ordinance);
(3) Direct Staff to prepare the Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) for the City Council
adoption at a future duly-noticed public meeting; and
(4) Authorize Staff to record the NCCP/HCP-required conservation easements for
the Preserve properties.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2019-___ adopting the NCCP/HCP (Page A-1)
B. Public Correspondence from October 29, 2019 Public Hearing and Public
Correspondence received between October 29 and November 12, 2019.
(Page B-1)
The following documents can be found on the City’s website under the October 29,
2019 agenda at:
http://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3524
Final NCCP/HCP
1
Final Appendices
Final Implementing Agreement
NCCP/HCP Frequently Asked Questions
Responses to Comments on the NCCP/HCP and associated Environmental
Assessment
Grant documents for Filiorum, Portuguese Bend, and Malaga Canyon reserves
Conservation easements
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On October 29, 2019, the City Council was scheduled to consider the adoption of the
NCCP/HCP. However, that morning, Staff was contacted by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requesting additional time to vet certain aspects of the
NCCP/HCP as it relates to the Lower Filiorum property. Specifically, the CDFW
indicated it had concerns with the 40-acre corridor requirement for the Lower Filiorum
property, defined in Section 5.3.1 of the NCCP/HCP as mitigation for any environmental
impact caused by development on the property.
In light of CDFW’s request, the City Council continued the public hearing to tonight’s
meeting. This report serves only as an update to the October 29, 2019 staff report, and
contains information on proposed changes and further clarifications to the final
NCCP/HCP and the associated resolution made since. Please refer to the October 29,
2019 City Council agenda packet for the comprehensive staff report and pertinent
attached documents available using the following link:
http://rpv.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=3524
Updated NCCP/HCP Section 5.3.1:
Since October 29, the CDFW has been working with City Staff and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFW S) to further clarify the environmental mitigation associated with
development of the Lower Filiorum property. As a result, the text found in Section 5.3.1
of the October 29 NCCP/HCP document is proposed to be replaced entirely with the
text below.
5.3.1 Lower Filiorum Development
The Lower Filiorum property, also known as the Point View property, is 95 acres
and zoned single-family residential. Approximately 46.82 acres of the property
are located outside the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area (LMA) and
approximately 48.18 are located within the LMA. The property is located within a
portion of the plan area that is considered essential for NCCP/HCP purposes to
maintain Preserve connectivity and was identified as a Regionally Important
Habitat Linkage during Preserve planning and design (EIR 2004). The width and
the amount of area required for the creation of functional corridors/linkages
generally depends on many factors, including the target species, surrounding
land use and potential for detrimental edge effects, length of the corridor, and
2
corridor habitat quality. Recommended corridor widths can range from 100 -300
feet for plants and invertebrates, 200 feet to 1 mile for sensitive interior bird
species, to greater than 3 miles for larger predators (Bentrup 2008). In coastal
southern California NCCP planning, regional corridors are routinely planned to
have a minimum width of 1,000 feet (Bond 2003, MSCP 1997); however, such
corridor planning is also intended to provide for movement of larger mammals,
such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor),
which are not considered in this NCCP/HCP. Given the composition of species
expected to occur within the plan area and the wildlife species identified for
coverage under the NCCP/HCP, a 300-foot live-in corridor through the Lower
Filiorum property is expected to be sufficient to maintain Preserve connectivity
and viable populations of covered species and other common local fauna.
The City-approved 2004 NCCP/HCP identified and required a 300-foot-wide, live-
in wildlife movement corridor be established along the eastern side of the
property within the LMA. The corridor to be conserved was part of an identified
40-acre conservation obligation for developing the 95-acre Point View property.
In 2003, the Point View property was reported to be comprised of 70 acres of
non-native grassland, 2.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS), 9.4 acres of
disturbed CSS, 6.9 acres of exotic woodland, and 5.2 acres of disturbed
vegetation (NRC 2003). The required minimum of 40 acres of dedicated
Preserve included 1.5 acres to be provided as mitigation for previous
unauthorized brush clearing activities and 38.5 acres of mitigation for CSS and
grassland losses resulting from anticipated future development of the 95-acre
Lower Filiorum parcel. Since 2004, the property owner proposed, and the City
approved in 2012, development1 in the eastern portions of the Lower Filiorum
property. This included approval to convert 25.5 acres of the property to
agricultural use, which required payment of $97,800 to the City; however, no
contribution to the wildlife corridor was established as part of the City’s approval.
Although the project approval did not preclude the ability to establish a live -in
wildlife corridor elsewhere through the Lower Filiorum property, the development
of agriculture, a golf course, and the event garden substantially reduces
opportunities to establish the wildlife corridor that was expected to be largely
contained within the boundaries of the LMA. Development of the area originally
identified for a corridor, along the eastern side of the property in the LMA, results
in the need to establish a wildlife corridor in an alternate location on the property
to ensure functional Preserve connectivity and meet the requirements of a
NCCP.
Due the importance of the Lower Filiorum property as a regional linkage, specific
conservation goals and standards continue to apply under this NCCP/HCP.
1 7.0 acres of agricultural orchards and vineyards, a 9-hole golf course, a paved internal driveway
beginning at PVDS, and a landscaped patio (referred to as the “Event Garden”) have been
developed on the property since 2004. Most of the development is located on the eastern portion
of the property.
3
These include establishing a functional, live-in wildlife movement corridor that
maintains a minimum 300-foot width and connects the Upper Filiorum Reserve to
the Abalone Cove Reserve. Establishing this corridor will require conserving
approximately 58% of the remaining undeveloped 69.5 acres of the property in a
contiguous configuration. This would still allow for approximately 42%
development of the property that was not addressed in the 2012 approval,
provided that the development is consistent with and does not compromise the
NCCP/HCP’s conservation goals and standards. Most importantly, future
development could not preclude establishment of the 300 -foot-wide wildlife
corridor for the City to still meet the requirements of the NCCP/HCP. The final
configuration of the wildlife corridor will be established through future discussions
between the landowner, the City, and the CDFW and USFWS (Wildlife
Agencies). The local fire authority will also need to sign off on a final design. For
the purposes of the NCCP/HCP, any type of manmade improvement, including
agricultural land use and/or a golf course, is considered development and would
not count toward the necessary on-site conservation or be acceptable for use as
a live-in corridor. These unnatural landscapes fail to provide the necessary
resources for covered species to successfully complete all life stages, including,
but not limited to, breeding, nesting, fledging, egg laying, and pupation. Sens itive
species such as the gnatcatcher are not commonly observed in human modified
habitats (Crooks et al. 2001), making it necessary for the corridor to be
comprised of native or naturalized vegetation (i.e., non -native grasses). If
agricultural fields or other existing improvements are abandoned and restored to
natural habitat, they can be counted toward the conservation and corridor
requirement if those acres are arranged in an appropriate overall configuration.
The conservation requirement outlined in the preceding paragraph will be
established on the Lower Filiorum property through mitigating for future
development impacts on site and/or through acquisition of the property by the
City or PVPLC. Mitigation will occur on site and contribute to the conservation
and corridor requirement due to the Lower Filiorum property’s essential role as a
movement corridor for covered species. As indicated previously, the remainder of
the Preserve has been assembled and connectivity through the Lower Filiorum
property is the lone remaining, but essential, component for the NCCP/HCP and
the Preserve conservation and connectivity goals. Future development on the
property will negatively impact covered species’ movement through the Preserve,
creating greater impacts than development in other portions of the plan area. To
maintain connectivity and offset impacts, if a portion of the remaining 69.5 acres
of open space on the property is proposed for development, a pro rata share at a
1.4:1 ratio (conservation:development) will be required to be conserved prior to
initiation of construction activities. Mitigation will occur on site and contribute to
the 58% conservation and corridor requirement due to the Lower Filiorum
property’s role as a key species movement corridor. The mitigation ratios for the
aggregate native grassland, non-native grasslands, and for CSS are comparable
to other private projects in the plan area and NCCP/HCPs. The mitigation ratio
required for impacts to habitat is consistent with other NCCP/HCPs and is
4
necessary due to the impacts of covered species that use habitat on the property
directly or indirectly through loss and fragmentation of habitat. In the event the
above referenced conservation goals for a wildlife movement corridor and 58%
conservation requirement have been met through acquisition of property or other
dedications on the property, project impacts can be mitigated through payment
into the City’s in-lieu fee program. Any required fuel modification for future
projects shall not encroach into the conserved area; therefore, the corridor
location/design will need to be coordinated with the local fire authority.
The updated text explains the environmental significance of the wildlife corridor in the
context of the overall Preserve design as originally envisioned in 2004 and approved by
the City Council as Design Alternative D. As background, the City worked with the
Wildlife Agencies and NCCP/HCP Working Group (which included Jim York) from 1996-
2004 to design NCCP/HCP alternatives to maximize habitat and species conservation
while minimizing constraints on local development. Of the four proposed NCCP/HCP
alternatives that also included Preserve designs, the NCCP/HCP working group
recommended, and the City Council approved, Design Alternative D. This preferred
Preserve design alternative for the NCCP/HCP included a 40-acre live-in corridor
traversing privately-owned Lower Filiorum because it would provide a live-in corridor
from core habitat areas within the Preserve to coastal Abalone Cove.
Biological Analysis of the Wildlife Corridor
The NCCP/HCP provides for streamlined project approvals and differs from project-by-
project permitting. The NCCP/HCP establishes a regional conservation approach for
comprehensive reserve planning for both the core and linkage habitats for covered
species, which results in the applicant receiving incidental take permits and streamlined
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. The live-in corridor on the
Lower Filiorum property is a necessary design and functional component of the
Preserve, because it allows the Wildlife Agencies to make findings that the Preserve
provides core and linkage habitat areas necessary for covered species preservation.
As described in the updated text for Section 5.3.1 of the NCCP/HCP, t he wildlife
corridor would support the life history requirements (i.e., sheltering, foraging, and
breeding/nesting) for the animal species covered in the NCCP/HCP. There is no
universal standard for corridor widths, however, 300 feet is a narrow corridor by the
standards of similar plans. Wildlife Agencies’ biologists anticipate that the relatively
narrow corridor will function to improve connectivity given the relatively small size of the
Preserve overall. The corridor is intended to be used by wildlife species, including
covered species, as a live-in corridor, and species are expected to be able to move
through this area unimpeded to larger habitat patches. It is essential that Preserve
areas are designed to provide contiguous habitat areas, which allow species to be able
move between core habitat areas within the Preserve. It is also important to prevent
isolation and provide refuge areas for species to use when fires or other catastrophic
events occur.
5
The Lower Filiorum property is the only remaining property available to provide a
functional linkage between Preserve properties. The wildlife corridor would provide a
link between Three Sisters Reserve, Filiorum Reserve, Portuguese Bend Reserve, and
Forrestal Reserve and essentially, the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline, via the Abalone
Cove Reserve. Smaller linkage areas exist between the San Ramon and Ocean Trails
reserves, and between Alta Vicente and Vicente Bluffs reserves; however, these
linkages do not provide the same function.
The question has been raised by members of the public as to whether a viable corridor
can cross Palos Verdes Drive South. The answer is yes. The linkages between the San
Ramon and Ocean Trails reserves, and between the Alta Vicente and Vicente Bluffs
reserves also traverse Palos Verdes Drive South. It is the geographical situation of the
City that to reach the coast, wildlife must traverse Palos Verdes Drive South, and this is
more feasible for a flying species. Wildlife Agency biologists expect the avian species to
be able to readily cross the road, and non-flying species will infrequently use the
connection.
Another question raised by the public is whether the threatened coastal California
gnatcatchers actually exist on or near the Lower Filiorum property. Gnatcatchers do
exist on and near the property. The most recent surveys completed in 2017, detected
gnatcatchers on and adjacent to the property. The surveys were conducted by Cooper
Ecological Monitoring and are available online in the 2017 Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve Annual Report. The proposed live-in corridor provides habitat and movement
areas for covered species, as well as other species on the Peninsula. Because NCCPs
are designed to provide general plant and wildlife habitat value using the ecosystem
approach, this corridor will benefit species beyond the covered species addressed in the
NCCP/HCP.
Update to NCCP/HCP Section 5.4.1
The following minor correction was made to NCCP/HCP Section 5.4.1 . The italicized
words were removed from the City Council-approved NCCP/HCP after the March 29,
2018 City Council meeting, and the edit was posted in the updated tracked changes
version of the document posted on the City’s website. However, the words italicized
below have been reinserted to affirm that vehicular access necessary for landslide
remediation will be retained, and for grammatical correction to the sentence.
Landslide abatement and monitoring activities that do not result in the loss of
covered species and/or habitat. The regular maintenance and repair of existing
drainage facilities and existing Preserve roads or trails that accommodate
authorized vehicles within the Preserve that do not result in the loss of covered
species and/or their habitat.
6
If the revised text to Sections 5.3.1 and Section 5.4.1 is acceptable to the City Council
and the NCCP/HCP document is adopted this evening, the final NCCP/HCP wil l be
updated accordingly for evaluation by the Wildlife Agencies for permit issuance.
Revised Resolution
The resolution attached to the October 29, 2019 staff report has been revised to reflect
clarifying edits and minor corrections (Page A-1).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Public Noticing
Since the October 29 public hearing was continued to November 19, a new public
notice is not required. However, to keep the public informed, a notice announcing the
continued public hearing was published in the Peninsula News on November 14, 2019.
Additionally, the notice was posted on the City’s webpage and sent to Breaking News
and Preserve listserv subscribers. Lastly, to ensure the approximately 43 property
owners with CSS on their property who may be impacted by the NCCP/HCP were made
aware of tonight’s meeting, public notices were mailed to them on November 12, 2019.
Public Comments
Since the October 29, 2019 City Council Meeting, staff received two public comment
letters (Attachment B). One of the letters expressed concern on the City adopting the
NCCP/HCP before the litigation with Mr. York has been resolved. The second public
comment letter requested clarification on what the NCCP/HCP is.
7
01203.0005/608544.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE CITY’S NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is home to habitat supporting several
listed and sensitive species. As a result, development projects in the City are often subject
to the provisions of the state and Federal endangered species acts.
WHEREAS, in 1996, the City entered into a Planning Agreement with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (now the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife), to “conduct the necessary studies for the preparation of
an Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) within the boundaries of the City …,
including but not limited to mapping, designation of species to be protected, and
environmental review.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife may be referred to collectively as the “Wildlife Agencies.”
WHEREAS, the Planning Agreement enumerated the following threatened and
endangered target species: the coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, the San
Diego horned lizard, the Palos Verdes blue butterfly, the El Segundo blue butterfly, and
the bright green dudleya.
WHEREAS, the Federal Section 10 Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) process
of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., provides an opportunity
for species protection and habitat conservation within the context of non -Federal
development and land use activities.
WHEREAS, the Natural Community Conservation Plan Act of 1991, Cal. Fish &
Game Code § 2800 et seq., provides for the preparation and implementation of large-
scale natural resource conservation plans that identify and provide for the protection and
perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing for compatible and appropriate
development and growth, and while providing comprehensive management and
conservation of multiple species.
WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved
a NCCP/HCP Subarea Plan for the City (2004 NCCP/HCP). The 2004 NCCP/HCP was
developed as a regional conservation plan to maximize benefits for covered species and
vegetation communities while accommodating appropriate economic development within
the City pursuant to the requirements of the NCCP Act and Section 10(a) of the federal
Endangered Species Act. The primary conservation strategy of the 2004 NCCP/HCP was
to dedicate and manage habitat lands within a 1,402.4-acre Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve (Preserve) for the benefit of 10 covered species.
WHEREAS, the City analyzed the 2004 NCCP/HCP’s potential impacts on the
environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal.
Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal.
Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto .
A-1
01203.0005/608544.1
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment (EIR/EA) for the 2004 NCCP/HCP, and the Final EIR (2004 FEIR) was
certified by the City Council on August 31, 2004 per Resolution No, 2004-32.
WHEREAS, although the City Council certified the FEIR in 2004, incidental take
permits pursuant to the state and Federal Endangered Species Acts were not issued by
the Wildlife Agencies for the 2004 NCCP/HCP. However, the City received an allocation
of coastal sage scrub habitat that could be lost prior to the adoption of the NCCP/HCP.
Several projects were able to receive interim habitat loss permits consistent with the
Federal 4(d) rule. The City has been implementing the NCCP/HCP since 2004, and it
continues to coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on issues related to the NCCP/HCP.
As part of NCCP/HCP implementation, the City, the Wildlife Agencies, and other partners
continued to build the Preserve through acquisitions and dedications. In 2006, the City
entered into an interim contract with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
(PVPLC; the Preserve Manager) to monitor and manage the NCCP/HCP Preserve
system, and in 2011, the City and the PVPLC entered into a comprehensive Preserve
Management Agreement to monitor and manage the NCCP/HCP Preserve during the
permit term. Additionally, as required by the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the City prepared and
adopted a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) in 2013 intended to balance the public’s
passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources with the City’s
Preserve.
WHEREAS, since 2004, the City has been working with the Wildlife Agencies and
the PVPLC to finalize the NCCP/HCP. The Plan had to be revised multiple times because
of the City’s reconfiguration of the Preserve, which included continued acquisitions of
property, exclusion of the archery range property, and boundary adjustments to land in
lower Portuguese Bend.
WHEREAS, in March 2018, the City completed the updated NCCP/HCP (2018
NCCP/HCP). Like the 2004 NCCP/HCP, the primary conservation strategy of the 2018
NCCP/HCP is to dedicate and manage habitat lands within a preserve system. The
configuration of the 2018 NCCP/HCP preserve design has been revised to reflect land
acquisitions, dedications, exclusions, boundary adjustments, and private landowner
negotiations that have occurred during implementation of the 2004 NCCP/HCP, as well
as refining the breadth and scope of the covered activities and projects. The 2018
NCCP/HCP Preserve design covers a total of 1,402.4 acres, all of which are existing
public and/or private lands already dedicated to the Preserve that will be monitored and
managed in perpetuity for the benefit of 10covered species.
WHEREAS, the 2018 NCCP/HCP assumes incidental take coverage for 17
Covered City Projects and Activities, 5 Covered private Projects and Activities, and other
specific activities in the Preserve. The Covered City Projects/Activities are proposed to
occur inside and outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to impact a maximum of
115.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) and 303.7 acres of non-native grassland. Of
these total impacts, it is estimated that 60.3 acres of the impacted CSS (52%) and 148.3
acres of the impacted non-native grassland (49%) will occur within the Preserve. The
Covered Private Projects and Activities are proposed to occur outside of the Preserve
A-2
01203.0005/608544.1
and are anticipated to impact a maximum of 99.5 acres of CSS and 262.8 acres of
grassland. Similar to the 2004 NCCP/HCP, these impacts will be mitigated by each
project proponent by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the habitat
restoration fund.
WHEREAS, the City’s dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123 acres,
including the 499.9 acres of City Mitigation Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of
Previous Mitigation Lands, and dedication and management of 20.7 acres of PVPLC
lands, is intended to provide the necessary mitigation for CSS and grassland for Covered
City and Miscellaneous Private Projects and Activities (both outside and inside the
Preserve). The City will mitigate these impacts by dedicating City lands to the Preserve
and providing restoration and management funding for the Preserve. Of the 737 acres of
CSS and associated vegetation communities within the Preserve, a maximum of 60 acres
(<8%) could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 677.0
acres (92%) of CSS in the Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of
grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of 148.3 acres (31%) could be impacted by
Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 322.6 acres. Through Plan
implementation, non-native grassland within the Preserve may be restored to native
habitat. A minimum of 250 acres of habitat over the Permit Term (40 years) within the
Preserve (a minimum of 5 acres of habitat shall be restored each year).
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the 2004 EIR/EA was prepared to address the
project modifications in the 2018 NCCP/HCP , and was certified by the City Council on
March 29, 2018 per Resolution No. 2018-16.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the draft 2018 NCCP/HCP on March 29,
2018.
WHEREAS, the draft 2018 NCCP/HCP were published in the Federal Register for
a 60-day public comment period starting on October 31, 2018 and concluding on
December 31, 2018. On April 4, 2019 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recirculated the
documents for an additional 30-day public comment which concluded on May 6, 2019,
resulting in 118 public comments for the combined public comment periods.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered adoption of the 2018 NCCP/HCP at a duly
noticed public hearing on October 29, 2019.
WHEREAS, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
California Department of Fish & Wildlife , some clarifications were made to the Council-
approved draft of the 2018 NCCP/HCP herein referred to as the Final NCCP/HCP to
address the comments provided during the comment period.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated as
though fully set forth herein.
A-3
01203.0005/608544.1
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts the
Final Natural Community Conservation Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan (Exhibit “A”),
based on the following findings.
A. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is home to natural habitat to enumerated
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. The habitat for these species
is protected by state and Federal laws, and development projects and other
activities that may result in take of these endangered species requires approval
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (collectively, the wildlife agencies).
B. The NCCP/HCP reconciles some of the common conflicts between land
development and wildlife conservation:
a. On the one hand, addressing listed species project-by-project can be
costly, burdensome, and time consuming. The NCCP/HCP process will
benefit landowners by offering certainty and a more streamlined
approach to permitting.Cumbersome project-by-project, review and
permitting under state and Federal listed species statutes is replaced by
comprehensive plans for the entire City that establish where
development is allowed to occur and under what conditions.
b. On the other hand, emphasizing only the impacts of individual projects
does not prevent the fragmentation of habitat and ecosystems. The
NCCP/HCP program provides the City greater predictability and control
over land development within its jurisdiction, as well as a mechanism to
assemble biodiversity reserves that can also provide open space,
aesthetic, and recreational benefits.
A-4
01203.0005/608544.1
C. The take permits from the Wildlife Agencies therefore will allow the City and
private developers to overcome the limitations of the single-species, project-
by-project approach to conservation by planning proactively and
comprehensively for the management and conservation of multiple threatened
and endangered species, providing certainty for both the City and private
developers for the life of the permits.
D. For the reasons listed herein, the City Council finds that the adoption of the
Final NCCP/HCP as Exhibit “A” is in the best interests of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of November 2019.
_________________
Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor
Attest:
___________________
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2019-XX was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 29, 2019.
____________________________
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
A-5
B-1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 29, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No.
1
Description of Material
Letter from Bob Nelson; Email exchanges between Senior
Administrative Analyst Lozano and: Jessica Leeds; Barbara Sattler;
Emails from: Barry Holchin; Minas Yerelian
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, October 28, 2019**.
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191 029 additions revisions to agenda.docx
B-2
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
City Council
Katie Lozano, Senior Administrative Analyst
Late Correspondence
October 29, 2019 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a NCCP /HCP for RPV
RECEIVED
OCT 2 9 2019
· Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
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 Counci~ 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.
Late Correspondence
Implementation Agreement (lA) for Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP)
March 2018 Redlined doc, October 2019 Final.
Concern: Our NCCP was scheduled for City Council approval July 16, 2019 and now
is finally ready (Oct. 29, 2019). However, the Implementation Agreement (lA) -
also to be approved that night -sets a long list of plans/tasks needing
completion (and usually Federal I State Agency approval) before NCCP is
actually operational. Tasks/plans that can easily be assumed to be completed
immediately upon approval but as we all know -documents this dense are mazes of
lengthy requirements and references that don't work all that well.
Items of this magnitude are never easy. My concern is the number of plans in the
Implementation Agreement, either existing now -needing modifications approved,
or new plans that will require drafting and approvals. So I went through the
Implementation Agreement and came up with the following tidbits and Plans that
will need to be completed before NCCP implementation is complete and operational.
Tidbit: Implementation Agreement: Table of Contents: Exhibits (ref.
attachment).
What is shown in Table of Contents as 'Exhibits' is not what is in the
document's 'Exhibits.' We do not have a 57 page RPV-PVPLC Management
Agreement-as is in the Table of Contents Exhibits! Rather, it is 22 pages! So, in the
attachment, I have listed what is really in there as Exhibits and suggest, if for no
other reason than professionalism, these correct Exhibits be listed instead of
erroneous ones! This is the 3rd time I've called this error out ... !
Other tidbits and Plans:
B-3
Late Correspondence
October 29, 2019 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a NCCP /HCP for RPV
Pg.1: 2.2: States the General Plan's Natural Environment/Open Space and
Conservation Element was adopted June 26,1975. Wrong. On September 18,
2018,14 years after a civic committee approved changes to the 1975 version, our
City Council approved an updated version of our General Plan. Probably should say
1une 26, 1975 as updated September 18, 2018.' The real question is do our Federal
and State Agencies know of and approve this update or are they relying on our
out-of-date 1975 version? If the latter, then City should ask for a letter
acknowledging they have read and approve this update. This would prevent future
challenges as to what prevails.
Pg.1: 2.4:
1991: City signed Memorandum of Agreement with California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW);
1992: signed NCCP Enrollment Agreement with CDFW;
1996: Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea NCCP Planning Agreement with CDFWand U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Given 13 years since last document, are these still effective or were there
amendments not indicated here?
Pg. 1: 2.5: Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): used by Feds to name species
threatened, endangered etc. City has to stay up to date with listing additions and
deletions.
Pg. 2: 2.8: NCCPfHCP (Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan): developed to comply with ESA and NCCP Act.
Pg. 2: 2.11: Federal take authorizations (Permits)
Pg. 2: 2.12: Federal Permit: assume this document is the one in 2.11 above.
Pg. 3: 2.12: 'covered plant species will receive the benefit of the USFWS's 'No
Surprise Rule' (full document not referenced or spelled out-just stated)
Pg. 3: 2.13: The Preserve Habitat Management Plan (PHMP): administer
planned development and maintenance activities ... while meeting the
conservation requirements of Covered Species through conserving and
managing a local preserve system ... meeting mitigation needs of Covered Projects
and Activities for duration of Permits. (Doesn't sound like a simple plan ... !)
Pg. 3: 2.16: City has submitted a section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit
Application to the CDFW and USFWS ... (copy of what city signed is missing)
Pg. 3:2:17: Southern California Coastal Sage Brush NCCP Process Guidelines
(CDFG 1993)
B-4
Late Correspondence
October 29, 2019 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a NCCP /HCP for RPV
Pg. 4: 4.1: Adaptive Management= species and habitat management plan I
program ... generally designed to achieve corrective actions where enforcement
needed, resources threatened by land uses adjacent to Preserve, management
activities not effective ...
Pg. 4: 4.2: Additional Conservation Measures: additional conservation measures
to protect species proposed to be added to the plan.
Pg. 5: 4.4: Annual Reports: section 9.33 of NCCP.
Pg. 5: 4.5: Certificate of Inclusion: issued by RRP to 3rd Party to insure compliance.
Pg. 5: 4.10: City Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance (RPV Interim Resource
Protection Ordinance): RPV shall adopt to codify and implement protections for
the covered species -while waiting for the various IA documents to be completed
and signed off! (Years!)
Pg. 5:4.11: Comprehensive Report: PVPLC prepared every 3 years; all collected
biological data; trend analysis of biological trends (9.3.2 of Plan); Annual Report
Pg. 6: 4.13: Covered Activities: if read aloud totally not understandable!
Pg. 6: 4.16: EFFECTIVE DATE: date this UJJreement takes effect. ie, NOTE: upon
issuance of permits (not UJlon any agenc;y I citY I PVPLC WlJ)rovalJ
Pg. 6: 4.19: Section 30240 California Coastal Act: Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Area ("ESHA")
Pg. 7: 4.21: Fiscal Report: Annual detailed report by both RPV and PVPLC to USFWS
and CDFW; incl habitat expenditures to implement the Plan incl habitat
acquisition, monitoring and management. (Need to have this made public and not
withheld from taxpayers.)
Pg. 7: 4.23: Habitat Conservation Plan: RPV prepared plan pursuant to ESA
section 10(a)(2)(A), 16 USC #1539(a)(2) and Fish and Game Code sections
2050, 2080 and 2080 et seq.
Pg. 7:4.25: Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures: standard enforceable
conditions RPV will impose on Plan Area (ie, RPV) Covered Projects and Activities
in accord with Permits in Section 5.0 of the Plan.
Pg. 7: 4.27: Major Amendment: change in the Plan or this Agreement as described
in Section 6.8.2 of the Plan and section 18.2 of this Agreement. Processed in
accord with all Fed and State laws 1 regulations including ESA, CEAS, NCCP Act,
CEQA.
pg.
B-5
Late Correspondence
October 29, 2019 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a NCCP /HCP for RPV
Pg. 8: 4.28: Minor Amendment: as in Section 6.8.1 of the Plan and 18.1 of this
agreement; approved in writing by the Wildlife Agencies.
Pg. 8: 4.30: NCCP Act: California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of
1991 incl all rules, regulations, as amended.
Pg. 8: 4.31: NCCP /HCP or Plan: RPV only; includes conservation analysis and maps I
appendices.
Pg. 8: 4.32: NCCP Permit or State Permit: prepared authorization under section
2835 of NCCP Act
Pg. 8: 4.33: Natural Community Conservation Plan or 'NCCP: A plan in accord with
State's NCCP Act California Fish and Game Code #2800, et seq .. The plan provides
comprehensive management and conservation; area-wide protection and
conservation of natural wildlife through habitat protection; enables species to
persist while allowing development and growth.
Pg. 8:4.34: NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC #4321· 4335);
under this the USFWS is the lead ac;ency ... for the Plan and Federal Permit ... _as
defined in 40 CFR # 1508.16.
Pg. 9: 4.35: 'Neutral Lands:' private property lands that are currently
undevelopable but add biological function and value to the Preserve.
Pg. 9: 4.36: 'No Surprise Rule:' USFWS rule, codified at 50 CFR # 17.22(b)(5) and
17.32(b)(5) re Incidental Take Permits under Federal ESA # 10(a).
Pg. 9: 4.38: 'NPPA:' Native Plant Protect Act. Here includes all regulations
thereunder as amended.
Pg. 9: 4.40: 'Permits:' Fed Permit under ESA # 10(a)(1)(B) and' Take
Authorization' under state NCCP Act #2835.
Pg. 9:4.39: 'Party' and 'Parties:' Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, city
of RPV, USFWS and CDFW.
Pg. 9: 4.41: 'Permitees:' Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and city of
RPV
Pg. 9: 4.42: 'Plan Area:' the boundaries of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, 8,616.5
acres within the city; defined in fig. 2-1 of NCCP.
Pg. 9: 4.43: 'Preserve:' Plan area land, assembly as in section 6.1 of this doc and 4.0
of the Plan. Divided into 12 management units called 'Reserve Areas' and shown in
pg.4
B-6
Late Correspondence
October 29,2019 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a NCCP /HCP for RPV
fig. 4.4 of the Plan. Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy will hold conservation
easements for all city lands in the Preserve and give these in favor of the City for
PVPLC owned lands.
Pg. 10: 4.44: 'Preserve Access Protocol Plan: (PAP) -city and PVPLV plan to be
completed within 90 days of Permits to facilitate access by utilities and RPV
Public Works and be approved by the Wildlife Agencies. To contain:
1. Habitat Impact Avoidance incl. Minimization Measures for Covered
Project and Activities;
2. Per Section 5.5 and 5.6 of the Plan-Avoidance and Minimization
Measures for Covered Species;
Until PAP is approved by the Wildlife Agencies, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy and the City will ensure access is in accord with Sections 5.5 and 5.6 of
the Plan.
Pg. 10: 4.4 7: 'Preserve Habitat Management Plan' (PHMP): The Permit plan as
ain section 9.3 of the Plan; to include 4 plans:
1. Initial Management and Monitioring Plan
2. Predator Control Plan
3. Habitat Restoration Plan
4. Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP)
Pg. 10: 4.49: 'Public Use Master Plan' (PUMP): describes public access with
Preserve and covers the City's:
1. Conceptual Trails Plan which includes:
Preserve Trails Plan component
Under the Plan PUMP is a RPV Covered Project/ Activity under Plan's sections
5.2.8, 5.4 and 9.2.2.
Pg. 10: 4.49: 'PVPLC: 501(c)(3) Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservatory: City's
designated habitat manger under the Plan. Operates under a separate 'Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve Management Agreement'
Pg. 11:4.53: 'Section 7 Consultation,': Section 7 ofESA, 16 USC #1531, 1536(a)(2):
Fed agencies reqmnt to CONSULT with USFWS for 'action' re terrestrial wildlife and
'action' includes FUNDING, PERMITTING and other regulatory actions, extends to
local gov't projects requiring Federal Permit or Federal Funding-ref 50 CFR
#402.02.
Pg. 12: 4.58: 'Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants' (TERPP): plan that is key
component of PHMP and Adaptive Management Program; ref the Plan sections
6.10.2.5, 7.6, 9.0.
Pg. 12: 4.59: 'Targeted Lands': Private lands (ref. fig. 4.1 of the Plan) of biological
value to Covered Species.
B-7
Late Correspondence
October 29, 2019 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a NCCP /HCP for RPV
Pg. 12: 4.62: 'Trump National I Ocean Trails HCP: the Plan covered by incidental
take permit issued by USFWS in 1997; described in the Plan section 4.2.1.
Except for correcting the Table of Contents (for the 3rd time) I did not pursue finding
further plans that staff will have to produce to implement this NCCP. We will have
consultants for doing both that and writing the majority of these required plans.
The attachment details the Table of Contents Exhibits requested action.
Thank you for your time reading these comments.
Bob Nelson
B-8
'Implementation Agreement:' 'Exhibits' Table of Contents:
Exhibits Listing Corrections
As Listed in Oct 2019 Final Implementation 'Table of Contents'
Page iii
Exhibit A-Model Certificate of Inclusion pg.54
Exhibit B-City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance pg. 55
Page iv
Exhibit C-Species Covered Under the Plan (10)
Exhibit D-Management Agreement Between the City
and PVPLC
Exhibit E-Conservation Easement
Pagev
pg.61
pg.62
pg.119
Exhibit A-Model Certificate of Inclusion pg. 54
Exhibit B-City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance pg. 55
Exhibit C-Species Covered Under the Plan {10) pg. 61
Exhibit D-Management Agreement Between the City
and PVPLC
Exhibit E-Conservation Easement
pg.62
pg.119
From prior versions I knew the RPV-PVPLC Mgmt Agreement
was 22 pages, not the 57 pages shown in the final version.
So I listed what were actually the Final Agreement Exhibits
and those are Column 2.
Suggest this be corrected -future readers will
have at a correct document-never mind an index!
Actually in the October 2019 Final Implementation 'Table of Contents'
Exhibit A-Model certificate of Inclusion pg. 54
Exhibit B-City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance pgs 55-60
Exhibit C-Species Covered Under the Plan pg. 61
Exhibit D -Management Agreement between RPV and PVPLC pgs. 62-82
Exhibit A-Map of Preserve Properties Managed by PVPLC pgs. 83-84
Exhibit B-1-PVPLC Obligations {Updated 11/30/2011) pgs.85-86
Exhibit B-2-City of RPV Obligations (Updated 11/30/2011) pgs. 87-89
Exhibit B-3-PVPLC Permissive 'Actions' (Updated 11/30/2011) pgs 90-92
Exhibit C-Oceanfront Estates Management Reqmnts pgs 93-104
Exhibit D-Donor Recognition, Naming Criteria, Sites pgs 105-108
*Amendments to RPV-PVPLC Management Agreement pgs 109-116
**Exhibit A: Preserve Maps pgs 117-118
Exhibit E-Conservation Easement {RPV to PVPLC) pgs 119-132
*Belongs after Exhibit D pg. 83 (RPV-PVPLC Mgmt Agreement)
**Belongs after 1st 'Exhibit A' now on pgs 83-84
If staff can correctly show these in the table of Contents for the
Implementation Agreement, renumbering these actual Exhibits
accurately, it might improve the professionalism of this document for
future readers.
B-9
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Leeds,
Katie Lozano
Tuesday, October 29, 2019 9:42 AM
jessboop66@cox.net
CityCierk
FW: City Council Meeting NCCP October 29, 2019
Thank you for reaching out. The NCCP/HCP proposes to cover multiple public and private development projects, and I've
inserted a screen shot of the projects below. Neither Terranea nor Trump National Golf Club are covered under the
NCCP/HCP. Trump National Golf Club did partially mitigate for their development project by establishing Ocean Trails Reserve,
which is now part of the Nature Preserve. One of the covered public projects is, "Other Miscellaneous City Projects," and so
the City could choose to process any future development of the Civic Center under the NCCP/HCP. The result would be
streamlined development processing.
U) 2J)
4.e) 10.0 2J)
OJ) &.0 ,()J4
1.5 lt2 0.0 I 0. Lower Point Vicente OJ)
SJ) 15J) 5.0 I J. Pa'los Verdes Drive Soutrn Road lkpair ! 5.0
1.0 ll J:)
12.0 18
5.0 lO.O
15. UrnimprovC'd City Park Projects H>.O 20J) (l,(}
5.0 1.5.0
17. Ot~1er Miscdlancous City projects 20.0 60.1) l OJ) 30.0
H'f otal A ere a ~e ot Habitat Loss II :J.5 j(}J.i 60.J 1411.1
*P;u1 of the l)l.IMP,il ('\~V\:r,\l (iWy Prpj~;,:t (s.;~; S;;,~~il;m 9,2 nflhi~ Pl;m}
•w·hltal hHbi1Jtt ln~s (CSS and Gn.T<slantfl is 419,2 acroc~. l)f"\vhkh 20$Ji acr\:s. (50%} W(lUld occ\tt illlhe Pre~ervc. indwdcd in the
CS$ 1(1~~ an.: Uosses a~s(~dated with smHhcrn t':Jl..iLl<: l>t'rub, ~ltbush scrub, and coast:~ I b!t~lfscmt.J wbkb ;tre eX!lt'Cteiil to he minimaL
No mPrc tl~<m 5.n acr.;s (!f$()~1th,'Tl1 cact.u~ l!V:rub, 2J) 11Crcs frfcvast<il b luffscruh, and :2,0 acres O•f s1dfoush s<.:rub .;m1ld be lHSl 'IIIith in
the P;..:s.:rv~ 4SS~l1.'t~icd wilil Cov¢r.;:d City f$Hljeci;~; and Adiviiics ..
1 (
B-10
Table 5-2. Total t.oss of Habitat by Privately Covered Pr·ojects and Activities
•·•···.·ll.\sif:A~r U>sS(~t::R.&~ .
css GRAS."'LAND
I. Lower Filiorum Development I! .9 70J)
2, Port H!S.c Bend Club Remedial Gradi1 3.0 10.0
3. f7ucl Mndifi~;:ation for Private Projects
4. Miscellaneous Priva!c Projects throughout the C
5. Plumtree Development
Total Acre11ge of HtJhltllt Lm1s
Some of the City's core roles in Preserve management is managing public access, public safety, and rules enforcement. The
City currently provides 80 hours of weekly dedicated enforcement in the Preserve. In 2020, this will be increased to
approximately 160 hours weekly. The public should contact the City, or the Lomita Sheriff's Department for crime and rules
violations. The City also works hard to balance resource protection with public access. The City takes impacts to residents very
seriously, and often works directly with Preserve neighbors to address negative impacts on residents.
The City does consider view restoration cases resulting from vegetation in the Preserve. However the City must analyze view
restoration with both residents' views and habitat protection in mind to find a balance. To have view impact analyzed,
residents should contact the Community Development Department at 310-544-5287.
Thank you for you correspondance. It will be included as late correspondance.
Thank you,
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-511 /] -5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: jessboop <jessboop66@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 5:54 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; "city council"@rpvca.gov; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting NCCP October 29, 2019
Amy, Thank you for forwarding this; yes, this is very helpful.
Where does Terrenea fit into this?
Where does Trump National fit into this?
Where does the redevelopment or development of the City Hall, etc. fit into this?
Where is the space (which I thought was to be next to the City Hall), etc. for public amenities, other than trails, such as
baseball, basketball, etc.? Is there any of that land area set aside for those things?
How are the homeowners in the adjoining communities protected from interlopers through all this preserve being utilized by
the public (I'm not forgetting the wildlife which I love!).
2
B-11
I love that Rancho Palos Verdes is protecting the wildlife (which I see almost everyday!). And I know that the Native Plants
bring the wildlife (such as my "milkweed brings my favorite Monarch butterflies); however we must also think of those of us
who pay taxes for our properties and for the protection and views, and security of our homes and communities. Are we all
being considered in this?
Please do not get me wrong, I appreciate all the hard work of the City who has spent countless hours putting all this together. I
just want to make sure that all of us, residents, tourists, members of the general public, are benefiting.
Please share this with the City Council as late correspondence, as I may not be able to get to the meeting tomorrow night.
Thank you for your assistance,
Best Regards, Jessica Leeds
On 10/28/2019 1:53 PM, Amy Seeraty wrote:
Hi Jessica-
See if these two links show you what you are looking for. Let me know if not, thanks!
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3396/Map-of-Nature-Preserve-Properties-PDF?bidld=
http://www.rpvca.gov/490/Palos-Yerdes-Nature-Preserve-NCCP-PUMP-H
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www. rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov-(310) 544-5231
3
B-12
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Lozano
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:08 AM
To: 'Barbara Sattler' <bsattler@igc.org>
Cc: Woulfe, MaryBeth <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: error in section 5.4.1 NCCP
Hello Ms. Sattler,
So sorry about that. I see your point. We're going to look into changing that.
Thank you,
Katie
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Sattler [mailto:bsattler@igc.org]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 10:41 AM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Woulfe, MaryBeth <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: error in section 5.4.1 NCCP
Katie-
As modified, this sentence does not make sense unless you are intending drainage facilities to serve as roadways for vehicles.
Landslide abatement and monitoring activities that do not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or habitat. The regular
maintenance and repair of existing drainage facilities that accommodate authorized vehicles within the Preserve that do not
result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.
Barbara
On 10/28/2019 8:26AM, Katie Lozano wrote:
> Hello Ms. Sattler,
>
>Thank you for your email, and previous feedback. I wanted to respond to explain why the language "and Existing Preserve
Roads or trails" was removed from the first bullet under NCCP/HCP Section 5.4.1. It was removed because the same content is
covered in the second bullet, and so including it also in the first bullet was redundant. The second bullet under NCCP/HCP
Section 5.4.1 reads: "The maintenance of Existing Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles within the
Preserve that do not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat." Please feel free to reach out if you have
further thoughts.
>
>Thank you,
>
> Katie Lozano
>Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks
> Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes
> 310-544-5267
> katiel@rpvca.gov
>
1
B-13
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Barbara Sattler [mailto:bsattler@igc.org]
>Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 2:24PM
>To: Katie Lozano <Katiel@rpvca.gov>
>Subject: error in section 5.4.1 NCCP
>
>Hi Katie-
>
>This sentence from the first bullet point in 5.4.1 needs correction.
>
> Barbara Sattler
>
2
B-14
From:
Sent:
To:
Emily Colborn
Tuesday, October 29, 2019 7:20AM
CityCierk
Subject: Fwd: Support for the PVNP and the NCCP
LC
Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Barry Holchin <bholchin@cox.net>
Date: October 28, 2019 at 6:30:31 PM PDT
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Support for the PVNP and the NCCP
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am a 47 year resident of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. I am an avid outdoorsman, outings leader, hiker,
backpacker, conservationist and environmental 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. I would like to see policies adopted and strictly enforced that
minimize deleterious impacts to the habitat. In particular, I believe that mountain biking activity of all forms
has shown itself to be in conflict with habitat preservation, given the continual 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.
In any case, I think it is important to preserve and hopefully increase the population of animals and native
plants existing in the Preserve, whether I am able to visit it or not.
Thank you.
Barry W. Holchin
Palos Verdes Estates, CA
1 I
B-15
-----Original Message-----
From: Minas Yerelian <yerelian@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:00 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: HCCP/HCP
To all who are for the approval of HCCP/HCP you have a choice you fight to approve it or Jim York will win again under the
corrupt leadership of the city.
You missed the meeting where Jim York attacked Ara Mihranian badgered him about this item, it was is ready to be approved,
Jim York will get his way again.
Jim York got all what he wanted from the corrupt city officials based on a phony premise a golf course (an illusion) pushed and
approved by a corrupt planing commission chairman Paul Tetreault, this after Edward Ruttenberg over turned Joel Rojas
decision after being badgered in 2008 because zoning residential changed to commercial for event garden.
Recently The city changed the zoning on Jim York's property without a public hearing from one story to two story home. The
mayor promised to put restriction in the deed on the rest of the property to remain a one story, like always the mayor lied and
Ara never did put the deed restriction.
For your information Jim York is the only person in the city that has 4 zoning on his property under false premise CUP
(conditional-corrupt use permit) 1-Residential now it is 2 story 2-commercial event garden 3-Agricultural vineyard .....
4-industrial-filming. last a filming permit for 30 day was issued by the city Manager With the approval of the mayor and the
director Ara without a public hearing.
The two crooks who pushed Jim York's agenda Bob Nelson and Dave Amenhiser Are at it again, now they are helping the
Mayor Jerry Dehovic after he dismissed the CCAC (civic center advisory committee) and took control to impose his will on the
final report before the corrupt city official (Country Club) vote on it using the lame duck committee just to have his name on
final approved report. The lame duck Committee (short three members since April 25th) CCAC will no longer be needed after
the CC approves the report (they will), Recruiting new members to the CCAC is a fares Jerry, just cover up your tracks.
To intimidate the city official Jim York filed a phony lawsuit which will be discussed tonight in a closed session.
The reason item 1 on the agenda tonight (10/29/2019) HCCP/HCP will not be considered today is because of Jim York, This
item was and is ready for consideration ask Ara, but again Ara is a collaborator.
Jim York agreed to detectable the 40 Acres to get what he wanted, now he got what he wanted, now he changed his mind and
with the help of the Crooks and the corrupt in the city he will succeed.
Stop him if you can?
Minas yerelian
Sent from my iPad
1 /.
B-16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
OCTOBER 28, 2019
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 29, 2019 City Council meeting:
Item No.
1
Description of Material
Emails from: Noel Park; Jim York; Sunshine; Vanessa Bowman;
Marianne and Bill Hunter; Paul Rosenberger; Jess Morton; Anthony
Baker; Scott Birkey; AI Sattler; Email exchanges between Senior
Administrative Analyst Lozano and: Sandy Valeri; Barbara Sattler
Respectfully submitted,
L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20191029 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
B-17
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:56 AM
CityCierk
FW: Natural Communities Conservation Plan
From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:12AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Natural Communities Conservation Plan
Alas, I am on a long planned vacation and will be unable to attend the October 29 City Council meeting.
I earnestly request that you approve Item 1 on the agenda and adopt the NCCP.
If you want to reaffirm community support for the Nature Preserves, I suggest that you review the 2018 Annual
Report ofthe Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. You will note the hundreds of people and businesses,
including major corporations, who have contributed, both financially and as volunteers.
Again, please approve this agenda item and let us continue with the restoration of these lands which add so much to
the quality oflife and the property values of our City.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nod Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
562-413-5147
1 I
B-18
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late carr
Teresa Takaoka
Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:16 PM
Nathan Zweizig
FW: LOWER FILIORUM PROPERTY: REMOVE ARBITRARY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT OR BUY
LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE
From: Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:08 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>;
marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov; David Mayer <David.Mayer@wildlife.ca.gov>; Adrienne Mohan <amohan@pvplc.org>; Allen Lay
<allenlay@me.com>
Cc: Scott B. Birkey <sbirkey@coxcastle.com>; Andrew Sabey <asabey@coxcastle.com>; Gary Weber
<gsweberconsulting@gmail.com>
Subject: LOWER FILIORUM PROPERTY: REMOVE ARBITRARY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT OR BUY LAND AT FAIR MARKET
VALUE
We've reviewed the so-called ufinal NCCP/HCP" issued by the City earlier this week. The
NCCP/HCP still requires that "ANY DEVELOPMENT," which would by definition include even
the development of a single-family house, "WILL BE REQUIRED" to "DEDICATE" a 40 acre, 300-
foot-wide corridor through our entire 95-acre Lower Filiorum (Point View property).
As we've said multiple times and in multiple venues, this is fundamentally UNFAIR and
UNCONSCIONABLE, and is an ILLEGAL and UNCONSITITUTIONAL taking of our property.
The resolution of this issue is simple.
Either, reject the NCCP/HCP as written. Remove this legally DEFECTIVE text from the
NCCP/HCP and use the same sliding scale mitigation ratio that you've used for other properties
covered by the NCCP/HCP. In other words, do NOT treat us differently and more ONEROUSLY
than you treat these other projects.
Or, work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to acquire the property at fair market
value. We stand ready and willing to negotiate the terms of an acquisition proposal.
1
B-19
In its rush to approve the NCCP/HCP on October 29, the City is IGNORING our concerns about
the illegal taking of our property. As the City's insufficient and inadequate "responses to
comments" on the NCCP/HCP demonstrate, the City is also merely brushing aside without
careful deliberation all the other concerns raised by the community.
And so we ask you, please DO NOT TAKE ACTION on the NCCP/HCP until these concerns have
been resolved.
Jim York
>
2
B-20
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council,
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Thursday, October 24, 2019 12:27 PM
CC; CityCierk
PC; imac; FAC; EPC; CCAC; info@pvpwatch.com; momofyago@gmail.com; MrsRPV@aol.com;
Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>
Last ditch effort. October 29, 2019 Council Agenda Item 1
As written by our Open Space Manager... Read this one more time.
The state's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 provides for the preparation and
implementation of large-scale natural conservation plans. The purpose of these plans is to identify
and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing for compatible
and appropriate development and growth. (Emphasis added.)
Giving up local control of land use is what adopting an NCCP represents . I continue to urge my elected
representatives to stop it. Now. October 29, 2019. Your meeting is "special" and will not be broadcast
"live". That is another example of how this process is being hidden from the public .
Have you not noticed the change this represents to the original purpose of the City's incorporation? The
NCCP/HCP allows development and growth which is compatible with and appropriate to area-wide
protection of natural wildlife diversity. The people of Rancho Palos Verdes support low density housing,
views of/public access to the coast and recreational opportunities in open spaces. The goal of large-scale
natural conservation plans is to eliminate human access (except biologists) on 90 percent of the earth's
surface including the oceans. No long-term development and growth is compatible and appropriate.
The State of California (i.e. Staff) has bought into this long-term goal. Any version of an NCCP is being
marketed as a way to push back in favor of "local control". Have you not noticed that since around the
year 2000, RPV's Staff has used the draft NCCP to manipulate Council's small decisions in a way that
directs our "land use" toward the ultimate goal?
"The PV Preserve is being lov ed to death" is a great reason to reduce public access, for now. There are
lots more reasons hidden in the draft NCCP/HCP. Another approach is to spend our discretionary funds
on consultants designing endless versions of "wants". Not really discouraging fire hazards in Portuguese
Bend is another way to convert a community into "open space".
1 /.
B-21
There is clearly pressure being applied even to your personal integrity. Unless you really want attrition to
convert our community into a "sacred wilderness", please have the guts to vote your conscience.
During the 2017 City Council election campaign, I asked all of the Candidates if they had noticed the
cumulative impacts in the Staff written draft of the General Plan update. Those who got elected claimed
that they had not. Susan Brooks has claimed getting that General Plan adopted as her Mayoral "claim to
fame". OK, it is now time that I acknowledge that Susan Brooks may actually be working in support of "one
world order" as supported by the Sierra Club.
For the sake of our little piece of paradise as we knew it, please vote against all of Staff's
Recommendations. Susan, this is your chance to reveal your true colors. I can only wait and hope that I
am wrong.
SUNSHINE
6 Limetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
31 0-377-8761
sunshinerpv@aol.com
1.Consideration and possible action to adopt the final Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) (Lozano) (2 hours)
Recommendation: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-_, adopting the City's Natural Community
Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan; (2) Initiate code amendment proceedings to amend the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to reflect the NCCP/HCP as follows: Title 15 (Fire Code); Title 16
(Subdivision Ordinance); Chapter 17.41 (Coastal Sage Scrub Ordinance); Chapter 17.70 (Site Plan
Review); Chapter 17.72 (Coastal Permit Process); and Chapter 17.76 (Grading Ordinance); (3) Direct Staff
to prepare the Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) for the City Council adoption at a future duly-noticed public
meeting; and (4) Authorize Staff to record the NCCP/HCP-required conservation easements for the
Preserve properties.
2
B-22
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Emily Colborn
Friday, October 25, 2019 1:09 PM
CityCierk
FW: NCCP/HCP
From: Vanessa <sessabo@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 7:49 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; DWilmore@rpvca.gov
Subject: NCCP/HCP
I am writing to ask that the City Council not approve the NCCP/HCP as written. Although I understand and agree
with the need for open space in our community, this document as written still requires York Point View Properties to
dedicate a 40 acre 300' wide corridor through its 94 acre lower Filiorum property.
It is unbelievable to think that the City could have the ability to dictate the dimensions and location of preserve
areas located on privately held property. Should they wish to dictate such specifics, they should work with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy to acquire the property at fair market value as has been done in the past for the other property in the
Preserve.
There must be a way to determine a compromise that would provide open space, while allowing private property
owners the ability and flexibility to develop vacant land.
Vanessa Bowman
Rancho Palos Verdes Resident
310.701.3876
1 I
B-23
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
LC
-----Original Message-----
Emily Colborn
Friday, October 25, 2019 2:24PM
CityCierk
Ara Mihranian
FW: Nature Preserve
From: Marianne Hunter <2hunter@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 2:05 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Nature Preserve
Dear City Council,
Our family is in support of the Conservancy Nature Preserve. The peninsula has lost almost all of our open land and native
habitat. Preserving habitat for its own sake and open land for enjoyment of all is invaluable! It is a crown for our city.
Marianne and Bill Hunter
1 Cinnamon In
Portuguese Bend 90275
Sent from my iPhone
1 I
B-24
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late corr
-----Original Message-----
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 28, 2019 8:58 AM
CityCierk
FW: Palos Verdes Nature preserve
From: Paul Rosenberger <rosentrekker@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 9:16PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Palos Verdes Nature preserve
As an enthusiastic and appreciative user of the PV Nature Preserve, I strongly support the Natural Communities Conservation
Plan (NCCP) to protect the Preserve. Please make sure that the provisions ofthe NCCP are fully enacted thus preserving the
natural environment of the preserve.
Thank you,
Paul Rosenberger
133 16th. Street
Manhattan Beach, Ca 90266
310 545-3531
1 I
B-25
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
LC
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 28, 2019 8:59 AM
CityCierk
FW: NCCP Support
From: Jess Morton <jmorton@igc.org>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 6:44 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: NCCP Support
Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the City Council,
I urge you to adopt the revised and well thought out NCCP document before you. The value of the preserve it has
enabled the City to host is unquestioned. Its presence benefits local landholders, other citizens of Rancho Palos
Verdes and far beyond, and it is crucial to maintaining the rich biodiversity of the peninsula.
The NCCP is a process I have been working on since its inception more than 25 years ago (a little less in RPV), both
as a citizen adviser and a board member of the Endangered Habitat League, the regional environmental organization
that helped guide the shape of its policies. The NCCP for Rancho Palos Verdes, though at times contentious, has
enjoyed the dedicated, collegial efforts of all parties to gear its specifics to the needs of the community and to the
wildlife that it is our privilege to have near us. If the negotiations through which the NCCP was developed had not
been done in good faith and under the presumption that it would eventually be approved by all parties to it, the
acquisitions necessary to build the preserve we have now could never have been funded. It is now time to finish the
great work begun so many years ago. Please say yes to the NCCP.
Thank you,
Jess Morton
Treasurer, Endangered Habitats League
1 I
B-26
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 28, 2019 1:29 PM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
FW: NCCP
From: tony baker <tbake377@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 12:07 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: NCCP
Dear RPV City Council:
I am writing to urge the adoption of the NCCP on Tuesday evening. It has been a very long process with input from
many organizations and the hard work of many folks. Having contributed personally and as a member of the
California Native Plant Society and the Audubon Society, I look forward to the finalization of the documentation
which will go toward the preservation of our local natural habitat.
Thank You
Anthony Baker
16 Limetree Lane
Portuguese Bend
1 I
B-27
From: Teresa Takaoka
Sent:
To:
Monday, October 28, 2019 1:30 PM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Correspondence re City Council Consideration of Adoption of RPV NCCP/HCP
Ltr re RPV NCCPHCP 1 0-28-19.pdf
From: Birkey, Scott B. <sbirkey@coxcastle.com>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 12:03 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov; david.mayer@wildlife.ca.gov;
Jim York <theyorkproperties@gmail.com>; Sabey, Andrew <asabey@coxcastle.com>
Subject: Correspondence re City Council Consideration of Adoption of RPV NCCP/HCP
Dear Mr. Mihranian:
On behalf of York Point View Properties, LLC, attached please find our letter regarding the City Council's October 29, 2019
consideration of adoption of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP.
Best regards,
Scott B. Birkey
COX CASTLE
NICHOLSON
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street 1 Suite 3200 San Francisco CA 94111
direct: 415.262.5162 1 main: 415.262.5100
sbirkey@coxcastle.com I vcard : bio : website
For more information, visit our blog Lay of the Land
Thts. cornmurdcation is intended only for the exduslv(:.~ use of the ~~ddressee <H1d may contain informotion l:h3t b privileged or corrfldenL\,{L If you are not the addressee, or someone:.~
,.,::spcnsibk~ for delivering thb document to the addres~~('C, you may not re<.ld, COIN or distribute it. Any unauthori?.ed dt.ssernlnatlonJ distribution or copying of this cornrnunicaUon is
<;tr!cUv prohibited. !f you hav(:~ rece!w~d thl::i cornrnuniG~tlon in f}rror, pi(.~ase call V> promptly and securely db pose of lt. Thank you.
1
B-28
C X CASTLE
NICHOLSON
October 28, 2019
VIAE-MAIL
Ara Mihranian
Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Cox:, Cnstle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4 710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262-5199
Scott B. Birkey
415.262.5162
sbirkey@coxcastle.com
File No. 080942
Re: City Council Consideration of Adoption of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
NCCP/HCP
Dear Mr. Mihranian:
On behalf of our client York Point View Properties, LLC ("York"), we reviewed
the City's Staff Report regarding Agenda Item 1 for the City Council's "Adjourned Regular
Meeting" scheduled for October 29, 2019 ("Staff Report"). We also reviewed the responses to
comments ("RTCs") prepared by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") in connection with
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.
As we have repeatedly explained in written correspondence and testimony before
City decision makers, the City, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and
the California Department ofFish and Wildlife ("CDFW") (collectively, the "Agencies"), are
attempting to illegally take York's property by insisting on the requirement that "if any type of
development project" is approved on York's land, then York "will be required to dedicate a
minimum of 40 acres" of that land to the Preserve managed pursuant to the Draft NCCP/HCP.
Despite York's protestations, the Staff Report and the RTCs make clear that the City is still
unwilling to back down from this illegal imposition.
In addition to the illegal 40-acre dedication requirement, the Staff Report and the
R TCs evidence a number of procedural defects and substantive shortcomings. It appears that, in
its headlong rush to approve the NCCP/HCP, the City cares little for York's right to be treated
fairly and with all due transparency. And so we write yet again to remind the City that the 40-
acre dedication requirement is an illegal taking of private property. Although York has no
quarrel in concept with an NCCP/HCP streamlining permitting and protecting habitat in the City,
York cannot abide the 40-acre dedication requirement, which essentially "infects" the entirety of
the NCCP/HCP. For that reason, we will ask the City Council to DENY the approval of the
Draft NCCP/HCP at its October 29, 2019 meeting.
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco
B-29
October 28, 2019
Page2
Resolution of this impasse is easy. The City could simply remove the legally
defective text pertaining to a 40-acre dedication requirement from the Draft NCCP/HCP and use
the same mitigation ratio used for other properties covered by the NCCP/HCP .. Alternatively, the
City could work with the Agencies and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to acquire
the property at fair market value. Mr. York stands ready and willing to negotiate the terms of an
acquisition proposal. But until such time as this issue is resolved, we must continue to point out
the numerous procedural and substantive infirmities of the Draft NCCP/HCP.
Procedural Defects
The most immediately obvious set of concerns we have regarding the City
Council meeting on October 29, 2019 and the City's preparation of the RTCs are procedural
concerns.
1. The City Council Should Not Consider Approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP
Until the Agencies Have Issued the City "Take" Authority under the
Endangered Species Act and the Natural Community Conservation Planning
Act.
The Staff Report indicates that the Agencies have not yet issued to the City
"incidental take" permits pursuant to the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the Natural
Community Conservation and Planning Act ("NCCPA"). (See StaffReport, p.5 ("The Wildlife
Agencies will evaluate the NCCP/HCP and associated documents in their determination to issue
permits.").)
We note as a preliminary matter that this is entirely inconsistent with the City's
staff report prepared in connection with the March 29, 2018 City Council approval of the Draft
NCCP/HCP, which stated that "if the Wildlife Agencies grant the permits," then the City Council
will consider a "final adoption" of the Draft NCCP/HCP. The Staff Report for the October 29,
2019 City Council meeting does not explain this sudden change in process.
The whole point of the Draft NCCP/HCP is for the Agencies to determine
whether and under what conditions the City should receive incidental take authorization. A
number of supporting documents and approvals must be completed and issued before the City
should consider whether to "approve" the Draft NCCP/HCP and accept the incidental take
authorization and any requirements the Agencies attach to that authorization. (See, for example,
the determinations identified below regarding the Section 7 process pursuant to the ESA and the
Section 106 process pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.)
In the absence of any actual permit approval from the USFWS (i.e., the ESA
Section 10 Incidental Take Permit) and CDFW (i.e., the NCCPA Section 2835 Incidental Take
Authorization), the City has nothing before it upon which it can act. This important point
seems to be lost on City staff.
B-30
October 28, 2019
Page 3
For example, if, after the City's approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP on October 29,
the Agencies determine that changes are required in the NCCP/HCP based on new information
that becomes available after October 29, then the City would be required to approve a revised
NCCP/HCP based on that new information. Obviously, it makes more sense as a practical
matter to wait until the Agencies have finalized their review of the Draft NCCP/HCP, completed
the USFWS's environmental review process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA") (presumably demonstrated by a Finding of No Significant Impact), and completed
CDFW's environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") (presumably demonstrated by a Notice of Determination). Otherwise this appears to
be a makeweight repeat ofthe City's action on March 29, 2018, with no substantive change to
the outcome.
In any event, because the City is not waiting until the incidental take permit and
authorization has been issued, the City's approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP is essentially an
approval "sight unseen." The City is accepting the permit and authorization prior to their
completion, meaning that the City is accepting all the terms and conditions attached to the permit
and authorization without knowing what those terms and conditions might be. In our
experience, no applicant for any kind of permit accepts responsibility for using or implementing
that permit without knowing exactly what the permit requires the applicant to do or not to do.
Alternatively, it suggests that the City and the Agencies have already agreed that the Draft
NCCP/HCP will not change from this point forward, in which case the remaining process for the
state and federal review is a sham because the City and Agencies already know the outcome so
confidently that the City is able to make its "final" acceptance before the Agencies even act.
2. The Agencies, Not the City, Should Have Prepared the Responses to
Comments on the Draft NCCP/HCP.
In our experience, it is unusual for the City to be the preparer of responses to the
comments on the Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft EA. The Habitat Conservation Planning and
Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (Dec. 21, 2016) ("Handbook'') prepared by the
USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (referred to collectively in the Handbook as
the "Services") makes clear that the "Services bear the responsibility for both requesting and
responding to public comments." (Handbook, p.15-2.) The Handbook further states: "[A]ny
formal response to public comments on the HCP will ultimately come from the Service issuing
the permit." (!d.) The Handbook makes clear that the same responsibility applies in the context
of comments on a draft environmental review document prepared pursuant to NEP A. (!d. at
pp.15-2 to 15-4.) In light ofthese requirements, the USFWS should have prepared the responses
to comments on the Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft EA, rather than City staff.
Assuming the USFWS reviews the comments prepared by the City, it should
quickly become apparent that the comments demonstrate the project is "controversial" within the
meaning ofNEPA because of significant public objection and scientific controversy. ( 40 C.P.R.
§ 1508.27(b)(4).) This is particularly true here, given that the scientific underpinnings ofthe
B-31
October 28,2019
Page 4
Draft NCCP/HCP are based on outdated data and certain assumptions that have never been
explained. Under NEP A, an analysis of whether an action is controversial is critical, because
that determination is a pivot point for whether an action-such as implementation of the
NCCP/HCP-requires a more robust environmental impact statement, rather than an
environmental assessment, which was the form ofNEPA clearance prepared for the Draft
NCCP/HCP. In light of the fact that the City prepared the responses to comments, one can
question whether the USFWS has been sufficiently engaged in the NEP A process associated
with the Draft NCCP/HCP in order to make this determination.
3. The USFWS Has Not Yet Completed Its "Intra-Service" Section 7
Consultation Process for the HCP Pursuant to the ESA.
According to the Staff Report, the "Section 7 consultation for the NCCP/HCP
permit has not been completed." (Staff Report, p.7.) This is problematic. As we are sure you
are aware, the USFWS is required to consult with itself pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA when it
issues an Incidental Take Permit supported by an HCP under Section 10 ofthe ESA. That "intra-
Service" consultation for Section 10 Incidental Take Permits typically culminates in a Biological
Opinion, which must be issued before the USFWS can approve an HCP and issue the Section 10
Incidental Take Permit.
If the Section 7 consultation process for the Draft NCCP/HCP has not been
completed, as the Staff Report admits, then the City is effectively approving an NCCP/HCP that
has not, and legally cannot, be finalized by the Agencies. Until the Section 7 consultation for
the Draft NCCP/HCP has been completed, the USFWS cannot issue to the City the Section 10
Incidental Take Permit. Therefore, the City should wait until this process has been completed
before considering whether to take any further formal steps on the Draft NCCP/HCP.
4. Other Supporting Approvals and Determinations Are Required
Before the City Should Consider Taking Any Action on the Draft
NCCP/HCP.
Other supporting approvals and determinations are also required in connection
with the City's approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP. However, neither the Staff Report nor the
Draft NCCP/HCP makes clear whether any of these approvals or determinations have yet been
made. Illustrative examples of this defect are described below. As such, any "approval" by the
City Council of the Draft NCCP/HCP is premature at this point. To the extent the Agencies have
not performed their functions related to these approvals or determinations, they are derelict in
their duty to comply with both the ESA and the NCCP A.
a. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Consultation with SHPO
Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit triggers requirements under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. (Handbook, p.A-1.) Like Section 7 of the ESA, Section
B-32
October 28, 2019
Page 5
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the USFWS to engage in a process
involving definition of an "Area of Potential Effect"; identification ofhistoric properties, which
can include Native American campsites along the coastline; evaluation of historic properties;
assessment of effects; and resolution of adverse effects. (See 36 C.F.R. Pt. 800.) To perform
these functions, the USFWS must consult with the State Historic Preservation Office, or
"SHPO," as well as with the Tribal Historic Preservation Office and any federally recognized
tribes, if applicable. (See 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c)(5).) However, nothing in the Staff Report, the
Draft NCCP/HCP, the Draft EA, or any of its supporting materials demonstrate that the USFWS
has complied with Section 106. The USFWS cannot issue an Incidental Take Permit to the City
in connection with the Draft NCCP/HCP until the USFWS has fully complied with Section 106.
By considering approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP on October 29, the City will be taking action
on an item that has not been fully processed pursuant to Section 106.
b. Compliance with the California Coastal Act and Consistency
with the City's Coastal Specific Plan
As shown on the maps included in the document, the Draft NCCP/HCP covers
areas within the City's "Coastal Zone Boundary" established pursuant to the California Coastal
Act. Land use planning within this zone is governed by the City's Coastal Specific Plan and the
City's Municipal Code regulations implementing that Plan. Notably, although the Draft
NCCP/HCP discusses the City's need to "amend the Coastal Permit Process" (see Draft
NCCP/HCP, p.B-120), it does not discuss, or even refer, to the Draft NCCP/HCP's consistency-
or not-with the City's Coastal Specific Plan. Presumably, approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP
constitutes "development" under the California Coastal Act and the City's own Municipal Code,
and yet, no analysis can be found in the Draft NCCP/HCP, the Draft EA, or any of its supporting
documents demonstrating whether the City has complied with its obligations to evaluate the
Draft NCCP/HCP for purposes of the California Coastal Act and the City's Municipal Code.
Substantive Defects
We have described many of the substantive defects in the Draft NCCP/HCP in
prior correspondence. Rather than reiterate them here, we refer you back to that correspondence
commenting on the Draft NCCP/HCP, the Draft EA, and the Implementing Agreement.
However, we wish to point out other defects that are apparent after reading the Staff Report.
1. The Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft EA Fail to Consider Sea Level
Rise and Climate Change.
One set of defects in the Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft EA relates to the fact
that most of the original documentation for the Draft NCCP/HCP was prepared several years ago
in 2004. The Staff Report admits that the City signed a Planning Agreement in 1996 related to
the Draft NCCP/HCP and that a significant amount oftime has passed since then. (Staff Report,
p.5.) Since that time, land use planning and environmental review for NCCPs, HCPs, General
Plans, Specific Plans, and other large-scale planning documents have been required to take into
B-33
October 28, 2019
Page6
account concerns such as managing sea level rise and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft EA completely ignore both of these concerns. This might have
been an acceptable oversight in 2004, but it is a fatal flaw in 2019.
Given the City's proximity to the coast and its location within the greater Los
Angeles area, managing sea level rise and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are of paramount
importance. Nonetheless, the Draft NCCP/HCP's discussion of"Changed Circumstances and
Unforeseen Circumstances" is completely silent as to how the NCCP/HCP will address sea level
rise and climate change issues. (See Draft NCCP/HCP, pp.l32-140.) This is inconsistent with
direction provided in the HCP Handbook. For example:
• The HCP Handbook specifically identifies sea level rise as a large-scale
threat that could impact a conservation program of an HCP. The
Handbook also identifies the need for analytical tools to address sea level
rise in an HCP and specifies in the "Changed Circumstance Checklist"
that sea level rise should be included as a "changed circumstance." (HCP
Handbook, pp.7-17, 7-18, 9-44; tbl.9.6.4a.)
• The HCP Handbook requires that each HCP include a "climate change
effects analysis" to evaluate what climatic variables might be relevant to
covered species. (HCP Handbook, p.7-18.)
• The HCP Handbook requires that the biological objectives in an HCP
conservation strategy must include a consideration of climate change
effects in the development of goals and objectives. Importantly, the
Handbook specitles that the Service must "integrate adaptation strategies
for climate change effects into [the Service's] planning, programs, and
operations." (HCP Handbook, p.9-5.)
• The HCP Handbook requires that the Service must consider climate
change effects in the development of goals and objectives for an HCP.
For example, an HCP should consider addressing issues such as whether
climate change might affect the likelihood of success in achieving an
HCP's goals and objectives. (HCP Handbook, p.9-12.)
• The HCP Handbook requires that the Service must consider climate
change effects when developing the list of changed circumstances and the
remedial actions to reduce their effects. (HCP Handbook, pp.9-45 to 9-
46.)
The Draft NCCP/HCP and the Draft EA completely ignore sea level rise and
climate change. This is a fatal flaw and makes the Draft NCCP/HCP-and the Draft EA
intended to support it-legally defective. On this basis alone, the Draft NCCP/HCP and the
Draft EA must be updated, revised, and recirculated for additional public review and comment.
B-34
October 28, 2019
Page 7
2. The City's Approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP Would Ignore the
State's Efforts to Combat the Housing Supply Crisis.
As you are no doubt aware, Governor Newsom recently signed a number of bills
aimed at combatting the state's housing supply crisis. Many of these bills are expressly designed
to stop local governments from implementing land use controls that would have the effect of
chilling housing production.
One good example ofthis recent legislation is the Housing Crisis Act of2019, or
Senate Bill 330, which was signed by the Governor on October 9, 2019. As to land where
housing is an allowable use, such as the land owned by York, this bill prohibits the City from
enacting any kind of development policy, standard, or condition that would, among other things,
have the effect of imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development. (Gov't Code§
66300(b)(l)(B).) If the City were to adopt the Draft NCCP/HCP, thereby imposing the Preserve
requirement and other land use controls on land where housing is an allowable use, it would
effectively be a moratorium on housing development.
The City's threatened 40-acre land dedication requirement pursuant to the Draft
NCCP/HCP for the York property illustrates this chilling effect. The York property is
designated by the City's General Plan for residential development. The property is also zoned
for residential development. Thus, the York property is clearly land where housing is an
allowable use. The 40-acre land dedication imposed by the Draft NCCP/HCP, however,
essentially eliminates any financially viable housing development on the property. As such, the
Draft NCCP/HCP acts as a moratorium on housing development on the York property, and
therefore would be a violation ofthe Housing Crisis Act of2019.
Putting aside the SB 330 issues created by the City's approval of the Draft
NCCP/HCP, adoption of the NCCP/HCP is certainly inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter,
of other existing and newly enacted housing legislation. For example, recent amendments to the
Housing Accountability Act make clear that this statute and others like it are intended to
"meaningfully and effectively curb[] the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the
density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters." (Gov't
Code§ 65589.5(2)(K).) The Draft NCCP/HCP's chilling effect on housing development
projects directly contravenes this legislative intent.
* * *
B-35
October 28, 2019
Page 8
To reiterate, the City Council should DENY approval of the Draft NCCP/HCP at
its meeting on October 29, 2019, given its numerous procedural and substantive defects. The
City has given York no choice but to fight this illegal effort to stifle development predicated on
an ill-reasoned, outdated, and inadequate Draft NCCP/HCP and Draft EA. The City should
either remove the legally defective text pertaining to a 40-acre dedication requirement from the
Draft NCCP/HCP, or work with the Agencies and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
to acquire the property at fair market value.
Sincerely,
~~
Scott B. Birkey
080942\11214821v2
cc: City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Councilmembers
Doug Willmore, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mary Beth Woulfe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
David A. Mayer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
B-36
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Teresa Takaoka
Monday, October 28, 2019 1:30 PM
Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli
FW: Sierra Club Comments on NCCP attached
SierraCiub_RPV _NCCP _20191 029_Letter_Support.pdf
From: AI Sattler <alsattler@igc.org>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:59 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Mary Beth Woulfe
<marybeth_ woulfe@fws.gov>
Subject: Sierra Club Comments on NCCP attached
1 /.
B-37
·"'·~SIERRA ~CLUB
October 27, 2019
Palos Verdes-South Bay Group I Angeles Chapter
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
The Palos Verdes-South Bay Regional Group of the Sierra Club has supported the Rancho Palos
Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) since the early days of the NCCP
Working Group in the late 1990's. We have always been aware of the great importance of preserving
one of the last intact fragments of Coastal Sage Scrub.
Over the years the Sierra Club has worked towards this goal of protecting these natural lands as
habitat, not only for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren and Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly,
but also for all of the other native wildlife species that co-exist with them in this special ecosystem.
We are proud to have been a part of the effort to ensure the long term protection of these lands so
that the wildlife who are dependent upon them can continue to thrive and so that our and future
generations can continue to discover, delight in, and learn from this precious niche of the natural
world.
Thank you to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes for making this dream a reality.
The protections afforded by this NCCP/HCP to native wildlife and vegetation are even more important
today than they were when the Working Group first started its efforts at protection. This month,
Science magazine published a study* showing a loss in North America of about 3 billion birds since
1970. This equates to having lost 29% of the 1970 population of birds. Species that have declined
include not only the rarer birds, but also the very common species that we see in neighborhoods
every day. The researchers blame numerous factors for this decline in populations -and loss of
habitat is one significant cause.
By enacting this NCCP we will be doing what we can in our special corner of the world to provide a
refuge for the native diversity of species which occur here.
Thank you to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes; the Wildlife Resource Agencies; The Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy; the California Native Plant Society; Palos Verdes Audubon;
Endangered Habitats League; SOC II and all of the individuals and staff who have spoken up,
donated time, funding and volunteer hours, and worked so hard to ensure that these protections can
endure.
We urge the City Council to adopt the NCCP/HCP as proposed on October 29.
Sincerely,
sf Alfred Sattler,
Chair
*K. V. Rosenberg et al, Science 366. 120-124 (2019): "Decline of the North American avifauna"
P. 0. Box 2464, Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
B-38
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late correspondence.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Lozano
Katie Lozano
Monday, October 28, 2019 8:50 AM
CityCierk
Cory Linder; Ara Mihranian
FW: Nature Conservancy quarterly meetings
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:49AM
To: 'Sandy and Roger' <srinpv@cox.net>
Cc: 'Woulfe, MaryBeth' <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Nature Conservancy quarterly meetings
Hello Ms. Valeri,
Thank you for reaching out. We send the Quarterly Preserve Public Forum Meeting Announcements and Agendas out through
the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve listserv group. Below is a link to sign up. We also send out pretty frequent updates on
projects taking place in the Preserve and important announcements. It is still an active listserv. Perhaps the emails are going
into your junk mail, or it is an IT glitch. I'd recommend signing up again just in case. Here is a link to sign up:
https:/ /www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx
Please reach out to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) regarding their volunteer Trail Watch Program.
Their email is info@PVPLC.org
Regarding your question on whether there is danger of equestrian use being prohibited in the Preserve, that is an unfounded
rumor. A common concern staff has heard is that some members of the public are concerned that the NCCP/HCP establishes
that public access to the Preserve is conditional. This is true. The primary purpose of the Preserve is habitat conservation and
protection of sensitive/endangered species. For this reason, public access, technically, may be altered or eliminated if the
public access does not adhere to the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures outlined in Section 5.5 of the
NCCP/HCP, and has a detrimental impact on habitat/species conservation.
However, Public Access in the form of passive recreation (equestrian, mountain bike, and hiking use) is a covered activity under
the NCCP/HCP, and the City is aware that passive recreation is strongly supported by the community. The City, PVPLC, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife all make it a priority to manage the Preserve in a way
that allows passive recreation, and balances passive recreation with resource protection. And to further this point, the
Preserve has been managed under the provisions of the NCCP/HCP since the 1990's, and at no time was there though of or
reason to consider eliminating public access (passive recreation).
Regarding the concern that equestrian use in particular would be prohibited from the Preserve-that is also unfounded. The
City Council approved the Preserve Public Use Master Plan in 2009 (it was also approved by the Wildlife Agencies with
contributions from the PVPLC), and the Public Use Master Plan and Municipal Code specifically allow for equestrian use on
designated equestrian trails within the Preserve.
I hope this is helpful. Thank you for reaching out. Please feel free to contact me directly if we can provide additional
information.
Thank you,
1 /
B-39
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy and Roger [mailto:srinpv@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:19AM
To: Trails <trails@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Nature Conservancy quarterly meetings
Hi Kathy,
I used to attend the quarterly meetings often, and I was alerted by the list serve of the upcoming meetings. Somehow I am not
getting those notifications anymore.
I feel badly that I have missed several meetings now, and especially one as important as this most recent.
Rumors abound in the lack of verified information, and right now the rumor is that the NCCP will kick horse riders out of the
Preserve. That is not what I read, but perhaps how someone might choose to interpret it.
Can you shed any light on this for me please.
At all the quarterly meetings and other city trail related meeting I ever attended, horse use was never discussed as an issue or
problem. Horses on trails were determined to provide no more impact than hikers. And the trail riders are all local residents
with vested interest in long term health and maintaining of the Preserve. Many of us donated to help purchase it. In fact it was
the bike riders who were mostly associated with trail damage and off trail damage.
Also for a long time now, I have expressed interest in joining the Trail Watch program. I have signed up to be notified of
upcoming training one a year ago, but haven't heard anything. But since I fell of the list serve, maybe I fell of that notification
too? If there are any upcoming Trail Watch training session, I know a couple trail riders that want to attend and join the
program, that is assuming we aren't being summary kicked out of the preserve as some are rumoring.
Thank you for your time in responding.
Sincerely, Sandy Valeri
2
B-40
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Late correspondence.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Lozano
Katie Lozano
Monday, October 28, 2019 8:27 AM
CityCierk
Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder
FW: error in section 5.4.1 NCCP
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:27 AM
To: 'Barbara Sattler' <bsattler@igc.org>
Cc: 'Woulfe, MaryBeth' <marybeth_woulfe@fws.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: error in section 5.4.1 NCCP
Hello Ms. Sattler,
Thank you for your email, and previous feedback. I wanted to respond to explain why the language "and Existing Preserve
Roads or trails" was removed from the first bullet under NCCP/HCP Section 5.4.1. It was removed because the same content is
covered in the second bullet, and so including it also in the first bullet was redundant. The second bullet under NCCP/HCP
Section 5.4.1 reads: "The maintenance of Existing Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles within the
Preserve that do not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat." Please feel free to reach out if you have
further thoughts.
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Sattler [mailto:bsattler@igc.org]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 2:24PM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: error in section 5.4.1 NCCP
Hi Katie-
This sentence from the first bullet point in 5.4.1 needs correction.
Barbara Sattler
1 I
1
Katie Lozano
From:Katie Lozano
Sent:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 1:04 PM
To:'Jane McNeil'
Subject:RE: what is nccp/hcp???????????????????
Hello Ms. McNeil,
I’m inserting a link to our NCCP/HCP webpage. The FAQs and Responses to Public Comments give excellent information
on the City’s draft NCCP/HCP. These both give excellent overviews of the City’s draft NCCP/HCP. Please feel free to
reach out directly with any questions or thoughts.
https://www.rpvca.gov/490/Palos-Verdes-Nature-Preserve-NCCP-PUMP-H
Thank you,
Katie Lozano
Senior Administrative Analyst/Open Space Manager
Recreation and Parks Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310‐544‐5267
katiel@rpvca.gov
From: Jane McNeil [mailto:jane609@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:09 AM
To: Katie Lozano <KatieL@rpvca.gov>
Subject: what is nccp/hcp???????????????????
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
B-41
B-42November 1, 2019 VIA E-MAIL (aram@rpvca.gov) Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: City Council Consideration of Adoption of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP /HCP Dear Mr. Mihranian: I am writing this letter as a concerned resident of Rancho Palos Verdes (5521 Palos Verdes Drive South) and do not express any legal opinions on this matter. It is my understanding the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) is considering adopting the Draft City Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (Draft NCCP/HCP) and the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the Draft NCCP/HCP. Furthermore, it is my understanding that York Point View Properties, LLC (York) opposes City's approval of the NCCP/HCP in its current draft form, and York has initiated legal action (Litigation). In the Litigation, a trial date has been set for May 2020, and discovery is still ongoing. Expert witnesses have not been deposed, and most importantly gathering evidence is not completed. My concern is the City is prematurely taking a drastic action towards a resident's property and his legal rights. I strongly recommend the City defer any action in this matter until the parties have either settled the contested issues or the Litigation has concluded. Certainly, the City should have a thorough understanding of all evidence, including but not limited to expert witness testimony, before taking such drastic action regarding a resident's property and his rights. Please forward my concerns to all decision makers and appropriate personnel. City Resident LAW OFFICE OF JOHNS. TOOTLE PO BOX 4345 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CA 90274 EMAIL: johntootlelaw@gmail.com TELEPHONE: 424-237-7916