The Brief

In 2022, the Los Angeles electorate voted to slap the sale of mansions and other high-value real estate deals across the city with a hefty tax.

Locals have been debating Measure ULA ever since. Supporters call it a vital lifeline for the city’s unhoused and housing insecure who stand to benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars the initiative has already raked in. Critics call it an economic own-goal that has choked off new apartment construction in a city where new housing is in excruciatingly short supply.

That debate is about to go statewide.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a low tax advocacy group, is currently gathering signatures to put a measure on California's November 2026 ballot. A central part of their pitch: No more Measure ULAs.

The proposed constitutional amendment takes aim at two types of taxation common across California:

• Transfer taxes on the sale of real estate. The measure would cap rates at a little more than one-twentieth of one percent of the value of the property. Los Angeles' highest rate is one hundred-times higher.

• Local tax measures put on the ballot by voter-backed campaigns (as opposed those put there by city councils) that are earmarked for a particular purpose. The tax-capping proposal would raise the electoral support needed to pass these types of “special” tax measures to two-thirds, up from a simple majority of more than 50%. 

Municipal governments across the state stand to lose billions of dollars (with taxpayers standing to save just as much) if the measure ultimately succeeds. Voter-proposed tax hikes have been approved by simple majorities in cities and counties across California. Transfer tax hikes have also been a popular funding source for certain local governments.

Measure ULA, which 58% of Los Angeles voters backed in 2022, happens to be both. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and its political allies appear happy to make it the face of the statewide campaign.

Putting a lid on both citizen-initiated tax measures and high transfer taxes “is something that we have always had as a priority,” said Rob Lapsely, president of the California Business Roundtable, a coalition that has yet to take a formal position on the measure but which backed an earlier version. “The question was, ‘can we actually find the right opportunity?’”

“And then suddenly, along came Measure ULA.”

The fight over the “mansion tax”

The City of Los Angeles’ measure was sold to voters as a “mansion tax,” because it sticks new, elevated transfer fee rates on only the highest value sales: 4% on properties between $5 million and $10 million and 5.5% for those above that. Those numbers have inched up with inflation. All sales below those thresholds are taxed at roughly half of 1%.

Since going into effect in 2023, the measure has raised some $830 million for affordable housing construction, subsidies for cash-strapped renters and legal assistance for tenants facing eviction. It is by far the largest single contributor to the city’s overall homelessness spending.

But ULA has its critics. Not just a tax on mansions, the high rates apply to commercial, industrial and multifamily residential projects too, including land sales for new apartment developments. Apartment construction has indeed slowed to a crawl across the city in recent years and developers and researchers have laid at least some of the blame on the city’s high transfer taxes which they argue has driven new construction down further than in surrounding cities. One report by researchers at UCLA and the Rand Institute estimated that the measure has resulted in 1,910 fewer apartments per year, including 168 fewer affordable units. Another study by researchers at Harvard, UC Irvine and UC San Diego, found that property tax collections fell steeply as a result of the dramatic slow down in sales, off-setting an estimated 63% of the collect transfer tax revenue, if not significantly more.

Backers of the mansion tax have taken issue with the UCLA study in particular. They also note that the program is currently accepting applications for its first major distribution of funds, with plans to push nearly $400 million out the door, which could ultimately ramp up affordable housing development across the city.

But there’s growing concern, both in Los Angeles and among Democrats in Sacramento, that ULA as it currently exists has become a political vulnerability — and one that could fuel the campaign behind the statewide tax busting measure.

“Measure ULA is the tail wagging the dog,” said Mott Smith, a developer and board member of the California Infill Builders Association who co-authored another study that found a chilling effect on the housing market. “Anyone with assets in Los Angeles is like, ‘please where can I send my check to Howard Jarvis?’”

In the final days of the California Legislative session, Mayor Karen Bass and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg tried to hammer a grand bargain into state law. Senate Bill 423 would have exempted certain new residential developments from the tax, offering a reprieve to many multifamily housing developers. It would have also given the city more flexibility to renegotiate affordability requirements on housing projects funded by the measure, addressing concerns by some developers and financiers that ULA cash comes with too many strings attached to be of use.

The bill would have also exempted homes destroyed in the recent wildfires.

But there was a catch: The ULA tweak would only go into effect if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pulls its ballot measure or it fails to qualify for the ballot.

All of that ultimately proved too complicated, contentious and of questionable legality to ram through the Legislature in the final days of the session. Long Beach Sen. Lena Gonzalez and Inglewood Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, both Democrats, vowed to pick it up again in January.

But that may be too late to neuter the anti-tax campaign. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is already gathering signatures and raising funds.

“This was an attempt to cut us off early in the process, but since we’re moving forward I think the attempt to leverage this is not going to prevail,” Jon Coupal, the association’s president. “Their opportunity to ambush us is now over.”

That’s given local government groups billions of reasons to worry. Along with making it more challenging to raise revenue in the future, cities with existing high transfer taxes would see them slashed. Parcel taxes currently on the books that were approved by majorities of less than two-thirds would be similarly nixed.

Cities would lose between $2 billion and $3 billion each year if the measure becomes law, according to an analysis commissioned by the League of California Cities, a lobbying group. That includes hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone funding dedicated for new housing and homelessness services in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. But it also includes hundreds of millions more for cities that don’t use these transfer dollars for new, specific purposes and projects, but simply to top up their budgets.

The City of Berkeley, for example, stands to lose between $33 million and $63 million, according to the League’s analysis. That’s the equivalent of between 15% to 30% of the town’s general fund.

California’s favorite fight

Californians have been having some version of this fight for nearly half a century.

In 1978, voters passed Proposition 13, which capped property taxes and put strict limits on local and state governments’ ability to raise revenue. Defending, rolling back and revising those limits in court battles and subsequent state ballot measure campaigns is now a storied California political tradition.

The latest chapter begins in 2017 when the California Supreme Court ruled in a case against the southern California city of Upland that citizen-initiated special tax measures only need to get more than 50% of the vote to pass. Up until that point it was presumed that the required threshold was the much more electorally formidable two-thirds.

Since then cities and counties have passed two dozen of these measures by margins of less than two-thirds. That includes taxes on parcels, sales and gross receipts that have been used to fund local schools, parks, street repairs and housing and that have been put on the ballot by homeless advocates, environmentalists and organized labor groups. It also includes Measure ULA.

And since then, business groups have been clambering to close the “Upland loophole.”

“This is now the vehicle for unions and others to be able to try and pass new taxes on targeted business sectors using a majority vote,” said Lapsely. “That only hurts job growth.”

Over that same period some cities have also turned to transfer taxes as a new source of revenue. It’s a fiscal avenue only available to a select number of cities. Under state law, most municipalities max out their transfer taxes at 55 cents for every $1,000 in sale value. But for “charter cities” — local governments with their own municipal constitution — there is no upper limit. Twenty-six have taken advantage of that fiscal opportunity.

They include Santa Monica, which passed its own version of a high-value transfer tax (Measure GS) in 2022, and Los Angeles. Voters in cities across the San Francisco Bay Area have voted to make more modest or incremental hikes over the last 10 years.

Electoral hurdles to come

The transfer tax trend has particularly irked landlords and real estate developers.

Last year, they joined forces with anti-tax advocates and other business groups to rein in both types of bothersome taxation with a ballot measure. The California Supreme Court took the unusual step of striking it from the 2024 ballot, ruling that it proposed too “substantial” a change to state government to be enacted by a mere ballot measure.

This year’s version is much more carefully targeted making it less likely to hit this same constitutional snag.

But even if the signature gathering effort is successful, the Howard Jarvis campaign has its work cut out for it — even for a conservative-coded measure in reliably blue California. In late 2023, the Legislature floated its own head-spinning ballot measure that would require future initiatives that want to hike the threshold needed to pass other measures (see: the business-backed measure) to meet that same higher threshold (in this case, two-thirds) before becoming law.

That effort to hoist the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association on its own petard is already slated for the November 2026 election. If it passes, it would apply to any other measures also on the ballot.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

April 30 is your last chance to claim any cash you qualify for with California’s Middle Class Tax Refund — a one-time payment approved by state lawmakers back in 2022.

According to the Franchise Tax Board — the California agency responsible for these funds — 32 million residents received a total of $9.2 billion in payments.

MCTR payments ranged from $200 to $1,050, and what you got depended on how you filed your 2020 tax return. For example, if you listed yourself as a single filer and made less than $75,000, you qualified for $350. If you filed jointly with your spouse and listed a dependent, and made less than $150,000, you were eligible for $1,050. The program even included taxpayers making up to $500,000 if they filed jointly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators approved MCTR payments as a response to the jump in gasoline prices that came after the United States banned Russian oil imports at the start of 2022.

More than 7 million Californians received the funds through direct deposit — but another 9.6 million people received the rebate through a debit card that was mailed to the address listed on their 2020 tax return.

Recent data from the FTB shows that 90% of cards have been activated over the last four years. But around 57% of these activated cards still have some balance on them — meaning around $2.95 billion in total funds have yet to be used by Californians.

If you’ve ever received a MCTR card in the mail, you have till April 30 before the card expires — and you lose the funds it contains.

Keep reading for what to know about claiming your possible MCTR cash before the end of the month.

How do I know if I qualified for this money?

If you can find them, check your 2020 tax returns — because while the MCTR program began in 2022, what taxpayers received was based on how they filed back in 2020.

April 30 is the deadline to claim any remaining funds from California’s 2022 Middle Class Tax Refund. The state’s Franchise Tax Board said 32 million residents have already received $9.2 billion in payments.

(

Diego Cervo

/

Getty Images

)

State officials set up several tiers that decide how much taxpayers get from MCTR, based on their income:

• Tier 1: If you filed single in 2020 and made up to $75,000, you qualified for $350 of MCTR money, plus an additional $350 if you had at least one dependent. If you filed jointly and made up to $150,000 together, you qualified for $700 and an additional $350 if you had at least one dependent.
• Tier 2: If you filed single in 2020 and made up to $125,000, you qualified for $250, plus an additional $250 if you had at least one dependent. If you filed jointly and made up to $250,000 together, you qualified for $500 and an additional $250 if you had at least one dependent.
• Tier 3: If you filed single in 2020 and made up to $250,000, you qualified for $200, plus an additional $200 if you had at least one dependent. If you filed jointly and made up to $500,000 together, you qualified for $200 and an additional $400 if you had at least one dependent.

If I qualified for an MCTR debit card, when did I receive it?

The FTB said it mailed out all debit cards between October 2022 and January 2023 — and that it then sent reminder letters in spring 2023 and spring 2024 to taxpayers who had not activated their cards yet.

After April 30, your card will no longer work anywhere, and you will no longer have access to this money.

(

Courtesy of Money Network

)

Each card came in its own window envelope with “California Middle Class Tax Refund” printed on the return address.

The state flag’s grizzly bear and the state seal are printed on the front side of all MCTR cards, and all have the same expiration date: “04/26”

“Cardholders are urged to spend their funds or transfer them to a bank account by April 30, 2026,” a spokesperson for the FTB told KQED in an emailed statement.

After April 30, your card will no longer work anywhere, and you will no longer have access to this money.

How do I know how much money I have left on my card?

The MCTR cards are administered by a private company called Money Network. You can either call Money Network’s customer service line at 1-800-240-0223 or create an account at the MCTR website set up by the company.

Keep in mind that you will be asked to confirm the number on your card and your entire Social Security number. You can also register your debit card on Money Network’s app.

If there are two names printed on your card — which usually happens for taxpayers who filed jointly — you can register your card using the name that appears above the other.

I found my MCTR card, but I’m having trouble using it

While the FTB tracks MCTR funds, Money Network — the private company that made the cards — is now responsible for helping cardholders. If you have never used your card, it’s possible that the security controls on the card placed it on hold.

“This is a standard fraud-prevention measure and does not mean the funds are unavailable,” the FTB said.

To get rid of the hold and start using your card, you’ll have to contact Money Network’s customer service at 800-240-0223. Customer service representatives are available on weekdays 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

“Callers should have their personal information available to verify their identity,” the FTB wrote. “We advise people to call the Money Network Customer service line as early in the day as possible.”

There have been reported cases of cardholders calling Money Network and not getting a hold of anyone. State officials did not provide specific information on what other options taxpayers have if they cannot reach Money Network staff. KQED also reached out to Fiserv, the parent company of Money Network, which declined an interview.

I lost my MCTR debit card. Can I request a replacement?

Unfortunately, not any more, as April 8 was the last day to request a replacement card. State officials say this last day was chosen to ensure recipients would definitely get their new card before the program ends on April 30.

If you do know where your card is, but want to temporarily lock it to prevent anyone else from using it, you can prevent unauthorized transactions by logging into your card’s account at the MCTR website.

And if you just never got a card, it’s possible that you received this money via direct deposit to the bank account you listed when filing your 2020 taxes.

What will happen to all the money that’s not claimed?

State law requires that all unused funds still remaining on expired credit cards be transferred to the state’s General Fund, where the money for these payments originally came from.

This will affect both activated and unactivated cards.

Unions representing private security guards would gain a new advantage in organizing under California legislation that would compel companies to reach labor contracts if the firms want to provide use-of-force training.

State Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas’ Senate Bill 1203 also seeks to raise pay for security guards and it would require their companies to offer more rigorous training.

Smallwood-Cuevas, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said guards on average make around $44,000 a year, the state poverty line, despite their companies generating an estimated $34 billion in revenue. She said guards also are being asked to take on increasingly dangerous roles without enough training.

“This bill asks us to stand up with these officers to strengthen and improve these working conditions and to ensure that across California that we are not only improving safety, but we're also helping to build a safety pathway for workers in this sector,” Smallwood-Cuevas told the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee last week.

The committee voted to advance her bill to the Senate Public Safety Committee which is scheduled to discuss the measure Tuesday.

Security companies say the measure would add at least $1 billion to their costs each year and lead to fewer guards protecting the public.

“California has led the nation in training requirements, and we applaud that,” Dean Grafilo, a lobbyist for private security firm Allied Universal told the committee. “However, this bill goes much further than is necessary or reasonable, and we simply cannot ignore the staggering financial burden this bill will impose on our industry and, by extension, California.”

There are an estimated 330,000 private security personnel in California, making the industry one of the state’s largest workforces, Smallwood-Cuevas said. California businesses and local governments are increasingly hiring guards to protect them from smash-and-grab robberies and other crimes. Security firms also will be called upon at this year’s World Cup games in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, the 2027 Super Bowl in Inglewood and the 2028 Olympics in California.

The measure, according to the business committee’s analysis, would expand training standards, increase annual training for security guards and require companies to compensate guards for time spent training.

It would only allow companies to provide “power to arrest” and use-of-force training if agreed to in union contracts. Those agreements would require workers to earn at least 30% above California’s $16.90 minimum wage and get overtime.

The bill also would require state regulators to review and set minimum wages for security guards by 2028. Security industry officials say even a $1-an-hour raise for security workers would add $750 million to their costs each year.

“SB 1203 will eliminate jobs making companies that seek to automate security functions more competitive thereby displacing the very people the bill intends to help,” David Chandler, president of the California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards & Associates, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

Labor is a powerful Capitol force

The bill is the latest effort by labor unions to use the Legislature to pressure companies to allow unionization. The most notable recent effort was a multi-year legislative push that successfully got ride-share companies to back legislation that allowed their drivers to unionize.

About 20% of private security guards are unionized, according to the industry, slightly higher than the rest of the state’s workforce, in which about 15% of workers are unionized.

Unions have tremendous clout in the Legislature, due in large part to the money they spend on the political campaigns of Democratic lawmakers. Unions also deploy their networks of organizers to advocate for their chosen candidates.

Service Employees International Union, the bill’s sponsor, is arguably the most influential labor organization in the state. The union and its affiliates have donated at least $21.4 million to lawmakers’ campaigns since 2015, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Meanwhile, 33 of the 120 members of the Legislature are current or former union members, according to a California Labor Federation tally.

Some, like Smallwood-Cuevas, used to work for the unions that would benefit from their legislation.

Before entering politics, Smallwood-Cuevas once worked as an organizer for a local affiliate of SEIU that unionized security officers. Her campaigns have received at least $119,100 from SEIU and its affiliates since 2021, according to Digital Democracy.

Committee backs union bill

The union’s political clout as well as lawmakers’ sympathies for underpaid workers doing a dangerous job was on display last week at the business and professions committee. No committee members voted against the bill.

Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk, asked Smallwood-Cuevas if he could be added to the bill as a symbolic co-author.

“We use the term ‘first responders,’” he told the committee. “Sometimes it is these individuals and individuals like them that are first responders.”

Archuleta, a former reserve officer at the Montebello Police Department, said he used to arrive at crime scenes and “sure enough, there was a security officer there,” telling police “I got your back.”

Archuleta’s campaign has received at least $79,600 from SEIU and its affiliates, according to Digital Democracy.

One Democrat on the business committee expressed concerns.

Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat representing the Van Nuys area, said she didn’t have a problem with the bill’s intent to raise wages for guards. After all, she said she worked for five years as a security guard.

But she said she felt the bill’s training requirements were duplicative or would override a law that the Legislature had passed last year on security personnel standards and training.

She said she also had concerns the requirements in the bill could end up preventing companies from hiring qualified training consultants due to restrictions limiting who’s authorized to do that work.

“Right now, there are certain retired police officers that are turned to by security companies to provide that training,” she said. “And they’re no longer going to be given that option.”

Despite her concerns, she did not vote on the bill instead of casting a formal “no” vote.

As CalMatters has reported, legislators regularly dodge tough votes instead of voting “no” to avoid angering influential lobbying organizations.

Menjivar’s campaign has received at least $16,900 from SEIU, according to secretary of state filings.

“There were provisions within SB 1203 that she liked and a hard ‘no’ vote would send the signal that there is nothing the author or sponsors can do to move her to an ‘aye’ vote down the line,” Menjivar’s spokesperson, Teodora Reyes, said in an email.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Eight months since it was supposed to open, Long Beach’s new youth homeless shelter is still empty, plagued by plumbing problems and a long-running legal conflict that’s just now being made public. The nonprofit originally selected to run the shelter says it’s on the verge of suing the city for pulling the plug on its contract and withholding hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments that have left it on the brink of collapse.

It’s a dispute that has been unfolding for nearly a year, between the city and the nonprofit April Parker Foundation. But at the shelter’s premature grand opening in August, all seemed well.

Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson cut the ceremonial ribbon in front of a small crowd, including about 30 foundation employees.

The foundation, by this point, had been a local city contractor for years, doing youth intervention and homelessness work. It was poised to run the new shelter under a $500,000 contract the City Council unanimously approved in May.

The shelter had a dozen beds, meant for young adults at transitional age, who had recently exited the foster care system or juvenile justice and needed special help, like counseling, financial management, a schedule and a place to sleep. But that work never started.

In late October, the city says, it notified the April Parker Foundation that it wouldn’t be signing with them because of concerns about how the foundation billed for some of its prior work.

Since 2023, Long Beach had contracted the foundation to provide rapid rehousing services for homeless people. Then last summer, it stopped paying them. Officials later explained that invoices were coming in late, inadequately filled out or missing required documentation to justify the expense.

“We’re not making any accusations of fraud or even breach of contract,” Deputy City Attorney Nick Masero said, but the timing of the invoices “was not consistent with their contractual requirements, and the supporting documentation wasn’t provided to substantiate all the amounts on the invoices.”

Masero said the city has sought to resolve the issue with the April Parker Foundation, but added that “we’re not obligated under the contract to make payment until they’ve provided all the necessary information and documentation.”

April Parker, founder of the April Parker Foundation, alleges the city is manufacturing an excuse not to pay her. She said she has sent over hundreds of documents and receipts detailing every transaction tied to the program.

“We delivered binders to them, binders that contain 100% documentation on every invoice, every transaction, everything,” she said.

After providing those, Parker said communication with the city largely stopped, save for some correspondence through her attorneys. She remains unsure of what the city thinks her staff did wrong.

It’s the second time recently that Long Beach has cut off a homelessness contractor over billing concerns, as a long-running audit of the city’s homelessness programs inches closer to being finished. Parker said she was informed about the audit, but — despite her repeated texts and calls to city health officials — was never told if it found any problems within her organization.

Parker said she was blindsided by the city withholding payments across all its contracts with her, some as early as March 2025, as she was ramping up to run the new youth shelter.

The shelter is in West Long Beach, near the city’s Multi-Service Center in a warehouse district west of the Los Angeles River.

(

John Donegan

/

Long Beach Post

)

“I do not know what is wrong with anything I’ve ever submitted because they’ve never told me what’s actually wrong, nothing,” Parker said. “So how can I fix something that I don’t even know what’s wrong? I gave them everything, and they’ve never come back and said, ‘Well, this is wrong, or that is wrong.’”

On the city’s assurance that she would be running the shelter, she said, she hired staff, rewrote policies, updated insurance and hosted an open house at the facility. The foundation was even invited to the ribbon ceremony.

Then, in a reversal, she said, the city told her they planned to “take the shelter in-house.” Without any written notice or further explanation, city officials, she said, assumed control of the shelter and denied access to her staff.

Parker has since filed multiple legal claims against the city, alleging they improperly withheld payments for her nonprofit’s work on the youth shelter, rapid rehousing and gun violence intervention. They say the city owes Parker more than $1 million.

She said those costs have crippled her nonprofit, forcing it to cut its youth shelter staff, reduce its administrative team and close its 36-bed transitional shelter. Parker said she had to take out a line of credit and stop paying herself a salary to save her organization.

Her next step may be to sue. The city has denied the legal claims and sought to reopen the youth shelter with a new operator.

At a City Council meeting this week, Homeless Services Bureau Manager Paul Duncan blamed the delayed opening on faulty plumbing. In December, months after the decision to kick out the April Parker Foundation, crews discovered cracked, clogged and faulty underground pipes that were causing toilets to back up.

Renovations, which are under warranty, Duncan said, are expected to conclude soon. When the shelter opens next month, it will be run by Jovenes, Inc., an LA-based nonprofit. The City Council approved a one-year contract with the organization at its meeting Tuesday.

“Glad to hear we have a real opening date in early May, and I look forward to moving forward,” Mayor Rex Richardson said after the vote.

The April Parker Foundation’s name was not mentioned.

Roughly three years after above-average rainfall fueled a devastating landslide in Rancho Palos Verdes, the landscape has become almost unrecognizable. Homes, ripped apart by the land movement, have been wiped away, creating swaths of unusable open space. Trying to slow the landslide has pushed the city to the financial brink.

But also caught in the landslide’s crosshairs is a beloved seaside network of trails that continues to be pulled apart and will never be the same.

The area was once green rolling hills offering spectacular views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island. Now, much of the land is riddled with 20-foot chasms, some of which span 12 feet.

For decades, land movement was minimal. But above-average rainfall in 2022 and 2023 rapidly accelerated — up to 1 foot per week in some places — prompting Southern California Edison and SoCalGas to shut off utilities for hundreds of residents.

Landslide damage has closed dozens of trails in the Portuguese Bend area of Rancho Palos Verdes on April 4.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

Landslide damage has closed dozens of trails in the Portuguese Bend community area of Rancho Palos Verdes on April 4.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

Land movement has since slowed to about 1.6 inches a week, thanks in part to wells the city installed that suck water out of the ground, but damage to the around 16 miles of trails remains and will likely never be abated.

"We don't traverse those areas on a regular basis. We occasionally use drones to look at the damage,” said Ara Mihranian, Rancho Palos Verdes’ city manager. “You can't get across certain trails, so if we even went down into a certain area, we wouldn't be able to continue because of the open fissures in the ground.”

William Lavoie of the Palos Verdes South Bay group of the Sierra Club has hiked trails in the 1,500 acre-Palos Verdes Nature Reserve once a week for about 25 years. Before the city closed off the area, he said he saw a telephone pole “ tipping at about a 30-degree angle.”

Landslides resulted in a home being severely damaged in Rancho Palos Verdes on April 4.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

“ I understand why they closed the trails because there were some pretty good-sized fissures,” he said. “It would be very sad if somebody broke a leg or twisted an ankle or broke an ankle.”

The effects on nature

But the destruction hasn’t been a total loss.

The California gnatcatcher, a small songbird that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls “threatened” and the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly rely on certain host plants within the preserve.

“ The habitat that supports the wildlife has been fragmented, has been damaged with fissures opening up in the ground, splitting apart. Coastal sage scrub has actually been sucked in by the fissures,” Mihranian said. “That impacts the corridors and the wildlife patterns that you see out in the preserve.”

But Cris Sarabia, conservation director for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, said the species can also benefit from less human activity.

“ Both of those endangered species have wings so they could essentially fly,” he said. “So the fissures on the trails or the cracks in the ground don't necessarily cause big impacts to them because they're able to move around.”

Sarabia said his organization is also tracking the cactus wren bird that resides in a cactus found within the landslide area.

“ We have been working closely with the different entities doing the [mitigation] work to avoid as much habitat as possible, but unfortunately some of these areas overlap,” he said.

Meanwhile, the conservancy is trying to salvage the cactus and preparing for restoration of the sites, collecting native seeds and growing new plants.

But the true extent of the damage and the effects to wildlife are unclear, Mihranian said, because city officials haven’t been able to go in to do a full assessment — the area is too unsafe.

 ”It's going to be a herculean effort and a very costly one as well,” Mihranian said of repairing the damage.

A colossal financial drain 

When the current fiscal year ends in June, Rancho Palos Verdes will have spent close $65 million on efforts related to the landslide since October 2022. For context, the city’s annual operating budget is around $40 million.

“ The city has taken a huge hit on this emergency response,” Mihranian said.

Rancho Palos Verdes has appealed to state and federal officials for assistance, but with little to no success.

Adding salt to the wounds, the city has also lost out on revenue from parking fees for the preserve. Revenue generated at the Abalone Cove Park lot has dropped from $150,000 each year, to just $11,000, according to the city. Revenue from parking near Del Cerro Park also decreased from around $32,000 in fiscal year 2022-23 to just $4,000.

Not to mention all the homes that have been lost, uprooting the lives of residents who haven’t been able to resell, instead relying on a government-backed buy back program.

Alternative trail routes

Lavoie, the Sierra Club member, said despite the trail closures, the vast open space in the Palos Verdes Peninsula means there are plenty of alternatives.

Here are some of his favorites:

• Lavoie affectionately calls the trail behind Highridge Park “the maze.” It’s an easy one-hour walk and you get to share the trail with horses. 
• Malaga Cove: Pass Neptune fountain, the library and post office to continue along a grassy hill shaded by eucalyptus trees. Use the utility pathway to reach La Venta Inn.
• The Via Buena stairs in Lunada Bay. 
• There are lots of great trails that start at Ernie Howlett Park.   

Anyone can join the Palos Verdes South Bay group of the Sierra Club on their hikes in the peninsula. Check their calendar for meeting spots and times.