Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />From:Kit Fox <br />Sent:Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:57 PM <br />To:CityClerk <br />Subject:Fw: Consent Calendar Item E - Possibly Item H? <br />From the discussion below, this seems to be about Item H, not Item E.  <br />Kit  <br />From: Jeremiah George <jerngeorge@yahoo.com>  <br />Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 6:41 PM  <br />To: CC; Kit Fox  <br />Cc: David Quadhamer; Andrea Vona; Tony Baker; Endangered Habitats News; David Berman; David A. Sundstrom;  <br />Jeff.Brandt@wildlife.ca.gov; Christine_Medak@fws.gov; Eric Porter; Jess Morton; William Ailor; eric_porter@fws.gov  <br />Subject: Consent Calendar Item E   <br />Honorable Council- apologies for any typos etc. <br />Consent Calendar Item E was brought to my attention this morning so I apologize for the late <br />comments. <br />A great deal of concern exists in the community and within the larger Southern California <br />Conservation Community regarding the final form of the yet unapproved working draft NCCP. With <br />the recent removing/realigning of the archery range and the Active Recreation Area formerly <br />known as Gateway Park and talk of adding the Malaga canyon acquisition to the draft NCCP <br />coupled with the fact that a revised draft NCCP has not been made available to the general <br />public or expert community has many concerns that the update to the Portuguese Bend <br />Feasibility Study is driving the final NCCP process and not the science of conservation <br />planning! I was involved with the original NCCP working group in the early to mid 1990s. Many <br />compromises were made in the original draft plan including those to facilitate future needed <br />infrastructure and landslide stabilization work, however the end product was a relatively <br />decent reserve design that saved viable populations of most of the target species . This draft <br />plan has been the goodfaith working document that all parties have basically maintained until <br />relatively recently. At this time RPV has no approved NCCP therefore no incidental take <br />permits or other needed regulatory concessions if they would like to proceed with this <br />project. We have yet to see updates to the new draft NCCP the conservation community would <br />like to see this prior to it undergoing revisions driven by the needs or perceived needs of <br />any work needed to stabilize/ slow/ mitigate the PB Slide. It has also been so many years <br />since the original draft and its proposed 4 alternatives that a number of species not <br />addressed in the original NCCP should be added at this time prior to a final draft <br />circulation. This whole process needs to be made much more open. Myself and many others have <br />grave concerns about the direction this all appears to be taking. Compromises exist that would <br />likely please all interested parties and stake holders, but at this time many concerned <br />parties feel excluded from the process. <br />I ask the Council to reject this Consent Calendar or in lieu of rejection a large day long <br />stake holders meeting (including agency representation - USFWS, CFWS, Army Corp etc) and <br />workshop be hosted were all issues are vetted in the open and some large open consensus can <br />emerge regarding the ultimate planned reserve design, the needs of any future landslide <br />stabilization and other pending or foreseeable infrastructure needs for the area. <br />Best, Jeremiah N. George PhD <br />Conservation Chair South Coast CNPS <br />RPV Property Owner <br />Redondo Beach Resident <br />H