Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC SR 20160920 O - Status Report For Elkmont Canyon
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: 09/20/2016 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar Receive and file a status report regarding the City Attorney's opinion concerning the access issues for the vacant lot known as Elkmont Canyon (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 7576-026-028, Case No. ZON2014-00229). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file a status report regarding the City Attorney's opinion concerning the access issues for the vacant lot known as Elkmont Canyon. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planners REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development f. APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager.! "'I'l ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. City Council Resolution No. 90-93 (page A-1) B. September 9, 2016, City Attorney Letter to Mr. Perera (property owner) (page B-1) C. September 12, 2016, City Attorney Letter to Mr. Jeff Lewis (page C-1) D. Public Correspondence (page D-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The subject 4.48 -acre vacant parcel, otherwise known as the "Elkmont Canyon Parcel" (APN 7576-026-028), was created in 2006 through a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CCOC), which determined that 13 fragments of Lots 58 through 70 of Tract No. 24719 were actually a single parcel. The original Tract Map No. 24719 states, "As a dedication to public use while all of Silver Spur Road and Hawthorne Boulevard within and adjacent to this subdivision remain public highways for such time only, we hereby abandon all easements of ingress and egress to the said Silver Spur Road and Hawthorne Boulevard so that owners of lots 1, 2, 71, 23 to 27 inclusive and 52 to 58 inclusive abutting these highways during such time will have no rights of access whatever in the highways as such except the general easement of travel which belongs to the whole public [Emphasis added]. If any change of alignment or 1 width of such highways results in the vacation of any part thereof within and adjacent to this subdivision, such vacation terminates the above dedication as to the part vacated ("Original Tract Condition")." Based on this tract map condition, Staff was originally advised that the proper procedure to remove the Original Tract Condition was a vacation procedure pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 90-93 (Attachment A). The initiation of the vacation procedure was originally to be considered by the City Council at its July 19, 2016, meeting. However, in light of the breadth and scope of the access questions raised by the public, specifically as they relate to City Council Resolution No. 90-93, this matter was continued to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the City Attorney additional time to reassess the process. Upon the completion of further research, the City Attorney has opined that City Council Resolution No. 90-93 is inapplicable to this process because all access to Elkmont Canyon has been abandoned since 1961, and that there is nothing to "vacate" under the terms of this Resolution. Additionally, there is no easement concerning access listed on the title report for the property. Thus, the City Attorney views this as simply a matter of considering access that could be granted as part of the planning entitlement process. For this reason, the vacation initiation request no longer applies to this project. Both the property owner and the attorney representing opponents of the project have been advised of this determination (Attachments B and C). In order for the property owner to proceed with the requested development application, as well as the access request, a complete development application is needed, which includes (but is not limited to) architectural plans, grading and drainage plans, surveyed site plans, conceptual geology approval, and sight -distance analysis. At this time, the project application is incomplete. Once the application is deemed complete, the following steps will need to occur: • Preparation and public circulation of an environmental document for the project request (to be prepared by a City -selected consultant at the owner's expense); • Traffic Safety Committee review of the requested Encroachment Permit to obtain access from Hawthorne Boulevard; • Installation of a project silhouette; • Public notification of the Planning Commission public hearing; and, • Planning Commission review of the requested project. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed by any interested party to the City Council. In short, there will be many opportunities for the public to weigh in on this issue in the future if the applicant decides to submit a development application. It's also important for the public to know that the City is duty-bound to fairly consider and process any application that it receives. Receiving and processing the application does not presuppose any pre -determined outcome. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 2 Public Notification On September 1, 2016, a notice announcing tonight's agenda item was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Additionally, the notice was mailed to the City of Rolling Hills Estates. In response to this public notice, as well the original public notice in July, Staff has received several comments letters from residents in both Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, as well as a letter from the City of Rolling Hills Estates, expressing the following concerns with the proposed project (Attachment D): • Access - traffic speed and safety on Hawthorne Boulevard • Noise • Fumes • Dust • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Environmental/habitat • Geology/potential for soil instability/landslide hazard • Fire hazard • Drainage issues • Flood hazard • Neighborhood compatibility • Would set precedent for access from other properties • Loss of canyon view • Property value • Quality of life • Property line locations These concerns will be addressed as part of the Planning and Public Works entitlement process. At this time, the applicant's request requires the processing of the following discretionary Planning and Public Works applications, which will require specific findings of facts to be made: • Height Variation • Grading Permit • Site Plan Review • Encroachment Permit ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Identify issues or concerns with the proposal and direct Staff to return at a later date with more information. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 90-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR VACATION OF CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASE- MENTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined a requirement for establishing definite rules and procedures for vacation of City right-of-way and eas- ments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that said rules and procedures can best be established by setting them forth in a duly adopted City Resolu- tion; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO OPERATE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Request for Vacation. A request for vacation of City right-of-way or easement shall be in writing to the Director of Public Works and shall include the following; a) Name, address and phone number of the person(s) making the request. b) A map clearly defining the area covered by the re- quest and intended use of said area. c) Justification for the requested action. d) Signatures of at least 500 of the directly af- fected property owners, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Section 2: Initial Review. Staff will review the application and present it at the first available Council meet- ing. Council will then decide if the request is to be pursued. Section 3: Vacation Procedure. If Council agrees to proceed with the vacation, the following procedure shall be followed; a) Review Fee - A trust deposit account will be re- quired by the applicant, once Council has decided to proceed with the vacation investigation. Charges against this trust deposit will only be for work expended on the project. Deposit amount to be $2,000.00. b) Title Report - A title report will be commissioned to determine underlying fee of the property in question and paid by the applicant. A-1 C) Committee Review - The request will then be reviewed by the appropriate committees and recommendations for- warded to Council. d) Intent to Vacate - The findings of staff and the committees will be presented to Council for adoption of resolu- tion of "Intent to Vacate" or denial of the request. e) Utilities - All utilities will be notified so that existing facilities can be protected. f) Planning Commission - The Planning Commission will review the project to determine its compatibility with the City's general plan. g) Conditions of Approval - Staff will prepare a set of conditions of approval for Council's review. h) Vacation - Council will deny the request or adopt a resolution of vacation. Staff will prepare legal descriptions and documents. Once the conditions of approval have been met, the notice of vacation will be filed. i) Excess Funds - Any funds left in the trust deposit shall be returned to the applicant. Section 4: These procedures shall be implemented in compliance with provisions as contained in the Streets and High- ways Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1 h DAYF DECEMBER, 1990. ' MAYOR ATTEST: Ci/VV Cler Striate of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 90-93 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 18, 1� 0. r\71 1 `7 City C51drk City d Rancho Palos Verdes A-2 ALESHIRE,fit Ilaymon@awattorneys.com 18881 Von Karman Avenue, 1' ♦ YNDERLLP (949) 223-1170 Suite 1700 ` Irvine, CA 92612 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P (949) 223-1170 F (949) 223-1180 ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY September 9, 2016 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Lionel Perera 15 Moccasin Lane Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Re: Vacation of Abandonment Easement Elkmont Canyon, APN-7576-026-028 Dear Mr. Perera: AWATTORNEYS.COM This firm serves as City Attorney to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"). This letter is intended to update you as to your request for ingress/egress access between your lot, known as Elkmont Canyon, and Hawthorne Boulevard (your "Application"). The basic facts surrounding the landlocked condition of Elkmont Canyon do not appear to be in dispute. In 1961, Tract Map 24719 (the "Tract Map") expressly abandoned all easements of ingress and egress between the lots comprising Elkmont Canyon and Hawthorne Boulevard. In 2006, the City issued a conditional certificate of compliance, which recognized Elkmont Canyon as one lot, but confirmed that the Canyon has no access to Hawthorne Blvd. The primary purpose of this letter is to inform you that the City has determined that it will not be holding a hearing on your Application on September 20, 2016. We believe that given the facts here, Resolution No. 90-93 does not apply to your access request. A Council hearing on the Application has been postponed pending resolution of several procedural issues pertaining to the planning process applicable to your Application. Accordingly, a determination on your request will be deferred and considered with the entire project. As discussed in more detail below, the City Attorney believes that Resolution 90-93 may be the incorrect planning vehicle for your Application and, even if applicable, your Application would likely be deemed incomplete for lack of signatures from directly affected property owners. A. We Believe Resolution No. 90-93 May Be The Incorrect Procedure For Establishing An Access Way. Your Application letter invokes Resolution No. 90-93 to establish access between Elkmont Canyon and Hawthorne Blvd. In reviewing Resolution 90-93, and its applicability to this matter, we believe that it is not applicable to the establishment of an access way. Resolution 90-93 applies to "vacation of City right-of-way and easements." Since the 1961 Tract Map abandoned all easements to Hawthorne Blvd., there is no longer an easement to "vacate" per 01203.0005/314109.2 B-1 Mr. Lionel Perera September 9, 2016 Page 2 Resolution 90-93. We understand the theory that that the Tract Map's abandonment of ingress/egress equates to a "prohibitory easement"—basically, an easement to prohibit access. However, we do not believe this concept is supported by law. Although abandonment is not specifically mentioned in the statutes, any easement, regardless of how created, can be abandoned by its owner. (Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 890.) Once an easement is abandoned, it is extinguished even though it still appears in the public records. In other words, on abandonment the easement terminates and the underlying fee is held by the grantor and his or her successors free of the burden of the easement. (Johnson v. Ocean Shore Railroad Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 429, 433.) In fact, the owner of the servient tenement can quiet his or her title against a successor of the abandoning party. (Flanagan v. San Marcos Silk Co. (1951) 106 Cal. App.2d 458, 463-466.) Thus, since Elkmont Canyon's access rights to Hawthorne were clearly abandoned in 1961, there is nothing in existence to "vacate" per Resolution 90-93. We have informed City staff that we believe Resolution 90-93 is inapplicable to the establishment, or even re- establishment, of an access route, and access would be reviewed by City's normal process. Given the conclusion that Resolution 90-93 is inapplicable to your Application, the hearing that was scheduled for September 20th has been taken off -calendar. B. Even If Resolution No. 90-93 Does Apply, Your Application Would Likely Be Deemed Incomplete. Before an application under Resolution 90-93 is deemed complete, it requires the applicant to provide "signatures of at least 50% of the directly affected property owners..." Assuming arguendo that Resolution 90-93 is applicable to your Application, it does not appear that this neighbor consent requirement has been satisfied. Arguably, there is at least one neighbor directly affected by your Application for access to Hawthorne Blvd., and more neighbors would be directly affected by the full scope of a single family home in Elkmont Canyon. However, as we understand it, your Application was not accompanied by even one consent from a "directly affected" property owner. C. Access Ri!hts Will Be Determined as a Part of the Normal Development Application Process Under CEQA. We believe the City is legally required to process your Application for access to Hawthorne in conjunction with the project as a whole. In other words, the City can only process the access issue as part of an application for the overall single family residential project. We believe that the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") compels this conclusion. 01203.0005/314109.2 B-2 Mr. Lionel Perera September 9, 2016 Page 3 CEQA prohibits the "piecemealing" of a project for environmental review purposes. A public agency may not divide a single project into smaller individual subprojects to avoid responsibility for considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole. (Orinda Assn v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 CA3d 1145, 1171.) CEQA "cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite -sized pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significant effect on the environment or to be only ministerial." (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.AppAth 1214; Association for a Cleaner Env't v Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 629, 638; Plan forArcadia, Inc. v City Council (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712, 726.) Segregating the issue of roadway access from the project to be served by such access is very likely the type of "piecemealing" prohibited by these authorities. While this postponement is unfortunate, applying the correct procedure to your Application is beneficial to both you and the City. We believe that proceeding in a manner that misapplies the planning process or CEQA could significantly expose both you and the City to litigation and liability. Please contact City staff to discuss the next steps for submittal of a complete project application. Finally, please note that while the hearing that was scheduled for September 20th has been taken off -calendar, staff may present an informational update to the Council regarding this matter at that meeting. Very truly yours, ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP r Lona N. Laymon Partner LNL:ly cc: Mayor & City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager 01203.0005/314109.2 B-3 ALESHIRE,fit Ilaymon@awattorneys.com 18881 Von Karman Avenue, 1' ♦ YNDERLLP (949) 223-1170 Suite 1700 ` Irvine, CA 92612 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P (949) 223-1170 F (949) 223-1180 ORANGE COUNTY I LOS ANGELES I RIVERSIDE I CENTRAL VALLEY September 12, 2016 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Jeffrey Lewis Broedlow Lewis, LLP 734 Silver Spur Rd., Ste. 300 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 E -Mail: Jeff@BroedlowLewis.com Re: Elkmont Canyon, Case No. ZON2014-00229 Dear Mr. Lewis: AWATTORNEYS.COM This firm serves as City Attorney to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") and is in receipt of your letter to the City's Mayor dated August 23, 2016. In your letter, you raise a number of issues concerning a project proposed by Mr. Lionel Perera ("Applicant") including his application for ingress/egress access between his lot, known as Elkmont Canyon, and Hawthorne Blvd. Your clients own neighboring properties. The basic facts surrounding the landlocked condition of Elkmont Canyon do not appear to be in dispute. In 1961, Tract Map 24719 (the "Tract Map") expressly abandoned all easements of ingress and egress between the lots comprising Elkmont Canyon and Hawthorne Boulevard. In 2006, the City issued a conditional certificate of compliance, which recognized Elkmont Canyon as one lot, but very clearly confirmed that the Canyon has no access to Hawthorne Blvd. While not a full response to all issues raised in your letter, the primary purpose of this letter is to inform you that the City has determined that it will not be proceeding with a hearing on Applicant's access request on September 20, 2016. We believe that given the facts here, Resolution No. 90-93 does not apply to this access request, and we share your concern that considering the access issue separate from the development application may raise CEQA issues. Accordingly, a determination on Applicant's request will be deferred and considered with the entire project. A. We Believe Resolution No. 90-93 Is The Incorrect Procedure For Establishing An Access Way. Applicant sought to comply with the procedures set forth in Resolution No. 90-93 to obtain access to Hawthorne Blvd. In reviewing Resolution 90-93, and its applicability to this matter, we have concluded that it is not, in fact, applicable to the establishment of an access way. Resolution 90-93 applies to "vacation of City right-of-way and easements." Since the 1961 01203.0005/314105.2 C-1 Mr. Jeffrey Lewis September 12, 2016 Page 2 Tract Map abandoned all easements to Hawthorne Blvd., there is no longer an easement to "vacate" per Resolution 90-93. Apparently, the Applicant invoked Resolution 90-93 for the establishment of Elkmont Canyon access under the theory that the Tract Map's abandonment of ingress/egress equates to a "prohibitory easement"—basically, an easement to prohibit access. We do not believe this concept is supported by law. Although abandonment is not specifically mentioned in the statutes, any easement, regardless of how created, can be abandoned by its owner. (Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 890.) Once an easement is abandoned, it is extinguished even though it still appears in the public records. In other words, upon abandonment the easement terminates and the underlying fee is held by the grantor and his or her successors free of the burden of the easement. (Johnson v. Ocean Shore Railroad Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 429, 433.) In fact, the owner of the servient tenement can quiet his or her title against a successor of the abandoning party. (Flanagan v. San Marcos Silk Co. (1951) 106 Cal. App.2d 458, 463-466.) Thus, since Elkmont Canyon's access rights to Hawthorne were clearly abandoned in 1961, there is nothing in existence to "vacate" per Resolution 90-93. We have informed City staff that we believe Resolution 90-93 is inapplicable to the establishment, or even re- establishment, of an access route, and access would be reviewed by City's normal process. Given the conclusion that Resolution 90-93 is inapplicable to Applicant's request, the hearing that was scheduled for September 20th has been taken off -calendar. B. Access Rights Will Be Determined As A Part of the Normal Development Application Process Under CEQA. You have also raised in your letter concerns as to whether the City was bifurcating important parts of the project in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). We agree that CEQA is a critical element of the planning process for Applicant's request. We are also mindful of the CEQA "piecemealing" issues raised in your letter. A public agency may not divide a single project into smaller individual subprojects to avoid responsibility for considering the environmental impact of the project as a whole. (Orinda Assn v Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 CAM 1145, 1171.) CEQA "cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite -sized pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significant effect on the environment or to be only ministerial." (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.AppAth 1214; Association for a Cleaner Env't v Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 629, 638; Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v City Council (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712, 726.) Accordingly, we have recommended that the City process the requested access route in conjunction with the project as a whole. That process has not been initiated, and will not take place on September 20, 2016. 01203.0005/314105.2 C-2 Mr. Jeffrey Lewis September 12, 2016 Page 3 For further clarification, I would add that some persons who we believe are represented by you made the request that the hearing on September 20th be deferred as the Applicant had not obtained the necessary signatures under Resolution 90-93, and also requested deferral until the overall project was considered due to CEQA concerns you have raised. While we agree with the second rationale, we are not advising Applicant that he is required to obtain support of neighbors to have his application processed. Finally, please note that while the hearing that was scheduled for September 20th has been taken off -calendar, staff may present an informational update to the Council regarding this matter at that meeting. We would appreciate your informing your clients that the matter will not be heard on September 20th, even though it is listed on the agenda. We will inform you of any pertinent developments in this matter as it progresses. Should you have any questions or further comments on this matter, please do not hesitate to email me at lla ongawattome, sem, or City Attorney Dave Aleshire at daleshiregawattomeys.com. Very truly yours, ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP Lona N. Laymon Partner cc: Mayor & City Council, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager 01203.0005/314105.2 C-3 STEVEN ZUCKERMAN Mayos FRANK V. ZERUNYAN Mayos Pro Tem BRITT HUFF Council Member JUDY MITCHELL CoumilMcmber1� t—�— VELVETH SCHMITZ Council Member DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD City Manages August 29, 2016 Mr. Ara Mihranian Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 4045 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH • ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 TELEPHONE 310.377.1577 FAX 310.377.4468 Roll ingHillsEstatesCA.gov RECEIVED RE: Elkmont Canyon, Case No. ZON2014-00229 Dear Mr. Mihranian: SEP 01 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The purpose of this letter is to re -state the City of Rolling Hills Estates' position with respect to potential development of the "Elkmont Canyon" property, located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and a request to take vehicular access from Hawthorne Blvd. to access the property. The City of Rolling Hills Estates had taken a position in a letter to former Director, Joel Rojas, dated August 17, 2006 (see letter attached). Over the past month or so, RHE Planning Department staff has been speaking with numerous residents both in our City and yours that abut this same canyon, many who have formed an interest group called "Save Elkmont Canyon", which opposes any type of residential development in the canyon and access being granted from Hawthorne Blvd., which involves an amendment to the tract map. Our position remains the same with respect to opposing, "a subdivision within this canyon area including the construction of homes, due to the close proximity of existing homes located in Rolling Hills Estates to the south on Willow Wood Road and Silver Spring Road and to homes located in Rancho Palos Verdes on Elkmont Drive. Further, this area serves as a natural drainage course, a buffer between the homes in our two cities and may have soils and geology concerns to adjacent homes. Lastly, access to this subdivision would be provided via Hawthorne Blvd. in the event that a private property owner wouldn't grant an access easement, which could be problematic given the speeds and traffic flow on Hawthorne Blvd. " Please forward this letter to your City Council for your upcoming meeting in September. Also, please keep me informed of any future applications on this same property. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Wahba Planning Director Enclosure: 1. Letter dated 8/17/06 to Mr. Joel Rojas, Planning Director Elkmontcanyon rpv.1tr.8.29.16 D-1 August 17, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Mr. Joel Rojas Planning Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Rojas: I ani in receipt of your notice dated August 2"d regarding case number SUB2006-00004 involving the interpretation of lots within the "Elkmont Canyon." I also received a letter from one of our City residents located at 5276 Willow Wood Road, objecting to any future development within this same canyon. You should have received this same letter. The City of Rolling Hills Estates, by way of this letter, supports your interpretation that this is in fact one legal lot and that any additional lots would require a subdivision of the same one lot. The City of Rolling Hills Estates would also like to go on record to state that we would be opposed to a subdivision within this canyon area including the construction of homes, due to the close proximity of existing homes located in Rolling Hills Estates to the south on Willow Wood Road and Silver Spring Road and to homes located in Rancho Palos Verdes on Elkmont Drive. Further, this area serves as a natural drainage course, a buffer between the homes in our two cities and may have soils and geology concerns to adjacent homes. Lastly, access to this subdivision would be provided via Hawthorne Blvd, in the event that a private property owner wouldn't grant an access easement. which could be problematic given the speeds and traffic flow on Hawthorne Blvd. Please forward this letter to your Planning Commission for your upcoming meeting of August 22"d Also, please keep me informed of any future applications on this same property. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Wahba Planning Director rojas Itr D-2 PATRICIA B. MOFFETT 26521 Hawkhurst, Drive Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 310 377 9522 home June 23, 2016 Amy Seeraty Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 .JUN 2 7 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Opposition to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement Listed on the Tract Map APN 7576-026-028 (Elkmont Canyon) Lionel Perera Dear Ms. Seeraty: I am a property owner within 500 feet. I am a long time resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. The city should not vacate the easement. The no access easement serves very important public purposes. a. Through traffic in Rancho Palos Verdes is directed to main streets such as Hawthorne Blvd and Crenshaw Blvd. Local Traffic is limited to neighborhoods with limited access to main streets. b. Traffic on Main Streets flows faster with fewer access points which slows down traffic. (There are no driveways or parking which slows down traffic.) C. There is no cut through traffic in local neighborhoods. d. The no access easement encourages good city planning. D-3 June 23, 2016 AMY SEERATY Community Development Department Page 2 Vacating the easement would substantially change the neighborhood and would encourage future undesirable development. a. I don't believe there are any homes currently on Hawthorne Blvd in Rancho Palos Verdes with direct access to Hawthorne Blvd. The existing homes facing Hawthorne Blvd between Silver Spur and Crest Road have access on secondary streets with only limited access to Hawthorne Blvd. b. Vacating the easement would only encourage further access to Hawthorne Blvd. Sincerely, PATRICIA B. MOFFETT M11 Bob Bacharach 5033 Rockvalley Road Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275" vF 1-310-377-8987 JUN bobbacharach@gmail.com {,OMMUNiTY DEtiRO POE T DEPARTMENT June 26, 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Attn: Amy Seeraty Re: An Initiation Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement listed on Tract Map (Case No. ZON2014-00229) Location: APN 7576-026-028 (Elkmont Canyon) Applicant/Owner: Lionel Perera Ms. Seeraty: I live within 500 feet of the proposed project and have been here for over 47 years. I believe that the proposed entrance/egress should NOT be permitted at Hawthorne Blvd. My specific thoughts and concerns follow. Entry: Hawthorne Blvd to Property Concern 1: The moment an Elkmont Canyon -related vehicle begins slowing down in the right hand uphill lane of Hawthorne Blvd the two lanes of traffic going up Hawthorne must become one lane and/or right lane traffic will be significantly slowed down. This is a major burden on the many non-Elkmont Canyon vehicles that are impacted versus the convenience of one family. Possible solution: the Elkmont Canyon property owner could build a full width exit lane on the Elkmont Canyon property starting perhaps 50 feet below the entrance, similar to the 100 foot uphill left turn lane presently on Hawthorne just below Blackhorse Road. Concern 2: Dealing with both car(s) and truck(s) entering and exiting the property at about the same time during development of the property: widen the entrance/egress triangle on the property to accommodate the maximum expected simultaneous presents of car(s) and truck(s) coming and going. Exit: Property to Hawthorne Blvd Concern 3: Vehicles leaving the property will be required to go uphill on Hawthorne Blvd. Any vehicles capable of making a U-turn at Blackhorse Road will make that U-turn if they D-5 want to be going down the hill, as most will. This entails starting from zero mph, accelerating to a safe speed, then crossing two lanes of uphill drivers going steady at 45 to 55 mph in only a few hundred feet and slowing down right after speeding up. This, of course is hardly possible, so the U-turn can only be made when Hawthorne is empty of any visible uphill traffic below the entrance. Even dealing with Elkmont Canyon vehicles planning to continue up Hawthorne to Silver Spur, I think an acceleration lane of at least 100 feet would need to be built on the property to provide space for the Elkmont Canyon vehicle to accelerate to a speed commensurate with the non-Elkmont Canyon flow. This would cause the entrance/egress point to be moved downhill at least 100 feet since the entrance/exit is currently planned to be at the uphill end of the property. An on -demand traffic light at the property entrance/egress would solve this problem but would place an unfair burden on the many for the convenience of a few. Construction -Related Concern 4: Pollution: 1. Noise of revving truck/car engines with every egress from the property to accelerate to either the speed of the uphill traffic or the speed necessary to cross two lanes and stay out of the way of any uphill traffic. This is far louder than the engine noise from a non-Elkmont Canyon vehicle going up the hill at constant speed. 2. Noise related to changing truck gears to accelerate with every egress/acceleration from the property: again, a significant noise problem as it compares to constant speed traffic. 3. Diesel fumes: from trucks every time they egress and accelerate (inefficiently) going uphill from the property. Concern 5: Full development of the property. The 10,000+ square feet of house plus 300,000+ square feet of landscaping will probably take a few years to complete. During that entire time not only will the neighbors have to deal with noise and fumes and Hawthorne Blvd users with slowing and/or lane changing, but a cloud of dust will cover everything downwind of the property. In conclusion, I feel that the prohibition on this access easement should NOT be lifted. There are too many health and safety issues that cannot be properly dealt with in the access of this property to Hawthorne Blvd. I respectfully request that you decline this application. Sincerely, -�- a?%44 Bob Bacharach 4 M Amy Seeraty From: Nahid Mazhin <nahidzadeh@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:19 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon Sent from my Pad > On Jun 27, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Nahid Mazhin <nahidzadeh@yahoo.com> wrote: > We are neighbors to the property called Elkmont canyon APN 75-76-026-028. > I am writing regarding a single family residence on Elkmont canyon notice. This canyon are full of birds such owl and Hawks and rare and exotic birds. 3 days ago that they started cutting the trees I saw these birds are flying with a great confusion. > Building a house would destroy the nature. How is going to have an access to Hawthorn Blvd? is dangerous to speeding traffic and being close to peninsula high school. > Sent from my Pad D-7 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:37 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Site Plan Thanks Amy! Sent from my Whone On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Kathleen - Please see the attached site plan and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 <Site Plan-Elkmont.pdf5 Amy Seeraty From: Jodidoucette <jdlawl0@cox.net> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:15 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: FW: Elkmont Canyon project APN 756026028 Subject: Elkmont Canyon project APN 756026028 Amy — I am with a legal team that represents homeowners/residences in the area of the above stated project. Can I contact you on Tuesday to inquire about the project's status in the planning process, and to obtain information as to studies and reports that have been published to date? Thank you Jodi L. Doucette, Attorney at Law Doucette Law Group, P.C. 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 764-2522 Jdlaw 10(a,cox.net Doucettelawgroup. c om CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is sent by an attorney and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Any receipt of this information by other than the intended recipient does not negate the confidential or privileged status of the content. FFa-Wo Amy Seeraty From: primepacific.trading@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 10:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: ACCESS EASEMENT RE: REQUEST TO VACANT A PROHIBITION OF ACCESS LOCATION: APN 7576-026-028 (ELKMONT CANYON) APPLICATION / OWNER: LIONEL PERERA Hi Amy: strongly object to having RPV vacate the prohibition of access easement listed on the track map, case no. ZONE2014-00229. When we bought our hose at 5103 Elkmont Dr. 35 years ago, we did it because it was in a good school district, Elkmont Dr is a not a through street, making it a very safe and quiet street, and the canyon in back of the house. We were told that there is a prohibition of access that was signed in 1961 and therefore, forever, it would remain a canyon with out construction. Now there is a request to vacate the easement in order to build a property in the canyon. This is why I am strongly against it. 1 -WILL CREATE NOISY TRAFFIC, INSTEAD OF BIRDS SINGING. 2 -IT WILL BECOME A NATURAL HAZARD ZONE. 3 -IT WILL AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUE 4 -IT WILL BECOME A FIRE ZONE 5 -IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIROMENT 6 -IT WILL IMPACT THE INSTABILITY OF THE SOIL. After a few years of living in the house, the soil in the back yard started sliding down the hill, the chain link fence that was in the back yard when we bought the house did not stop the soil from sliding. We had to put in a brick retaining wall in order not to lose our whole back yard. Even today, when you step onto the soil beyond our property, it's like quick sand, your feet just slide/dig into the soil, there is no stability. We plan on attending the July 19 City Council Meeting and request to speak at the meeting to bring up these points of concern at the time. I am certain that most of my neighbors will also be at this meeting. Sam Rosenzweig 5103 Elkmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90725 310 874 0167 1 D-10 Amy Seeraty From: wattshse@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 12:45 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: wattshse@aol.com Subject: Access Easement Request Dear Ms Seeraty, I live at 21 Silver Spring Drive in Rolling Hills Est. My property boarders on Elkmont Canyon. I am writing to say that I am very much concerned about the proposed access easement request and additional buildings that are likely to be built per letters of 20 and 24 June 2016 that I have received. My main concerns are: The instability of the land. Will there be land fill and how much will be allowed. Will it be restricted to just single family or will multi- family be allowed. How many stories in these dwellings. Drainage and run-off. Traffic control. I plan to attend the meeting on 19 July 2016. I would also like updates on the project. Yours truly, Patricia Watts 1 D-11 Amy Seeraty From: Lingling Martin <lingling@komartin.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:40 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon Development Concerns Hi, Ara, below is my official opposition to the "road" To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 6, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Thank you. Lingling Martin 5262 Willow Wood Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 310-634-5365 From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 3:15 PM To: Lingling Martin <lingling@komartin.com> Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon Development Concerns Lingling Martin, The City is in receipt of your comment letter that will be provided to the City Council as part of the Staff Report for the July 19th meeting. I do want to point out to you that the Council will not be considering the merits of the development application at the July 19th meeting. 1 D-12 The Council will only be asked to initiate the process to vacate the access easement prohibition. The development application will be considered by the Planning Commission at a future duly notice public hearing. Let Amy or I know if you have any further questions. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Lingling Martin [mailto:lingling@komartin.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 11:32 AM To: PC <PC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon Development Concerns To: The Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes My name is Lingling Martin, and my property is at 5262 Willow Wood Road, Rolling Hills States. I am writing this email to officially oppose the proposed Elkmont Canyon Development due to the following reason: D-13 1) Geology concern: The stress of construction of access roads and potential development on the natural hillside/canyon may lead to slope failure, debris flow, and in rainy season mudflow- destabilizing the slopes of canyon, and potentially creating landslides on my property. 2) Flood Zone According to the tract map a portion of this proposed development is a Flood Hazard Zone. As property owners/residents, we know, our properties in heavy rains, drain into the Elkmont Canyon. Proposed access off Hawthorne is in a flood zone 3)Environmental/Biological/ Destruction of the ecosystem of Elkmont Canyon This canyon is home to a very large number of wildlife & native plants. We see new bird species regularly enjoying the canyon ... The hawks, owls constantly use this canyon as their food source. We also see many different species of butterfly's, and hummingbirds enjoying their home in the canyon. The wildlife habitat is robust, and thriving in this canyon and needs to be protected. 4) The canyon is currently natural The proposed access, driveway, utility poles, proposed construction will ruin the unspoiled canyon, taking away it's natural beauty and thriving ecosystem .Approving this will diminish the semi -rural character/open space of our properties and wildlife ecosystems, therefore diminishing our quality of life, the quality of life Palos Verdes is known for, and the main reason I purchased my house on the canyon. 5) Property Values View of a canyon/Open space has a profound effect on property values. This proposed development will diminish our property values and take away our privacy and views- This is why I purchased my home- I love the serenity, peacefulness, privacy of the canyon and nature. 6) Noise- Noise echoes in a canyon. With access and the potential of someone living below it will destroy the quiet lifestyle we all enjoy. 7) The lot that the proposed development is on was dedicated for public use with no access for a reason. Please see below quote: 3 D-14 Dedication per Tract Map 24719 - We further certify that except as shown on a copy of this map on file in the office of the county road commissioner we know of no easments or structure existing within the easements hereby offered for dedication to the public other then publicly owned water lines, sewer or storm drains that we will grant no right or interest within the boundaries of said easements offered to the public, except where such right or interest is expressly made subject to the said easements . "As a dedication to public use while all of Silver Spur Road and Hawthorne Boulevard within and adjacent to this Sub -division remain public highways for such time only, we hereby abandon all easments of ingress and egress to the said Silver Spur road and Hawthorne Blvd. so that the owners of lots 1,2,71,23-27 inclusive and 52-58 inclusive abutting these highways during such time will have no rights of access whatever in the highways except as such the general easement of travel which belongs to the whole public. If any change of alignment or width of such highways results in the vacation or any part thereof within and adjacent to this subdivision, such vacation terminates the above dedication as to the part vacated." With this proposed development the entire personality of the canyon will change, and, will change the specific plan of our tracts. This restrictive easement providing no access was put into effect for a reason- to protect the property owners, ecosystem and rural feel. For the above reasons, I strong oppose the road and this development. Lingling Martin ICUINMEWTIV D-15 Amy Seeraty From: Stuart Larking <slarking@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 5:20 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: CC; SteveZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; FrankZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; DougP@RollingHiIIsEstatesCA.gov; Lisa Larking; Tom Larmore Subject: Elkmont Canyon - Concerns and comments. Attachments: 2016-07-06_Larking_ElkmontCanyon_RPV_Opposition_To_Easement_Vacation_ 15SilverSpringDrive_RHE.pdf Dear Amy, Thank you for the letter regarding the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the tract map (Case no. ZON2014-00229). Please find attached, the comments and concerns from my wife and I. We are owner/residents of adjacent property in Rolling Hills Estates (City members copied). Regards, Stuart & Lisa Larking D-16 Stuart & Lisa Larking 15 Silver Spring Drive Rolling Hills Estates CA 90274 July 61h 2016 Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 With copy to The City of Rolling Hills Estates Re: apposition to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the tract map (Case No. ZON2014-DO229). As owners and residents of our property since January 2003, we determined our house and location were unique and attractive due to the beauty of the canyon and the other benefits it provides. When we purchased our home, the canyon directly behind our property was divided into 13 lots and access was prohibited but for public works. As a result of this recent initiation request, we have been very surprised and disheartened to find out that without being notified, the lot has subsequently been deemed one and has been granted a conditional certificate for a single residence and the property owner is seeking a reversal of the Prohibition of Access. We have the following concerns with the request to vacate a prohibition of access. • The original tract map states "AS A DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE WHILE ALL OF SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THIS SUBDIVISION REMAIN PUBLIC HIGHWAYS FOR SUCH TIME ONLY, WE HEREBY ABANDON ALL EASEMENTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SAID SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD SO THAT OWNERS OF LOTS 1,2,71,23 TO 27 INCLUSIVE AND 52 TO -58 INCLUSIVE ABUTING THESE HIGHWAYS DURING SUCH TIME WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS OF ACCESS WHATEVER IN THE HIGHWAYS AS SUCH EXCEPT TO THE GENERAL EASEMENT OF TRAVEL WHICH BELONGS TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC.". We would like to know why those rights of access were explicitly removed originally? Presumably, in addition to our points of concern (below), there could be some other considerations which we would consider paramount. Similarly, what has changed now leading to the request for initiation of the removal of the prohibition at this time? Perhaps it was the case that access was removed in order that the city would not be liable for any damage (inverse condemnation) as a result of any works done to all the public utilities that are on that land so far as drains, flood zone and water supply. D-17 • Flood zone: Lots 58, 59 and 60 are subject to flood hazards. The canyon is a natural flood area. We see lots of running water down in the canyon that gets significant with heavy rainfall. • Road safety and traffic flow: o In reviewing the KOA Sight report from 2015, it concerned us that the assumption was made, that there had not been any significant changes in volume since the data was from April 2003. There have been major developments including opening of Trump Golf Course and Terranea since that time along with developments in Torrance such as Del Amo mall, which we believe makes for more traffic along Hawthorne. Aithough these properties may not be deemed "in the immediate area", they contribute traffic. In addition, according to census data, the populations of both Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates, have increased over the past 13 years. a Sets a precedent for others to get access directly to Hawthorne, which is a major artery far a large volume of traffic. • Stability: We are extremely concerned that any grading, construction and traffic driving over the property will cause instability and land -slides. Our property is above and directly adjacent to the land in the city of Rolling Hills Estates (copied); we are concerned that this has not been carefully assessed and considered as part of the consideration of giving access to the Elkmont Canyon. Because any decision to remove the access prohibition is within the discretion of the City, the City must require a full environmental impact report which thoroughly analyzes the geological impact of construction of a new road and any proposed residence. In 2006, there was discussion of the possible re -zoning of the Elkmont Canyon from "RS -4" to "OH" (Open Space Hazard) due to the slope grades, soil and risk of landslides with grading and construction. There have been landslides in the canyon area. The soil and stability are extremely poor and were not compacted when originally built. o Is the city considering the liability it would put upon itself if any project or problem occurred related to the various public works that have access and are done on the land? Currently, this damage is extremely limited as there is no access and no construction, no people passing through or living there. • Noise: We sit in our yard at the top of the slope and enjoy the peaceful, natural environment, watching the hawks, raccoons, possums and other animals that live in the canyon. Any noise with machinery or people at the bottom of the canyon causes it to be amplified like a natural speaker. • Fire: We appreciate the peace of mind that comes with the canyon being cleared annually for brush clearance safety. There isn't a threat of any vegetation or structure of significance that could ignite or spread fire. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact our quality of life and property value. Sincerely, �r`�'� ✓Ivies Stuart and Lisa Larking 310 469 1377 slarking@gmaii.com I isalarki ng@gma il.com D-19 Amy Seeraty From: lisariera@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 7:26 PM To: Amy Seeraty; FrankZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; DougP@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov Subject: Elkmont Canyon Construction To Amy Seeraty: I have lived in Rolling Hills Estates since 1963. Approximately 53 years before Crenshaw Blvd existed. When my husband and I purchased our home the peninsula was very undeveloped. The mall and the shopping center where CVS is located didn't exist. It was peaceful and beautiful. Palos Verdes was known for its bucolic and rural feel. That was why we came (from Lauren Canyon.) We loved that we lived in a tight knit community and had access to city culture yet lived in a place filled with nature, trees and animals. In these 53 years the tranquility has slowly been eroded. However, the possibility of constructing in Elkmont Canyon is beyond anything imagined. In all these years never has the idea of squeezing in a huge home in the canyon between neighborhoods been broached. We didn't know it was possible or in fact we would never have purchased our home all those years ago. There are many concerns: fire risk, flood risk, land slide, neighborhood compatibility -our homes range from 1600- 2200 square feet -this home is a proposed 10,800 square feet with a guest house, pool jacuzzi and vineyard (and during a severe drought no less) this sounds more like a resort than one of our local homes. Property values could suffer. Traffic is a huge concern, are the residents of this new home going to be pulling directing onto and off of Hawthorne Blvd? Will there be another traffic light? This is very dangerous. There are few streets to enter and leave the peninsula, will the entire population be inconvenienced for one home owner? Environmental impact is another huge concern. Has a study been done? This canyon is home to myriad wildlife which will be destroyed in the construction. We are also having huge problems with coyotes who live in the canyon -this will displace them further onto our streets and put our pets and small children at risk. How many years of construction will this require with the noise and dirt ruining our tranquility? How many years of Hawthorne Blvd and Silver Spur Road being blocked off? How many accidents will this cause? In what way will this enormous home benefit the residents of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, or the rest of the cities here? Thus far we only see serious problems. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Annette Caplan and Lisa Riera 18 Silver Spring Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 annettecanlan(a.vahoo. com lisarierakyahoo.com 310.378-0137 D-20 Amy Seeraty From: artireyes . <artireyes@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:58 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: Letter to Deny Access to Easement-Elkmont Canyon.docx Attached is a letter opposing the granting of an easement access to Elkmont Canyon D-21 July 6, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes I have been a resident of Willow Wood Rolling Hills Estates for almost 18 years. The reason why I moved to this neighborhood is because of the canyon views and how peaceful and quiet the surrounding neighborhood is. I am strongly opposed to the City giving access to the easement that would accommodate a future development of a single family residence at the Elkmont Canyon. This development will destroy the beauty of the canyon, will create noise and potentially increase crime and burglaries in the neighborhood because of easy access to our hillside slopes. This could potentially cause landslides as well which can be a hefty cost for me as well as to the City in the future. I humbly request Your Honorable Body to deny access to the easement and future development of a road and residence at the Elkmont Canyon. Thank you. Sincerely, Art Reyes D-22 Amy Seeraty From: Carlo <s.cass8@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 6:34 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon Construction Project Attachments: Elkmont Canyon Construction Project.pdf Dear Amy, Please find attached a letter stating our opposition to any construction in the Elkmont Canyon. My apologies for not being able to attend the July 19th session due to an already booked business travel but this matter is very important for my wife and myself and want to make sure we share our opinion. Thanks in advance for the consideration of our request. Have a great day. Charles D-23 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Via Amy Serraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094o Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 8, 2o16 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the knowr soil issues, fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road and home in the canyon would bring serious slope instability, fire, and noise and traffic concerns. I'm also concerned that by adding an additional street exit to the already dangerous and very busy part of the Hawthorne Blvd., we increase the number of accidents and/or traffic delays. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Thank you in advance for the consideration of my request. Charles Sans 5177 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates +1-310-373-1o87 s.cass8@cox.net D-24 Amy Seeraty From: Hschmeic@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:25 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon development Dear Amy Seeraty: I am writing this email to you to record some comments and concerns about the proposed project in Elkmont Canyon by Lionel Perera. My name is Harry Schmeichel and I have owned the property at 5363 Elkmont Drive since 1975. I understand that the RPV city council meeting scheduled for July 19 will address whether or not access should be granted to Elkmont Canyon from Hawthorne Blvd. Here are three concerns I have with this proposal: 1) There is currently no exit to the west from Hawthorne Blvd between the cross roads of Palos Verdes Drive North and Silver Spur. The speed limit on Hawthorne Blvd is 45 mph. Cars slowing down to exit to Elkmont Canyon will cause traffic jams and possibly accidents. 2) The long, paved driveway to the proposed residence in the upper part of Elkmont Canyon is a conduit for flash floods. Run-off from the steep, bare sides of the canyon (used to covered with ice plants!) will be chaneled along the down-sloping driveway toward Hawthorne Blvd and potentially cause flooding. 3) The environmental impact from this development is significant. Tall trees along the edge of the canyon attracted many song birds and even red-tailed hawks for decades. This pleasant environment will be replaced by the sound of motorized vehicles coming and going along the canyon bottom. Respectfully, Harry Schmeichel D-25 Amy Seeraty From: Jay Fodor <jayfod61@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:56 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Subject: Concerns about Case No. ZON2014-00229 Attachments: Elkmont Canyon Access Concerns.pdf Hello Amy, Thank you for your time on June 23 informing me of the proposed project in Elkmont Canyon. I have done some research on the plan to vacate the prohibition of access easement to the property in the canyon and I have serious concerns about granting access to this property. I have attached a letter which details my strong disapproval of this project per your request. I also plan to express my concern at the City Council meeting scheduled for July 19, 2016. Thank you for you help in this matter, Jay Fodor D-26 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council July 7, 2016 C/O Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I recently purchased a home in Rolling Hills Estates, Ca. that is just above Elkmont Canyon in Rancho Palos Verdes. I am asking the City Council to not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access into the Canyon that is currently in effect. We purchased the property as our retirement home because of the natural country feel of the canyon that opens up below our back yard. I am a nature lover, so I have enjoyed the trees, birds and other animals that inhabit the canyon. I found that the canyon has developed its own ecosystem over the years and is home to a pair of red tail hawks, hooded orioles, Downey wood peckers, northern flickers, owls , scrub jays, and mocking birds to name a few. Some native plants, such as lemon aid berry bushes, are also starting to take root in the canyon. Granting access to this property will damage this eco system and destroy the natural setting I have grown to love and that adds value to our home. Before purchasing the property I asked the owner and real estate agent about plans for the canyon and was told nothing could be built there because no one could get access. I never would have purchased the property if I had known that our privacy could be invaded. After I heard of the new construction project, I was shocked to hear that the long term residents of the area also did not know about the plan to build in the canyon, even though it appears that the Rancho Palos Verdes planning office has been working with the owners of this property for many years on the possible development. I understand that part of granting access to the property would give the approval to build a road into the canyon. A geological study was performed on my property prior to our moving in that indicated that due to the nature of the loose fill soils used to make these lots, the property is prone to slipping into the canyon. Although the study indicated the slippage is stable now, any grading or other construction work will have an impact on the stability of the already unstable canyon walls, with possible disastrous impact to the structure of my home. I also had the opportunity to review a document from 1961 that references the prohibition of access to the canyon. My question is what has actually changed between then and now other than a new lot has been formed? Access to this property by a road or any other means will still have a negative impact to all of the property owners who live on the canyon. Sincerely, Jay Fodor 5268 Willow Wood Road, Rolling Hills Estates, Ca. 90274 D-27 Amy Seeraty From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:54 AM To: wickinpv@verizon.net Cc: Amy Seeraty Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon Access Issue (Between Hawthorne Blvd. and Silver Spur Road in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes) Thank you for the email. I will make sure the letter is attached to the July 19th City Council Staff Report. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director QTY OF I�AMCHC F",�il- 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(@-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov `A Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: wickinpv@verizon.net [mailto:wickinpv@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:52 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Elkmont Canyon Access Issue (Between Hawthorne Blvd. and Silver Spur Road in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes) Greetings, Attached is a copy of the letter I mailed to you this morning. Regards, Douglas Wickstrom 5138 Bluemound Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 5138 Bluemound Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 July 6, 2016 Mr. Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Greetings, My wife and I have lived in the Rollingwood community within the City of Rolling Hills Estates for the past 38 years. We enjoy the many benefits of the Palos Verdes Peninsula including the rural type setting, our nice neighbors, the good weather, and access to the beach communities. Last week, a cloud appeared on the horizon when a neighbor informed me that a major residential construction project is planned for the Elkmont neighborhood, just two blocks from my home on Bluemound Rd. He shared with me the fact the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is currently considering an application to open access to the narrow, and currently undeveloped, Elkmont Canyon. This would likely initiate development of a huge residential lot with a single private residence on the west end. I met with several of our Rollingwood and Elkmont Dr. neighbors recently to discuss the implications of this ill-conceived project. Many of us in the Rollingwood community did not believe the property could support such development due to the extreme slope on both the north boundary (Rollingwood's Silver Spring Dr. residences) and the south boundary (Elkmont Dr. residences). The long, narrow area of relatively flat ground on the bottom of the canyon appears very small. To support a new single family home it appears extensive grading of the slopes and installation of retaining walls would be necessary. Before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes allows this project to proceed to the next step, I want to voice my objections for the following reasons: 1. The hillsides on the Rollingwood side of the proposed Elkmont project have a history of instability (on Bluemound Road and Rockbluff Drive). Any type of grading work that touches the northern slope could destabilize portions of the Silver Spring Dr. lots in Rollingwood. 2. Actual (or the threat of) slope destabilization in the area of the Elkmont project could have a serious adverse impact on property values throughout the Rollingwood subdivision. 3. Access to the Elkmont project site from Hawthorne Blvd. would be a problem. We understand that a Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon has been in place since 1961 (or thereabouts). Reversal of this prohibition and creation of a new driveway with a right turn off of Hawthorne Blvd. would interfere with south -bound traffic and possibly lead to accidents for cars and D-29 trucks approaching a vehicle turning into the small driveway. This new, and unusual, single - use driveway could lead to liability issues for the City if traffic accidents were to occur. 4. The Elkmont Canyon property is in a fire zone. Construction activity in the canyon will increase the risk of fire to the residences at the top of the canyon along Silver Spring Dr. and Elkmont Dr. I believe the appropriate time to stop this ill-conceived project is at the start, by not granting a reversal of the prohibition of access easement. Failure to stop the project early in the process will almost guarantee years of public debate, complaints, and litigation. Very truly yours, Doug Wickstrom Douglas C. Wickstrom (310) 378-6861 Cc: RPV — Mayor Ken Dyda, City Council Persons — Brian Campbell, Susan Brooks, Jerry Duhovic, Anthony Misetich RHE - Mayor Steve Zuckerman, City Council Persons — Frank Zerunyan, Britt Huff, Judy Mitchell, Velveth Schmitz, Planning Director— David Wahba D-30 Amy Seeraty From: Jay Fodor <jayfod61@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 12:25 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Fwd: Photos of Ekmont Canyon From Fodor Home Attachments: DSC 0009.JPG Hello Amy, I just remembered that when you reviewed the proposed construction project in Elkmont canyon with me on June 23 that you had asked for some photos that showed the canyon from my home as you had never been to the canyon. Attached are 2 pictures that show the area where the guest house and mansion would be in relation to my back yard. Jay Fodor DSC_0007.JPG D-31 s _ Eev is/ a.�-.�" ��`-tip( , C - - - _.�,'. 1�►i. �� -aAL Al— ►.. `�,w. ' '7 + . �• _ ` - y^_m i�/ _ lb I �' R ar, f � •r,ice, 1,;/ ' ' W d' �1 At L A" Ink Wk "—aid *4��_ 4. AP • . `_ / Gl .e -� � • d �. •dei '\: - � . ' �'.. - _t `� •• . i �., - •, .. 1•.7 - - s I , dW It -- • . ` , -� ..1' '� _Y• a••i�. 1' Jam.. 40- atlr��r- +� A r• ..t f�11� - S D-32 4w_.v" t_ • ! . �' Y A\ .•ter � .,_ `.• � • � . � 1\ �^� ''��IR 6" ',,' ,c• • - r w �' . 60 vp \i. ::. � 1 1 �@ C f +. 'r.P A� "' ✓'.�yl /✓/� �' 1 I 1i � � � . ``�'� � ♦ ' - `� 1 I'1114 ��'- (1' , � y 4 / - y � . o ; ^ham r�G i - }�L� J �' yt OF 40 � .F py � �'' � � .� � �;. 'f•��'�trs�'. xr _ *—tn �•_ �' r.`,+,r�" ��tz .•t ,� �. F - �� 9 ALI 01. ND Aft IMF We 10 4L R 4F 4oft ° s _ • • • r +,�- , � •, t "It� � ,� � � '� � ± � � �. gr � Mme" ,�t � � • 40 ., ' Amy Seeraty From: Marc T. Artino <mtartino@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:10 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov; gregoryschill@gmaill.com Subject: Proposed Reversal of the Prohibition of Access into the Elkmont Canyon Attachments: 2016_07_07_21_07_28.pdf Amy - Please reply confirming that you have received this email and letter attached. Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I have been a resident of Rolling Hills Estates since 1962. I am extremely concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into the Elkmont Canyon. This concern involves the following: • The safety of drivers on Hawthorne boulevard; • Increased fire danger; • Increased flood danger; • Increased noise levels; • Slope instability as my house backs up directly to the canyon; • The loss of my canyon view; • Loss of property in value; • The impact on local wildlife including the hawks and owls that live in the canyon; • lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. The canyon is an extension of our back yard and provides our home with the rolling hills environment that was the reason I purchased this house in 1982. My kids used to play in the canyon, and when my grandkids and nephews and nieces visit, they love to play in the canyon as well. The canyon also has provided the access to the lower half of our back yard. If the Prohibition of Access is reversed, and a home with a guarded entrance is built, we will not have access to the lower half of our back yard, as well as all of the other homeowners on Willow Wood Road and Elkmont Road. A reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon would also adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating this risk of any potential conflict in this matter. In addition, I am not aware of any facts or circumstances that have arisen since 1961 that would mitigate the original reasons the Prohibition of Access was put in place to begin with. For these reasons I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. I ask that the City Council refects the reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. D-34 Signature: Name: Marc T. Artino Address: 5256 Willow Wood Road, Rolling Hills Estates Phone Number: 310-780-3879 Email: mtartino@cox.net D-35 Marc T. Artino 5256 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094o Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 8, 2o3.6 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I have been a resident of Rolling Hills Estates since 3.962. 1 am extremely concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into the Elkmont Canyon. This concern involves the following: • The safety of drivers on Hawthorne boulevard, • Increased fire danger; • Increased flood danger; • Increased noise levels; • Slope instability as my house backs up directly to the canyon; • The loss of my canyon view; • Loss of property in value; • The impact on local wildlife including the hawks and owls that live in the canyon; • lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. The canyon is an extension of our back yard and provides our home with the rolling hills environment that was the reason I purchased this house in 1982. My kids used to play in the canyon, and when my grandkids and nephews and nieces visit, they love to play in the canyon as well. The canyon also has provided the access to the lower half of our back yard. If the Prohibition of Access is reversed, and a home with a guarded entrance is built, we will not have access to the lower half of our back yard, as well as all of the other homeowners on Willow Wood Road and Elkmont Road. A reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon would also adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating this risk of any potential conflict in this matter. In addition, I am not aware of any facts or circumstances that have arisen since 1963. that would mitigate the original reasons the Prohibition of Access was put in place to begin with. D-36 For these reasons I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. I ask that the City Council rejects the reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1963.. Signature: '�� C - Name: Marc T. Artino Address: S2S6 Willow Wood Road, Rolling Hills Estates Phone Number: 310-78o-3879 Email: mtartino@cox.net D-37 Amy Seeraty From: bobdilly4@cox.net Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:05 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: Scan0025.pdf To: RPV City Council c/o Amy Seeraty 30940 Hawthorne Blvd R.P.V .. Ca 90275 The current issue for the city of R.P.V. to consider on July 19th is whether to allow for residential, vehicular access into the canyon from Hawthorne Blvd. As two of many residents living within 500 feet of the canyon we are expressing our request that such access continue to be prohibitive. As property owners we believe we properly assessed the property we purchased and can say, now 46 years later, we are not sorry that we decided to buy just above the canyon. The provision prohibiting residential, vehicular access to the canyon was in place when we made our purchase so many years ago and we see no justification for changing this provision now. The applicant obtained property in the canyon when the prohibitive provision was in place. We should assume the applicant was therefore accepting that residential, vehicular access was prohibited otherwise the applicant would not have wanted to acquire the property. Now that the applicant wants to build a home in the canyon it is understandable that he would want a driveway to drive his vehicle(s) to this home. However, nothing has changed intrinsically about the canyon to suggest that residential, vehicular access should now begin to be allowed. Easements and flood control provisions and sloped terrain all remain. What has changed considerably over the years is traffic along Hawthorne Blvd. We, along with many other residents, believe there would be many problems and unintended consequences if provisions are made so that this owner of canyon property can turn off of Hawthorne Blvd into the security of the current surene canyon. There also is the factor of a decision made by City staff in 2006 to code the canyon as OH, "Open Space Hazard", zone. This decision was made when the applicant of that time was wanting to place residences on 13 separate lots within the canyon. The obsurdity of that request led to a realization the canyon should be properly coded OH. Further discussion within the City resulted in a determination that the 13 lots would be designated as one property lot, a very odd & questionable makeup of a lot. Following the decision reducing 13 lot pieces to one lot there developed a thought that there was no need to pursue official designation of the canyon as OH zone. However, what really had changed about the canyon? The rationale for the OH designation was going to be correctly applied and should have been pursued to its official conclusion. The canyon remains today as it was in 2006 when a correct decision was made to properly code the canyon with an OH designation. Attached is a 2006 letter of concern regarding access from Hawthorne Blvd. Respectfully submitted, July 7, 2016 Robert & Jennifer Boudreau 5235 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca i Ai iaogl t r 2000 Mt. Juol Rplail 1-1I4411tring oli` dot Ctty of Randa Pokagk Votdos ttit t� ll,lawthOn'to OlVd, RMIC1111 F)Olos Vardosi. CA 9027” Door Mr. R 1.�1 � � xR4#►11a t+i,ANM�ta�tidl, IaFa,i11;.�7Yit�#,3, lI:„d?ti'r t�N1�l;atar:�iultarp;i� 1 44"1 In teCelpt of your notice d atoll Autlust ""1 Ielgl m(ihlil E,.p;t* "(11111xif 5UB2006 00004 involving tho Interpretation of lots witliln tilts "E-1kmoW Canyoi c' 1 1 «t: gvcad as lottar ltom ; )tui (.it out CAy V031dents 1048tod at 5:27e Willow Wood I;ca id, tltal(at:1111t) to .111V 1tAIII(T dov"lopmefli WON11 this %ate canyon. You should have received thls s amo lottor. The City of Rolli fig Hills Esuitos, by Way til till;; ItAtIt' r, �;�q; IIt)$tv:. y()t,r III turt.xetalis,tt Q1„ 11 this is in tact one legal lot and that any addIti€nal lot'., would re q(11w ,t -;ktlidivisiotl of the Same (-.me lot. The city of Rolling Hills Estates wot.il 1 ,.)Iso like to tltl oti wt old to .J;Ao tdiat we would be opposed to a subdivision within this canyon Darold 111CIMMIg tilts cOW4111 ; 101i A homes, clue to the close proximity of existing homes located in Rolling Hills Estates to the scaUth on'Witlow Wood goad and &IVer Spring Road and to homes located its Rancho halos Verdes on Elkmont ©rive. Further, this area serves as a natural drainage course, a buffer between the homes in our two cities and may have soils and geology concerns to adjacent homes. Lastly, access to this subdivision would be provided via Hawthorne Blvd. in the event that a private property owner wouldn't grant an access easement, which could be problematic given the speeds and traffic tlow on Hawthorne Blvd. Please forward this letter to your Planning Commission for your upcoming meeting of August 22”" Also, ,please keep me informed of any future applications on this same property. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 0,00 ./0 David Wahba Planning Director rias Itr D-39 Amy Seeraty From: Weili Chen <wchen93@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:19 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Perera Residence proposal (Elkmont Canyon) Attachments: letters.pdf Hello, We are attaching letters expressing our opposition to the proposed project in the canyon behind our house on Elkmont Drive. Our neighbors brought this matter to our attention, and we have serious concerns regarding the potential destruction of wildlife habitat, fire danger due to human activities, increasing crime due to access to our backyard, increased traffic, disruption of peace and quiet, and potential land instability. We sincerely hope that you will keep the current status of prohibition of Access Easement for this open area by declining the request to vacate. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Weili Chen, Karen Chen Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name:�i%r l� —1It��� Address: S1/5 Phone (Number: 310'- 373- E m aik 73- Email: t'iei, I -C 93 92 U �1��'/" 6'O vl D-41 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: K6t°,1,(� Name: EI Address:fl�n'�c�c1�l>`�C' Phone Number: Email: D-42 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:36 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Doug Willmore; Ken Dyda; Brian Campbell; Susan Brooks; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich; John Alvarez; So Kim; DougP@RollingHiIIsEstatesCA.gov; SteveZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; FrankZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; DavidW@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; jeannien@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us Subject: Elkmont Canyon: Opposition to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement Attachments: Final PDF Elkmont pictures.pdf, PDF Signed Elkmont Canyon Dahlerbruch letter.pdf Dear Amy: Attached are two document requesting an opposition to vacate a prohibition of access easement for Elkmont Canyon. Please acknowledge that you have received two documents and that they will be submitted for consideration at the July 19th City Council Meeting. Thank you, Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch D-43 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-872-8487 merinlmd .pmail,com Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV, CA 90275-5391 July 8, 2016 RE: Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: We have lived in our home since August 1996. When we purchased our home, we were informed that we owned our property down almost to the bottom of the canyon. We had no reason for concern about development because there was no access allowed in as explained on the city tract maps. The person two doors down from us owned all the way across the canyon and our neighbor next door owned all the way across as well. To give a little additional history: In July 2005, we were given a paper at our doorstep and I believe also by Fedex months earlier where a person by the name of Yasin Shahzad, R. E. Broker (CA, DRE, Lic#01243299) was trying to sell us property that was behind our house. Along with that paper, I have uncovered a paper in my notes documenting that I called the city and spoke with Dave who stated "These lots are not legal lots at this point as far as the city understands but could change if someone provides evidence they were created_ The whole parcel was sold in March 2005 but (just) because someone sold it does not mean legal lots or illegal either. (They) can't build on storm drain easements." He further went on to state that the "way it would benefit me (would be that it) adds to my lot size because able to build more on pad and could build a larger house." (Single story.) About three years ago, the owner of Elkmont Canyon hired a survey company. They traipsed across my hillside and put up stakes on my property as well as the property next door (the one that clearly owns across the canyon) and marked all the way down the canyon. Just because they put up stakes does not mean they own what is marked{ They chopped down plants and it dislodged hillside on our property. We called the police and the city of RPV at that time. A few days later I went to the city and made sure that the city had proper records of our lot and property description based on our escrow papers. When I went to the city last week, those papers were still in our file, We formally oppose the "Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement" on Elkmont Canyon (Case No ZON2014-00229). This access should not be granted for many reasons: • The recent Traffic Survey on file states that traffic hasn't increased up Hawthorne since the 2003.study. This is completely ludicrous. Community members have seen increased traffic over the years with additional home developments, Terranea, Trump International Golf Course, etc. Many owners have also observed an increase on Hawthorne of accidents and sirens. We need to see an updated traffic survey with current numbers reflecting accident rages, speed distribution, traffic statistics, etc. • Access would create a hazard for carsitrucks entering and leaving Hawthorne. As designed, it is a very busy street and entering traffic will cause additional accidents. Cars leaving from the canyon would be forced to drive up hill on Hawthorne BPvd. and there make a u -turn at Blackhorse to head back down towards Torrance and this would change traffic patterns and create a potential for additional accidents. • The easements for fire, water, sewage, etc. were placed in the Elkmont Canyon for a reason. They were explicit and intentional. Changing or eliminating them will compromise the integrity of the land and create danger to all of our properties. • When the developers of the surrounding subdivisions built homes, don't you think they would have built in the canyon if it was safe and allowable? • The prohibition of access was explicit and intentional. Allowing a road goes against the use of what was intended for protection of the canyon and homes bordering the canyon. • Elkmont Canyon is designated as a'Natural Hazard Zone" as noted on the site plans. • Any activity in Elkmont Canyon is noisy. Sound reverberates and echoes creating noise concerns and disruption of the habitat. • Any additional activity (including building equipment) in the canyon would disrupt the land and slopes. The soil is not compact, nor stable. • Adding ponds, vineyards, roads, homes, or doing any type of grading is very concerning considering, the instability of the soil on the slopes. ■ Landslides have been documented in both RHE and RPV city records on properties nearby and of similar topography. • There is a document from RHE in the Elkmont Canyon file that requests for RPV to notify the City of RHE because of its adjacent nature. The City of RHE does own property in the 500' radius. Why has the City of RHE not been kept abreast of developments over the past years as requested? In Why have residents not been kept informed over the last few months and years? • Vehicle activity in Elkmont Canyon will disrupt the ecological environment. There are hawks, owls, raccoons, possum, birds, lizards, butterflies, snakes, insects, etc. that live in the canyon. Are there endangered or protected species in the canyon that need to be considered? Elkmont Canyon is a natural fire hazard (as noted by the city clearing the area before the annual fire season). Placing a building in the canyon with foliage will increase the potential for fire and endanger the surrounding communities. D-45 • Removing additional foliage from the area will create landslides. • It is well documented that in 1961, access off Hawthorne Boulevard had been relinquished in conjunction with other plots of land creating efficient traffic patterns for the city. • Property Lines were designated when the developments were built ... and now somehow years later they have changed on city documents without consent of current homes owners. It is obvious that it was a 1962 or later illegal subdivision. • The proposed development is not in keeping with neighborhood compatibility. There are no buildings that come close to the size of the proposal in height or square footage. • The size and weight of trucks is restricted on Hawthorne Blvd for a reason. The heavy construction equipment required for a development the size of the proposal is alarming. With a proposal of a 4 -car garage along with a sizeable house with a guesthouse, the proposed road would have a considerable amount of travel. • Why is the community just now learning that new development discussions in Elkmont Canyon have been going on for 10 years? This same issue was dealt with years ago and was reconfirmed that there was not going to be any development in the canyon. • Why had issues been brought to city council for approval before the planning commission could get involved? • There are documented questions about compliance. Integrity of the city is in question. This land is not to be accessed from Hawthorne Boulevard and to have development. • Many ether properties were listed on the land maps with the prohibition of access easement. Granting access to the canyon property sets a precedence that would allow other property owners who are excluded to petition the city to have their prohibitions removed. • Access from Hawthorne into Elkmont Canyon was relinquished in 1961. All homes purchased since then were purchased knowing that nothing would be built in the back yards of homes that line the canyon, both in RPV and RHE. This created value for buying a home in that location. Therefore, if anything is built in the canyon, it would negatively affect the value of those homes, quality of life, and the comps for the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. • The current owner of Elkmont Canyon bought property knowing he/she didn't have access to Hawthorne by virtue of the written and recorded easements. There is no reason after all these years it should change. They shouldn't have bought the property if they were concerned about access. • Proposed development in Elkmont Canyon is not compatible with our neighborhoods. In years past, another home proposed a 2ndstory and it was denied to ensure compatibility of the neighborhood. At that time it was confirmed that a precedent should not be set. In addition, the size of the proposed home is not consistent with the dynamics of the neighborhood. • When the homes were built along the canyon, the ground was not reinforced. Dirt was literally pushed over the edge of the properties when they were leveled. Building now on the slopes, developing access roads, or even planting vineyards 3 D-46 will compromise the hillside and negatively affect the foundations of the homes surrounding. Multiple property owners along the Elkmont Drive side have voiced concern over their property lines. The Elkmont Canyon owner has staked property that many Elkmont Drive owners along the ridge believe they own. The surveyors took out plants that belonged to owners on the ridge. The survey is only as goad as the property is if it was legally obtained and registered. Their entire surrey is up for dispute. Open space. Isn't the city required to have enough open space? What type of precedence will this set for other canyon properties with similar easement restrictions in our city when their owners decide to request removal of prohibitions of access? Putting a fire trail in on either side will not work with the unstable hillsides. Many owners will attest to the fact that when they step on their hillsides, the ground collapses underneath them. The Elkmont Canyon owner must be aware of this because the surveyors were having a very difficult timing maintaining their footing and they caused much of the hillsides to collapse when they attempted their staking. Many of the hillside properties have runoff that drains directly into the canyon_ Property owners will need to continue to drain into the canyon. Having a mad, let alone a home, in a flood plain and disturbing the current flow of drainage is not sensible or safe. Property owners along the hillside should not have to incur taking of their resources such as financial, emotional, and time to fight this "request to vacate a prohibition of access easement" when this canyon has clearly been restricted from development based on deeds, prohibitions, easements, written and documented maps, etc. How was a conditional certificate ewer issued when the prohibition of access was clearly written? This Conditional Certificate should not be valid or legal. We are sending attachments that have pictures of our property in a separate document. With the potential impact to over 188 notified properties, legal challenges to the city of RPV that are certain to follow from many residents, ramification of setting a precedence when others petition for these types of removals, and serious concern of land instability and potential of fire and flood to bordering properties, this request to remove the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon must be denied.. Thank Yo rte- Erik a Merin Dahlerbruch 4 D-47 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com Pictures: Surveyors hacked up plants And hillside not stable and drains into canyon FWAFOO Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com This article on the FEMA website, that discusses the dangers of building a home in a canyon and the increased risk of wildfires pertains to Elkmont Canyon. There is a very valid reason why the canyon is regularly rolled and kept clear to protect from fire in the bottom of the canyon. "- Canyons. A wildfire at the bottom of a vegetated canyon can lead to extremely hazardous conditions upslope. A canyon acts like a chimney, collecting hot gases and directing superheated convection and radiant heat upslope. Canyons funnel winds (see Figure 3) that can fan a fire and lead to extreme fire behavior (rapid spread of the wildfire and ignition of an entire area). An entire canyon can pre -heat from rising hot air and gases and explode in flames, creating a firestorm." Canyon view and back of our property to bottom tree. Taken from neighbor's house Amy Seeraty From: Ken Dunn <heavyhand7@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:02 PM To: Amy Seeraty;jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Subject: Elkmont Canyon Development Greetings. I am the owner of the residence at 9 Silver Spring Drive in Rolling Hills Estates. I am vehemently opposed to the proposed development of Elkmont Canyon as my property sits directly adjacent to the building site. My family has been here for 59 years and have always been assured that the canyon would never be developed for all of the obvious reasons: Increased fire danger, loss of wildlife habitation, and the end of the quality of life as we have always known it. With all of the beautiful homes available to the proponent of this plan why would we allow the desecration of a natural habitat for birds, raccoons, skunks, possums, etc, etc, etc. If Mr. Perera needs to build a monument to his accumulation of wealth let him do it in an area that does not take away the little natural beauty we have left. I find the whole idea abhorrent and hard to believe that anyone would even consider it. As the song goes, "don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till its gone." Please use common sense and reject this attack on our way of life. Kenneth Dunn D-50 Amy Seeraty From: Jake G <jagdigital@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:47 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Subject: Rollingwood and Elkmont local developer Attachments: IMG_1999.PNG; ATT00001.txt Please see my enclosed signed letter! D-51 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: 1 am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time 1 purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature; Name: Address:6Ziodo Phone Number: qzA -109 6 Email: t3o A. P toc Amy Seeraty From: Ray Mazin, CPA <taxinc@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:29 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: merinlmd@gmail.com Subject: Development and access to Elkmont Canyon Attachments: RPV Letter.docx PIs see our letter attached. D-53 July 7, 2016 To: Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes Via email Re: Elkmont Canyon Dear City council of RPV: We are among the neighbors bordering above canyon. We believe that approval of the proposed access and development of the canyon is not a correct move by the city for the following reasons: 1. Access from Hawthorne blvd is very dangerous due to the steepness and curvature of Hawthorne blvd at the point of entry 2. Canyon has very steep walls, and any grading runs the risk of landslides and de -stabilizing the soil and weakening the foundation of ours and neighboring homes 3. Development increases the fire hazards 4. Flooding becomes a larger and real risk 5. Views and property values of existing homes are seriously and negatively impacted by the proposed development 6. The proposed large-scale development is not compatible with the existing homes which have an average of 1500-2200 square footage. D-54 4963 Rockvalley Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 7, 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Bid. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Elkmont Canyon Property Proposed Driveway on Hawthorne Blvd. Case Number Zon2014-00229 After reviewing KOA Corporation Technical Memorandum for "Sight Distance Analysis for Elkmont Canyon Property Driveway on Hawthorne Boulevard" dated May 7. 2015 and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes "Staff Report" dated August 22, 2006 presented to us by Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner, we urge the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes to deny the request for the permit to construct a driveway on Hawthorne Blvd. Construction of a driveway will have many negative impacts including: 1. Creating dangerous conditions for entry and egress from the proposed driveway. Cars already on Hawthorne Blvd. will need to slow and often will need to move to the left into another lane for a car to exit or enter Hawthorne. Increasing U turns to allow cars from Elkmont to access northbound lanes at Blackhorse should not be encouraged. 2. Creating a severe traffic hazard during certain parts of the year when the setting sun greatly inhibits the southern view when traffic must slow due to visibility reasons. A driveway allowing entry or egress on Hawthorne would further complicate this issue. 3. Significantly interfering with traffic flow during peak traffic periods. Traffic study reveals more accidents on southbound lanes than northbound of Hawthorne Blvd. Some of these accidents have resulted in fatalities. 4. Creating traffic hazards and noise, dust and fumes during construction with the use of large trucks, and land moving vehicles. 5. Possible drainage and sewer issues within the canyon. We have lived along Hawthorne Blvd. for over 30 years. Traffic and subsequent noise has significantly increased particularly since heavy truck and commercial traffic was diverted from Crenshaw to Hawthorne. This would be an additional issue that worsens the environment around our properties. Development of this driveway and subsequent development would also decrease the open space that citizens +Whave preserved on the Peninsula. Homes overlooking the canyon would be devalued. In our review of materials and with thoughtful consideration, we urge the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to deny this request. Re ectfully submitted, Lawrence and Naomi Savell D-55 Amy Seeraty From: oslavich@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:37 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Subject: Elkmont Canyon development Attachments: Elkmont Canyon - City of RPV.docx Deer Amy Seeraty, I am attaching my letter to oppose the development in Elkmont Canyon. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Olga Slavich D-56 Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Olga Slavich Name: Olga Slavich Address: 17 Silver Spring Dr. Phone Number: (310) 375-8492 Email: oslavich@aol.com D-57 Amy Seeraty From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 11:54 AM To: wickinpv@verizon.net Cc: Amy Seeraty Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon Access Issue (Between Hawthorne Blvd. and Silver Spur Road in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes) Thank you for the email. I will make sure the letter is attached to the July 19th City Council Staff Report. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director QTY OF I�AMCHC F",�il- 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(@-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov `A Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: wickinpv@verizon.net [mailto:wickinpv@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:52 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Elkmont Canyon Access Issue (Between Hawthorne Blvd. and Silver Spur Road in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes) Greetings, Attached is a copy of the letter I mailed to you this morning. Regards, Douglas Wickstrom 5138 Bluemound Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA Amy Seeraty From: Stan Yip <cabazone@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:52 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Concerns of proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon Attachments: 20160707_154343jpg Dear Ms Sweaty, Please see attachment. Thank you, Stan Yip 5126 Elkmont Dr., R.P.V. D-59 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: lam a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: \4111 e Name: 5 12 � Eiv_A-vA/Lic • ea j\ii CA q 0 '7, 1 Address: Phone Number: 7Aict3 53g. Email: e. 12\ RIVL Air w V K. • 4 k ',... OP ik 4, 6, 4 VI 411 s 1.0 et t +, ti 41' 1IA I- " ITw C L, t 4 a 1 LH 0 11 4 4 , , f i! IF lir 10, 6 ill of 44 ", . 16 4 * + J lirt M 6 1 r cr. ' r : r iio r 6 i a '. * 1 r ," -I , ft j " a r if ;,M Amy Seeraty From: Walt Zanino <zanino@ktn.org> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:20 AM To: Amy Seeraty;jeannien@rollinghiIIsestatesca.gov Subject: Elkmont Canyon (Case NO. ZON2014-00229) APN 7576-026-028 Attachments: AR-M7000_20160707_093210.pdf To whom it may concern, I oppose any development of the Elkmont Canyon, please see the attached letter. Thank you Walter I Zanino D-61 Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094o Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 7, 2o16 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: My Family has owned the house at 5203 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes since 1971 and I am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. A big part of the reason the home was purchased in 1971. was the fact that it had a canyon with no homes behind it. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access or building in the Elkmont Canyon. In 1971. when the home was purchased, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of my family's decision to purchase the home and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961.. Any reversal would adversely impact quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. , Signature: Name: Address: _52o3 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes Phone Number:320-561-2687 Emaii:Zanino@ktn.org D-62 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 11. 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature:/ Name: M a n d (1, a SA -M Address: 5a33 �,JMO`-o �'00a Phone Number: (310) -� 9 ) - i -t f I Email: M S Qt Y\ a r S CM C;A s ` U0) YA iZm can D-63 jx-� 5 - RECEIVED RECEIVED JUL U 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a-, �a o�►.m d t,�-�-►�v a -X-4 - Aa,ya� • GtJ�t, y GC.o .c.c�.2..--x-..�� .�.-.e-�� �� �tc.¢a..e� at,v- ck� Yg, ENAMMoMm- A2 2 7 -ll�•v D-65 jx-� 5 - RECEIVED RECEIVED JUL U 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a-, �a o�►.m d t,�-�-►�v a -X-4 - Aa,ya� • GtJ�t, y GC.o .c.c�.2..--x-..�� .�.-.e-�� �� �tc.¢a..e� at,v- ck� Yg, ENAMMoMm- A2 2 7 -ll�•v D-67 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: L� r, Name : J' 4-A Address: aG(,oy ..SSh�deaiCc/'ovc/'Vt;1 '/1CDIN l - a gA's V-0rdps)(2;� Phone Number: 3/cD - 375 - 60o4 Email: J ami .y 7-/7 C M -'o -.5 4963 Rockvalley Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 7, 2016 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner 30940 Hawthorne Bid. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Elkmont Canyon Property Proposed Driveway on Hawthorne Blvd. Case Number Zon2014-00229 After reviewing KOA Corporation Technical Memorandum for "Sight Distance Analysis for Elkmont Canyon Property Driveway on Hawthorne Boulevard" dated May 7. 2015 and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes "Staff Report" dated August 22, 2006 presented to us by Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner, we urge the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes to deny the request for the permit to construct a driveway on Hawthorne Blvd. Construction of a driveway will have many negative impacts including: 1. Creating dangerous conditions for entry and egress from the proposed driveway. Cars already on Hawthorne Blvd. will need to slow and often will need to move to the left into another lane for a car to exit or enter Hawthorne. Increasing U turns to allow cars from Elkmont to access northbound lanes at Blackhorse should not be encouraged. 2. Creating a severe traffic hazard during certain parts of the year when the setting sun greatly inhibits the southern view when traffic must slow due to visibility reasons. A driveway allowing entry or egress on Hawthorne would further complicate this issue. 3. Significantly interfering with traffic flow during peak traffic periods. Traffic study reveals more accidents on southbound lanes than northbound of Hawthorne Blvd. Some of these accidents have resulted in fatalities. 4. Creating traffic hazards and noise, dust and fumes during construction with the use of large trucks, and land moving vehicles. 5. Possible drainage and sewer issues within the canyon. We have lived along Hawthorne Blvd. for over 30 years. Traffic and subsequent noise has significantly increased particularly since heavy truck and commercial traffic was diverted from Crenshaw to Hawthorne. This would be an additional issue that worsens the environment around our properties. Development of this driveway and subsequent development would also decrease the open space that citizens +Whave preserved on the Peninsula. Homes overlooking the canyon would be devalued. In our review of materials and with thoughtful consideration, we urge the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to deny this request. Re ectfully submitted, Lawrence and Naomi Savell I W Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns 1 oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property_ A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter_ Signature: S Name: Address: D-70 I W Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Roiling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value_ The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: N a rn e:- { r> t t+ '4 V Address: -)�& I S- S� D-71 0 a ID rbr 3 Cy - 7R v A 7R h 3 0 V O I O 01 07/08/2016 16:23 FAX Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffi concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in ti matter. Signature: ` t_ Name:'KD, p n Address: Phone Number: Email: LIQ -72 07/08/2016 14:39 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: #7064 P 001/001 I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property- A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns - Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature:_• - Name: tilih Chz� Address: Phone Number: Email: -J Jbn, Cher) 0vv;,Aizl-CCY0 D-73 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose'any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful'open space was a major coinponent of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road In the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope Instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict In this matter. Signature: ASC y' Name: 614 1+ r Address: x`!S S Z(Icv,.�+ Q! Phone Number: Email: nrQti,�« cG► �.e, 07/08/2016 13:50 310--792-8625 FEDEX OFFICE 0400 PAGE 02 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5241 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: ie OLh Address: Phone Number: I --'A(9 —3"19—V7946 Email: vtp�- SPA-75- D-75 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 1 1 201b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: �,X, Address: a(�� �(� �Lg--ac�o�'o� �GZ Phone Number: �q'1U Email: � 4�a � - C D rrl (�"•P'0' D-76 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members. RECEIVE® JUL 13 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: � wo'e' �; �c�na 1&\1incr Address: 240(�C)g SV,040W W000 9v;v e, Phone Number: 3kO I1(o5 0(05'5 Email: re��a,�ui\� ny reveri2ar\-net D-77 W Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: i am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: S Name: Address: 0 eo a: 3 M 3 W a v eb iP 0 J i" 0 Cn Amy Seeraty From: Tony Cantella <TONY@papacantella.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:53 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: CC; SteveZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; FrankZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; DougP@RolIingHillsEstatesCA.gov Subject: Elkmont Canyon Importance: High Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Attn: Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: We are residents of Rolling Hills Estates and are very concerned about a recent notice that wereceived in the mail with regard to potential future development in the Elkmont Canyon. In 2002 when we purchased our home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which insured that the canyon would not be developed. This open space was a major factor in our family choosing this location. Putting a development and a road in this area would change the whole dynamics of this canyon including concerns such as noise and traffic along with slope and environmental concerns. We are asking you to please not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact our quality of life and property value, not to mention all of our neighbors on both sides of the canyon. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Anthony & Elizabeth Cantella 5 Silver Spring Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310)378-3730 tony@papacantella.com D-79 Amy Seeraty From: lisariera@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:50 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon Construction Sorry meant to say lived here for 53 years and when we came it was before Crenshaw existed. Before a lot of things existed. From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: "lisariera@yahoo.com" <lisariera@yahoo.com>;"Fran kZ@RolIingHillsEstatesCA.gov" <FrankZ@Rolling HiIIsEstatesCA.gov>;"BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov"<BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov>; "JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov" <JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov>; "VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov" <VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov>; "Doug P@RollingH illsEstatesCA.gov" <DougP@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov> Cc: "annettecaplan@yahoo.com" <annettecaplan @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 7:46 AM Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon Construction Hello Annette and Lisa - Thank you for your message. I will ensure that your comments are attached to and addressed in the July 19th City Council Staff Report. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(aD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: lisariera@yahoo.com [mai Ito: Iisariera@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 7:26 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; FrankZ@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; BrittH@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; JudyM@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; VelvethS@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov; DougP@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov Subject: Elkmont Canyon Construction To Amy Seeraty: I have lived in Rolling Hills Estates since 1963. Approximately 53 years before Crenshaw Blvd existed. When my husband and I purchased our home the peninsula was very undeveloped. The mall and the shopping center where CVS is located didn't exist. It was peaceful and beautiful. Palos Verdes was known for its bucolic and rural feel. That was why we came (from Lauren Canyon.) We loved that we lived in a tight knit community and had access to city culture yet lived in a place filled with nature, trees and animals. In these 53 years the tranquility has slowly been eroded. However, the possibility of constructing in Elkmont Canyon is beyond anything imagined. In all these years never has the idea of squeezing in a huge � :1 home in the canyon between neighborhoods been broached. We didn't know it was possible or in fact we would never have purchased our home all those years ago. There are many concerns: fire risk, flood risk, land slide, neighborhood compatibility -our homes range from 1600-2200 square feet -this home is a proposed 10,800 square feet with a guest house, pool jacuzzi and vineyard (and during a severe drought no less) this sounds more like a resort than one of our local homes. Property values could suffer. Traffic is a huge concern, are the residents of this new home going to be pulling directing onto and off of Hawthorne Blvd? Will there be another traffic light? This is very dangerous. There are few streets to enter and leave the peninsula, will the entire population be inconvenienced for one home owner? Environmental impact is another huge concern. Has a study been done? This canyon is home to myriad wildlife which will be destroyed in the construction. We are also having huge problems with coyotes who live in the canyon -this will displace them further onto our streets and put our pets and small children at risk. How many years of construction will this require with the noise and dirt ruining our tranquility? How many years of Hawthorne Blvd and Silver Spur Road being blocked off? How many accidents will this cause? In what way will this enormous home benefit the residents of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, or the rest of the cities here? Thus far we only see serious problems. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Annette Caplan and Lisa Riera 18 Silver Spring Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 annettecaplan(a-yahoo.com lisariera(aD-yahoo.com 310.378-0137 07/08/2016 14:39 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: #7064 P 001/001 I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property- A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns - Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature:_. - Name: tilih Chz� Address: Phone Number: Email: -J Jbn, Che)o3vvuizl-CCY0 Amy Seeraty From: David Chi <dchi33@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:00 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont development project Attachments: scan.pdf Please find attached a scan of signed letter to oppose further development in Elkmont Canyon. The Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon hs been in place since 1961, and should not be reversed. Thank you. David Chi P.S. The fax number provided did not seem to work for my fax machine... i Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: . Name: I///-'� �/ Address:S'z I✓'.�:/�.�'< Phone Number: Email : ear"A, � j`, > i15 Amy Seeraty From: Eberhard <reber5118@cox.net> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 2:42 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: Elkmont.pdf Attached is a pdf version of our message below concerning our anxiety about opening up access from Hawthorne Blvd. to Elkmont Canyon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (c/o Amy Seeraty) Subject: Access to Elkmont Canyon Area A major danger threatening the residents of Elkmont Canyon, the residents of Willow Wood, the residents of Silver Spring, the residents of Rockbluff, the residents of Foxpoint and (perhaps) some of the residents of Marloma is wild fire on the extensive, contiguous bone dry hillsides. Currently there is no official access to these dry slopes from Hawthorne Blvd. Allowing access to areas deep within the canyon would increase the probability of a fire developing either by accident or by mischief. Fires can be easily started (for example, weed whacker against a stone while clearing brush). For the Fire Department to fight a fire deep within the canyon, the access and the road must be able to accommodate fire trucks (big, heavy vehicles) and to provide maneuvering room to turn around. WHAT IS THE OPINION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT (HAVE THEY BEEN ASKED?) ABOUT ALLOWING ACCESS AND WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ACCESS AND FOR THE ROAD? There are minimum requirements for fire department access. This is a question which should be considered before vacating the prohibition of access. Thank you for your consideration. (signed) (signed) Carol Eberhard Richard Eberhard 5118 Willow Wood Rd. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 310 —378 —5224 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you. Richard and Carol Eberhard The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (c/o Amy Seeraty) Subject: Access to Elkmont Canyon Area A major danger threatening the residents of Elkmont Canyon, the residents of Willow Wood, the residents of Silver Spring, the residents of Rockbluff, the residents of Foxpoint and (perhaps) some of the residents of Marloma is wild fire on the extensive, contiguous bone dry hillsides. Currently there is no official access to these dry slopes from Hawthorne Blvd. Allowing access to areas deep within the canyon would increase the probability of a fire developing either by accident or by mischief. Fires can be easily started (for example, weed whacker against a stone while clearing brush). For the Fire Department to fight a fire deep within the canyon, the access and the road must be able to accommodate fire trucks (big, heavy vehicles) and to provide maneuvering room to turn around. WHAT IS THE OPINION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT (HAVE THEY BEEN ASKED?) ABOUT ALLOWING ACCESS AND WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ACCESS AND FOR THE ROAD? There are minimum requirements for fire department access. This is a question which should be considered before vacating the prohibition of access. Thank you for your consideration. Carol Eberhard 5118 Willow Wood Rd. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 310 - 378 - 5224 Richard Eberhard Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 1 1 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature:'= Name: A/ Address: G / / "� �A— Phone Number: Email: M, L� Amy Seeraty From: fumikocarole fujita <fcfpharmd@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:38 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Opposition to Elkmont Canyon Access Road Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a 30 year nearby resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon due to environmental, traffic and fire & flood danger. The lack of city council procedure, and real estate concerns are also issues. At the time I purchased my home in 1986, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Name: Fumiko Carole Fujita Address: l Silver Spring Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Phone Number: 310.373.1554 E -Mail: fcfpharmd@yahoo.com RECEIVED Amy 5eeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes JUL 1 8 20i 3094o Hawthorne Boulevard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 DEPARTMENT July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I opposeany access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impactmy quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. 14 Signature: Name:�' f 1" 12-b t Address:��--- Phone Number: Email: CAC - - / 9ql~ / ) �% o Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy 5eeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July R, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I ani a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter - Signature: atter_ Signature: �- •� ` Name: uScav-, G-e—a v\ Address: c� QI'-t SVVL-6-0uu w\990 'O'. \) Ch Phone Number: "6Vo - `l% -W00 Email. r teC Q-O-k\.7Q-V\ "r\'Q Jul 07 16 07:16a 13103788611 13103788611 p.1 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Array Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palas Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Mills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Eikmont Canyon. [due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed, The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our horse purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns, Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value, The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: M,, r� >' G , I ' Address: Phone Number: uY,it s Email: MjeeL,,,f cD ,-c . r o,,-, D-91 Amy Seeraty From: Dorothy Graves <ghealthnut@aol.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:01 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Letter re Elkhorn Canyon project Attachments: photo.JPG; ATT00001.txt Please find enclosed a signed letter expressing my concerns re the Elkhorn proposed project D-92 R'W*an vwddm r" ICOMWO UO &OW Cat af F�rn� ltd Fay 11-C�-s3 4I>'t 1 abftl Ih* IMF41G'R of t'1f pCoporwd rovInAl of I#o pnpiiblliO" of alU t" C +, Vur to It fwr•darA "wd 'a moo'. : cMIAI_ aped redw ovate tMMMrMi i opp ' amy aetss'l n""Wo C&MVMV lino arr�d xal� aof � �y ati r� rrm Mire r4 � �t�; �M+d �Ir�S Nem do cum orsim r a f eWL W of ON P r lb.r1 *+ of Acceu11) 1 krp%v l , , bar+ 4" MI AM A*WW2f* ftf any *F Mit and WOPOM %,A -i Tb* IrrM CUUFK9 CW R&nCft Darter Vwqsn hrt A N&AU°r'rWWMn"j*f to protm Obe ~09 of IhIw MOM * nwhpt t OM Fish of *MV iotin farm- Lo., . Email CN kie-4 I tt'nj cklot .— D-93 RECEIVED 5209 Elkmont Drive COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Rancho Palos Verdes DEP;APTAIFNT July 8, 1016 Honorable Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attention: Amy Seeraty 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 SUBJECT: Proposed Reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon Your Honor: I am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes/Rolling Hills Estates, and I am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their constituents by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict. I am opposing any access into Elkmont Canyon due to potential flooding, fire hazard, and environmental impact as well as lack of the necessary City Council procedure. When I purchased my home, Elkmont Canyon has a Prohibition of Access that has been in place since 1961, which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. A major attribute in our decision to purchase a house on Elkmont Drive is the value of the property and appeal of the serene and peaceful open space. A road in the canyon would endanger the stability of the slopes, bring noise, traffic, and unforeseen fire hazard. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon. It would adversely impact the value of my property and eventually my quality of life. Sincerely, r U George Vion Phone Number: 310.378.7013 Amy Seeraty From: Mary Jane Jewell <mjjewell@cox.net> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:23 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeanien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Subject: elkmont canyon Attachments: scan0126.pdf Attached please find letter regarding concerns about Elkmont Canyon. We are opposed to access. Regards, Charles Matheny and Mary Jane Jewell D-95 I W Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name:- t' + 4 V Address: -)-� & I �r- MI D-97 3 0 J O O Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 112016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: e Name: Address: 2 -&S -*Dl P Cl KJ GJ a0 7 Phone Number: '3/0 3- Email: 0"Z -/Es -0 /Zoti , X-)'`/- Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED "s JUL 112016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire r *J11T1 ar.9A Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature:�— Name: Noriko Noda Address: 7 Silver Spring Drive, Rolling Phone Number: (310) 373-0098 Email: tenko240@gmail.com Hills Estates, CA 90274 I 4efas, Pr/ . C4 9'o2744) Amy Seeraty From: Teresa Saucedo-Artino <tartino@kurion.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 12:01 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeannien@rollinghilillestatesca.gov Subject: Proposed Reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon Ms. Seeraty, Thank you for allowing us to respond to the subject proposal. I have been a long time resident of Palos Verdes Peninsula and have watched how each of the cities has done their best to maintain the beauty of the Peninsula. The proposed access into Elkmont Canyon would certainly go against the continued beauty of the Peninsula, not only to the homeowners on both sides of the canyon but also to any person(s) driving up Hawthorne Blvd. Instead of seeing the beautiful canyon they would see a city road crammed at the base of homes. Additionally, there appears to be no good reason to reverse the long standing proposal than to serve one individual. My concern as one of the RHE homeowner's who currently oversees the beautiful canyon are as follows: 1. Increase noise from cars; 2. Slope instability for homeowners on both sides of the canyons; 3. Impact on local habitant, including hawks, owls, & unusual birds; 4. Impact on home values; 5. Increased cost to city to maintain safety markings for drivers entering easement; 6. Loss of canyon view. For the above reasons, I adamantly oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. I ask that the City Council rejects the reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that had been in place since 1961. Sincerely, Teresa Saucedo-Artino Homeowner 5256 Willow Wood Road, RHE, CA 90274 310.880.4467 D-100 Amy Seeraty From: Gregory Schill <gschill@theadvisorygrp.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Attachments: Gregory P Schill Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Opposition Letter.pdf Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP® The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: aschill(a)theadvisorvaro.com web: www.theadvisorvgrl).com the a dYl or' gro Up Not just a rice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-101 Gregory P Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 July 7, 2016 City Of Ranch Palos Verdes C/O Amy Seeraty 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 RE: Opposition to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the tract map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229); Request to Vacate or Postpone Hearing I, Gregory Schill have owned 5250 Willow Wood Road since November 2010. 1 am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates and granting the Request to Vacation this Prohibition of Access Easement has a direct impact on my real property. I am very concerned about the affect of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon, due to the known traffic safety, soil issues, fire danger, flood danger, lack of notice, potential planning and city council procedural issues, environmental, and real estate concerns. There has simply been insufficient time to review, process and research all the implications of the proposed access and, ultimately, the planned development, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Lack of processing this Application through Planning; 2. The Council hearing a piecemeal review of one aspect (access) of what is clearly a much larger development project than this one access issue; 3. Lack of Notice regarding Traffic Reports and insufficient time to review, research and comment; 4. Absence of any known EIR report; 5. Absence of any know review of CEQA issues; 6. Lack of information from the City with respect to a historical review of the underlying issues and history of the canyon as it relates to any vacation of the prohibition easement. In what little time I have had to familiarize myself with some of the issues, I note that the original Tract Map 24719 contains the following: Dedication per Tract Map 24719 - "As a dedication to public use while all of Silver Spur Road and Hawthorne Boulevard within and adjacent to this subdivision remain public highways for such time only, we hereby abandon all easements of ingress and egress to the said Silver Spur Road and Hawthorne Boulevard so that owners of lots 1,2,71,23 to 27 inclusive and 52 to 58 inclusive abutting these highways during such time will have no rights of access whatever in the highways as such except to the general easement of travel which belongs to the whole public." 1 D-102 Gregory P Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Simply stated, these 1961 restrictions were put in place for a reason. The prior owners specifically abandoned ingress and egress to the subject property. There has been no notice, disclosure or discussion of why this specific abandonment should be vacated. None of this was disclosed in the Notice of Public Meeting. Based on limited time for research of this issue, in addition to the general and procedural issues raised above, I have the following specific concerns: Road Safety and Traffic Flow: Granting access to Elkmont Canyon could result in a dangerous condition on Hawthorne Boulevard as this is a major artery with a large volume of traffic. There is no other access directly to Hawthorne Blvd from any of the surrounding neighborhoods. There has been insufficient notice or information related to any traffic study of this area and certainly no time to adequately review, research and/or oppose such a study. Stability: I am extremely concerned that any grading, construction and traffic driving over the property will cause instability and landslides. My property is in Rolling Hills Estates and directly adjacent to Elkmont Canyon. I am concerned that this has not been carefully assessed and considered as part of the consideration of giving access to Elkmont Canyon. Because any decision to remove the access prohibition is within the discretion of the City, the city must require a full environmental impact report which thoroughly analyzes the geological impact of construction of a new road and any proposed residence. In 2006, there was discussion of the possible re -zoning of the Elkmont Canyon from "RS -4" to "OH" (Open Space Hazard) due to flood hazard zones, numerous other easements, the slope grades, soil and risk of landslides with grading and construction. There have been landslides in the canyon area. In 2008 there was a landslide in the Sliver Spring/Foxpoint area of Rolling Hills Estates. This area is approximately 200-500 feet from the proposed Elkmont Canyon access point on Hawthorne Blvd. The soil and stability of Elkmont Canyon are extremely poor and were not compacted when these neighborhoods were built. Is the City considering the liability it would put upon itself if any problem occurred? What impact would slides have on the surrounding homes and/or Hawthorne Boulevard? Fire: The City clears the canyon of brush annually for a reason. There is a threat to the entire area with the proposed access. In addition, there is no escape route for anyone who would presumably be living in a structure in the canyon in the event of a fire. Environmental: The canyon has remained natural. There are potential habitat issues, and there has been no notice of any research into this issue. Additional: There are more issues such as Flood Zone, Noise, View Obstruction, Neighborhood Compatibility, etc. that we will detail later, if needed. i D-103 Gregory P Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 In summary, I oppose any reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact traffic, public safety, slope stability and the environment. Furthermore, I reserve my rights to make further objection from this date to the date of the hearing and after, as there has been inadequate time and notice of this important issue. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Sincerely, �egoraiP. Schill With Copy to the City of Rolling Hills Estates M D-104 RECEIVE[ JUL 11 z01b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Attn: Amy Seeraty City of RPV 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Juoy 7, 2016 Dear RPV City Council Members, We are writing to you to voice our objection to the proposal to grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon which has been in place since 1961. This reversal would definitely impact our quality of life which we have enjoyed since 1968 when we first moved to RPV. Not only will the natural, serene scenery be compromised, there will be more traffic concerns from Hawthorne Blvd, and a real danger of slides and damage to our property from the extensive construction necessary to build the proposed estate of nearly 4 acres.. Furthermore, an "estate" of this size is totally incongruous with the surrounding homes and neighborhoods. We urge you to consider the wishes and concerns of all the interested parties when making your decision . Sincerely, 41 L /Z % red and Karen Shimabukuro 26697 Whitehorn Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Ph — 310 373 4284 Email — karenshima@cox.net D-105 Amy Seeraty From: Raymund Silverio <raymund.silverio@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:54 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access Attachments: rpv_citycou nci I. pdf To Amy Seeraty, Attached is my signed letter as a request to not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon. Thank you for your efforts. Ray Silverio 310.947.1012 D-106 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: Play"Odve,,_/b Address: w������ �r (�"V C/O'a� Phone Number: Email: Y'��r���ao, D-107 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: L� r, Name : J' 4-A Address: aG(,oy ..SSh�deaiCc/'ovc/'Vt;1 '/1CDIN l - a gA's V-0rdps)(2;� Phone Number: 3/cD - 375 - 60o4 Email: J ami .y 7-/7 C M � 1: -'o -.5 Jul.08.2016 06:25 PM THE STUCKERS Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 - FAX 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, 31037374653 PAGE. 1 RECEIVED JUL 1 1 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Rancho Palos Verdes JUL 11 2016 City Manager's Office I am a resident in the Rollingwood Neighborhood of Rolling Hills Estates since 1986 and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed development in Elkmont Canyon. The concerns are many and I'll name a few but to start, the potential Instability of the canyon is at the top! As many of you know, the homes constructed at the bottom of Rockbluff Dr. was instrumental in the slide and destruction of those properties. The homes were never reconstructed for good reason and Rockbluff Park was established. The neighborhood was fortunate not to have had more damage. There should be MAJOR concern from the Council for the homeowners whose properties abut the canyon and the potential to undermine the stability of their homes and the potential liability to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In addition, the Peninsula has a reputation of preserving open space and views. The open space and views (canyon/ocean/city) provides a suburban life style helping to maintain our property values. The properties with views of Elkmont canyon would be financially impacted. We would lose wildlife, increase fire hazards, and create a density that is not beneficial to the existing residents. The access from Hawthorne would be VERY dangerous. Hawthorne is a heavily travelled street at high speeds. These are only a few of my concerns but I'm sure there are MANY I have not thought of yet. The "Prohibition of Access" into Elkmont Canyon was established for very good reasons and should remain in effect In perpetuity. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. / !/)uanta Stucker 26467 Dunwood Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 310-251-9400 imstucker cox.net D-109 07/08/2016 13:50 310--792-8625 FEDEX OFFICE 0400 PAGE 02 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5241 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: ie OLh Address: Phone Number: I --'A(9 —3"19—V7946 Email: vtp�- SPA-75- D-110 Amy Seeraty From: Allie Valasek <allievalasek@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:59 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: tomvalasek@gmail.com Subject: Rollingwood/Elkmont Letter Attachments: Elkmont Letter.pdf See attached. D-111 Rancho Pales Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July B, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this m atter. Signature: � �Vfv\--1 Name: T 6 V ('l ` K Address: �,,\S 04r TV O J4W W aQ J �V C( 0�� Phone Number: ( D - � 6 ,,- t I �, &L, Email: "�v� UAP IC -x C D-112 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVE[ JUL 1 1 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: Vii' fi"4' 7 1 V,4 iv &/vX-t;- Address: g' '4 o27r— Phone Number:' Email: . D-1 13 07/08/2016 16:23 FAX Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffi concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in ti matter. Signature: ` t_ Name:'KD, p n Address: Phone Number: Email: LIQ WI 14 Jul 07 16 07:16a 13103788611 13103788611 p.1 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: /�/�a r7 a 1 Address: 7ff Jl Rey Phone Number: Email:)V� x�� �� �o co,,-,r� D-115 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 13 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my duality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: t 1, Name: L/ti,- /,�, Address: Itch /t' 1� Phone Number: Email: D-116 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose'any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful'open space was a major coinponent of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road In the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope Instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict In this matter. Signature: ASC y' Name: 614 1+ r Address: x`!S S Z(Icv,.�+ Q! Phone Number: Email: nrQti,�« cG► �.e, ,-"'-D!- Amy Seeraty From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:15 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Amy Seeraty Subject: Fwd: They are back in the canyon Begin forwarded message: From: Merin Dahlerbruch <merinlmd(a)_gmail.com> Subject: They are back in the canyon Date: July 9, 2016 at 10:23:31 AM PDT To: aram(ci)rpv.gov Hello, Ara: It is now saturday morning and the tree cutters are back at it again in the canyon. They also have a truck in there. You told me yesterday that they were done and they didn't have a permit for any day except for yesterday which was after the fact because they had already cut down trees and denigrated the slope. Per your directive, the neighbors have called the police again. I don't understand how this person can directly against the directive of the city and put us all in jeopardy. If this was considered brush clearance, they've taken out brand-new plants and are only creating more of a fire hazard in the canyon with the wood chipper, a car, and leaving woodchips on the hillsides. D-118 r it 1 � �` / � .. ,�:.- — � �` u-• � i �, ?vim it ['?�= x .� P� ,["�' �{��,s. ✓5`^,-.r S -.i �. f:1' •... ttiF _:__ ��� {ry ��� i^, Li�l�F��' 11,y lV s� (�L i r - 1 � �` / � .. ,�:.- — � �` u-• � i �, ?vim it ['?�= x .� P� ,["�' �{��,s. ✓5`^,-.r S -.i �. f:1' •... ttiF _:__ ��� {ry ��� i^, Li�l�F��' 11,y lV I ► h 1 1 li \� t 1(r ��r �Y r 11}1�� flt� .J'�� �"v , • t 1j 11I 1• ` r �1 f •�6�+�'tl� �' \I'Ir ,w11� �!il r, �r � In �}rrrtf��h�.� !/ ►� I i Wt � r 1 rt ` 'L F, Ml M +��'� .,�v,��y,' � •DIY ►t1 t'1A �I i✓ j ,�� �� � , lir � �,,r�l,•'��I SII .1 7 i q' #,y''�(",a rf i a,fI. lYll t�l' i M IIA 1 1. 1 P �Y 'r • �Y r ,4�1�1� � L.1T 1�, �� �� ( , 1 { 1 A IPrCi•��� vV 41•� Ilk 1iA IY • ►. 1 • r ! '\�Y� II D-121 5 Sincerely, Merin Dahlerbruch Sent from Merin's Whone. Please excuse typos and brevity. D-123 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:26 AM To: Ara Mihranian; Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap Cc: Amy Seeraty Subject: Help!!! Re: They are back in the canyon Ara, I'm emailing again because neighbors are calling me to tell me that the police won't do anything and asking what to do. They do not have a permit for today! There was not supposed to be permitted to drive with a car. We need a phone number for the city for after-hours. The owner of this property is thumbing his nose at all of us. He knew darn well that the city was closed on the weekend and there would be nobody to get ahold of. Merin On Jul 9, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmdkgmail.com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Merin Dahlerbruch <merinlmd(a)_gmail.com> Subject: They are back in the canyon Date: July 9, 2016 at 10:23:31 AM PDT To: aram _rpv.gov Hello, Ara: It is now saturday morning and the tree cutters are back at it again in the canyon. They also have a truck in there. You told me yesterday that they were done and they didn't have a permit for any day except for yesterday which was after the fact because they had already cut down trees and denigrated the slope. Per your directive, the neighbors have called the police again. I don't understand how this person can directly against the directive of the city and put us all in jeopardy. If this was considered brush clearance, they've taken out brand-new plants and are only creating more of a fire hazard in the canyon with the wood chipper, a car, and leaving woodchips on the hillsides. <image 1.JPG> <image2.JPG> D-124 <image3.JPG> Sincerely, Merin Dahlerbruch Sent from Merin's Whone. Please excuse typos and brevity. D-125 Amy Seeraty From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Amy at RPV City Hall, olivierj_enders <olivier j_enders@yahoo.com> Saturday, July 09, 2016 5:33 PM Amy Seeraty Elkmont Canyon, Case No. ZON2014-00229 My family lives in RHE at 3 Silver Spring Drive. Our house and backyard swimming pool are on top of the slope bordering the applicants property. We would be adversely affected by excavation at the base of the slope in the canyon. It appears from the plans that some sort of lake, vineyards and road is being proposed at the bottom of our slope. Currently some natural vegetation and large trees are anchoring the bottom of our slope. We have already experienced a 2 inch settlement on the canyon side evident on the rim of our pool. Excavation in the canyon would very likely further affect our pool and house because the house is only 3 feet away from the pool. There must have been a pretty good reason why the county asked for a prohibition of access easement on the subject property APN 7576-026-028 back in 1961. We have about 30 neighbors up in arms about this on Willow Wood, Elkmont, and Silver Spring. I don't know how you could possibly lift the prohibition of access easement and affect all these people in both RHE and RPV. I would think the City would be opening itself up to serious legal challenges from these numerous neighbors that have attorneys organizing the defense of our neighborhood. Please your staff and councilmen to vote NO on lifting the prohibition of access easement. Thank you. Olivier Enders D-126 Amy Seeraty From: Strumpf <strumpf@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 12:51 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: Elkmont Canyon Letter.pdf Elkmont Canyon attachment is included. D-127 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. r Signature: Name: Address: �.-` ;/ v 1M1 L � "_ ��.�,, wv� �. 1/ • i' Phone Number:{' Email: "S< D-128 Amy Seeraty From: Steven Center <stevencenterl@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 11:17 PM To: Amy Seeraty; jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov; gregoryschill@gmail.com; slarking@gmail.com; merinlmd@gmail.com; Leslie Center Subject: APN 7576-026-028 Elkmont Canyon/// Lionel Perera Steven Center 37 Silver Spring Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 July 7, 2016 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Ranch Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Via email and FAX I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates. I own and reside in the home at 37 Silver Spring Drive in the Rollingwood subdivision. I am very concerned about the proposed reversal of the prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. My opposition is based on several important factors including fire danger, flood and water management danger, lack of city council procedure, geologic concerns due to the nature of the hills surrounding the canyon, ecological and wildlife concerns, not to mention the proposed project is completely out of character of this community. When I purchased my home in 1989, the Elkmont Canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would NEVER be developed. The serene and open peaceful space was a major component influencing the decision to purchase our home and remains a large part of the appeal of our property and the neighborhood in general. A road in the canyon would being noise, traffic, the risk of slope instability and fire concerns This prohibition is a matter of public record and the prior and current owners of this property are fully aware of this fact, as it has been in place since 1961. It is only out of some sinister motive or pure selfishness that they would attempt to develop the property when they full well know of the prohibition. The city of RPV knows better as well. It is the City's responsibility to protect their citizens and mitigate the risk of any potential conflict in this area. Furthermore, the residents of Rollingwood have formed an association in order to obtain legal representation in order to insure the Access to Elkmont Canyon remains Prohibited, as the restriction has been in place for over half a half a century. I respectfully ask that the council deny this request entirely, without any further consideration or modification. Steven Center D-129 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Dahl <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:36 AM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Gabriella Yap; Ara Mihranian; mpina@acwm.lacounty.gov Subject: Re: Update on clearance Hello, Amy, I just tried to call you and Ara on a three-way call with Ms. Pina who was on your email. I had called her for clarification about the aerial map that you sent me. We had a discussion about the directive. Mr. Perera was never to take out live trees. They were only supposed to be thinned and there is a direction that is given to people about that. They were supposed to take out brush only. In looking at the map. Our property will be severely denigrating if he is to continue on his incorrect path. If we have Drybrush behind our house it's because they chopped down the Bougainvillea when his people were doing a survey which caused it to die back and it has only just started to come back three years later. He is not to be removing any live trees! Only brush. When thinning out the directive is to remove dead material any overgrown vegetation and other fire hazards like overgrown dead vegetation. It should only be thinned to 50 percent of its original density if it is live. I explained to Ms. Pina her aerial photo does not show the precariousness of our hillsides and removing trees will cause us to have problems once rains come. She again made it very clear the trees were not ordered to come down to their stumps! She said that she would be happy to meet Mr. Perara at the property. I implore you to please not issue any more encroachment permits until this matter is solved. The city has never taken out trees before and they would not ask to take it unless it was dead. Clearance requirements are stated in annual notice. Mr. Perara was never told specifically that he need to take out trees. They were only to remove low hanging branches. They would discourage him from removing trees due to erosion, etc. Merin Dahlerbruch Sent from my iPad > On Jul 11, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: > Hi Merin- > Ara asked me to send you the email and order from Miriam Pina at the L.A. County Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights & Measures regarding the specific foliage they required Mr. Perera to remove. Thank you. > Sincerely, > Amy Seeraty > Associate 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Merin Dahlerbruch [mailto:merinlmd@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:41 AM > To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> > Cc: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov> D-130 > Subject: Update on clearance > Hello, Ara: > Per your directive, I contacted the county to inquire about a notice that Perara told you he had received. I was transferred around a bit and finally got to the right department. I spoke with Mr. Mariano. 626-969-2375. He told me that the individual stations handle sending out the notices. He said that they don't usually include live trees and it is just usually for weed abatement. Again, they don't site for live trees. He told me that the station that handles our area is Fire Station 106 at Indian Peak Road. 310-377-9523. 1 believe you were under the impression from Mr. Perera that he got a notice from the county. > I called our local station 106 and spoke with Deputy Kyle Anderson. He told me that they do not specify specific trees that would need to come out. He said that Perara may have gotten a notice for some things but they also don't usually site for live trees. The Captain is not there right now but I left my phone number and am waiting for a phone call. > Ara, our slopesides are very slippery. Those trees hold up our hillsides. They have been in the canyon for over 40 years in the canyon that has been protected. They had never had to be removed before. Our wildlife has been disturbed and our slope sides will be affected! He took out trees on property that he doesn't own that have land lines that are up for question. Just because a fence is on a person's property, that doesn't mean that is the edge. Most fences such as ours are all put on the flat areas and we still own slope. He is denigrating the canyon! Until the prohibition of access is lifted, he should not be granted access again! > We are begging you to please help us. The city should not be granting him an encroachment permit until we see those diagrams (if they even exist) and until the access easements have been removed. > Please help! > Merin Dahlerbruch > 310-872-8487 > <LA County Brush Clearance Email, Map & Cost Estimate.pdf> D-131 Amy Seeraty From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 11, 2016 rekslk@aol.com Monday, July 11, 2016 12:10 PM Amy Seeraty jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Proposed Development of Elkmont Canyon Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: We are residents of Rolling Hills Estates and are very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns we oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time we purchased our home, Elkmont Canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. Loss of this natural refuge for wildlife is also of concern. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns, along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact our quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Sincerely, Ray and Kirsti Kela 28 Silver Spring Dr., Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 378-3810 Rekslk@aol.com D-132 Amy Seeraty From: Lasu Kela <lasu2l@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:21 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov Subject: Proposed Development of Elkmont Canyon Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 11, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. Since the time my family has purchased our home, Elkmont Canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space and rural character of the area was a major component of the purchase of our family home, and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. Loss of habitat for wildlife would also be detrimental to our local ecosystem, which is part of the rural character of the area. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact our quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Sincerely, Susanna Kela 28 Silver Spring Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 378-3810 Lasu21@hotmail.com D-133 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Dahl <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:54 PM To: mpina@acwm.lacounty.gov Cc: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian; Gabriella Yap Subject: Thank you and meeting Hello, Ms. Pina: Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today on the telephone. I appreciate you explaining to me about what was asked of Mr. Perara in regards to Elkmont Canyon. Looking at the aerial map, property lines are questionable. I have been extremely afraid to leave my house as Perara has been removing lots of live trees and with our property lines in question, we are afraid all of our back foliage will be wrongly removed. As you are aware, the ground is not stable and we are additionally concerned about slippage of our slope when the rains come if additional foliage is removed. I think I will sleep better tonight knowing that Perara was only told to take out dead brush and thin trees and never given the directive to remove trees down to stumps. And a few weeks ago as far as your office was concerned, he did not need to continue with additional clearance. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me after taking a look at the canyon on your own. Informing me of what is considered dangerous will be a tremendous help. I am hoping that the city will take note of this desecration to our properties, the hillsides, the canyon, and consider all of the animals that have been displaced. Mr Perara has conducted the removal for no reason but to clear the canyon for possible development... none of which has been approved due to the Prohibition of Access Easement that has been in place since 1961. Thank you again for taking time out of your day to give us the facts so that we and the City of RPV can be better informed. I look forward to meeting you in person. Sincerely, Merin Dahlerbruch 310-872-8487 D-134 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:41 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Amy Seeraty; Gabriella Yap Subject: Update on clearance Hello, Ara Per your directive, I contacted the county to inquire about a notice that Perara told you he had received. I was transferred around a bit and finally got to the right department. I spoke with Mr. Mariano. 626-969-2375. He told me that the individual stations handle sending out the notices. He said that they don't usually include live trees and it is just usually for weed abatement. Again, they don't site for live trees. He told me that the station that handles our area is Fire Station 106 at Indian Peak Road. 310-377-9523. 1 believe you were under the impression from Mr. Perera that he got a notice from the county. I called our local station 106 and spoke with Deputy Kyle Anderson. He told me that they do not specify specific trees that would need to come out. He said that Perara may have gotten a notice for some things but they also don't usually site for live trees. The Captain is not there right now but I left my phone number and am waiting for a phone call. Ara, our slopesides are very slippery. Those trees hold up our hillsides. They have been in the canyon for over 40 years in the canyon that has been protected. They had never had to be removed before. Our wildlife has been disturbed and our slope sides will be affected! He took out trees on property that he doesn't own that have land lines that are up for question. Just because a fence is on a person's property, that doesn't mean that is the edge. Most fences such as ours are all put on the flat areas and we still own slope. He is denigrating the canyon! Until the prohibition of access is lifted, he should not be granted access again! We are begging you to please help us. The city should not be granting him an encroachment permit until we see those diagrams (if they even exist) and until the access easements have been removed. Please help! Merin Dahlerbruch 310-872-8487 D-135 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:29 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy, My name is Andrew Rein and I live in RHE right on the edge of Elkmont canyon, Please be advised that I am told by my neighbors that trees are still being cut down in the canyon today (Monday) as I write this, As you know, this has been a point of contention this weekend, and although the applicant continues to tell everyone he's done clearing brush, every day they start up again. Please be advised that as a long time resident of the canyon, I have dealt with the fire department about this canyon for many years and this tree cutting is far beyond the scope of what the fire dept. would require, I must ask you at this time that you scan and email to me the brush clearance map, from the fire dept. that was used to pull the permit, as the brush cutting/tree cutting is clearly out of scope. As you know, there is no access, building permit or grading permit for this canyon and this tree cutting that goes on is damaging the natural environment and must end. regards, Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Gregory Schill <gschill@theadvisorygrp.com> Cc: 'David C. Wahba' <davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com>; slarking <slarking@gmail.com>; Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:14 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg - We have determined that the meeting has been continued to the August 16th City Council meeting. I will be sending out an email shortly to all interested parties. However, there are a few people for whom I don't have a phone number or email. I'll contact them via mail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 D-136 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<ieannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com>; slarking@gmail.com; Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Amy, We also need to know the status of the July 191" meeting. You stated Friday that Mr. Perera emailed and wants to delay to a later date. We need an answer please. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvgrp.com theadvisorygroupl Not just advice_ Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:46 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg I have followed up with Public Works and they are sending a Public Works inspector out to the property to stop the work and advise the workers they need an updated Encroachment permit if they wish to continue the work. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. D-137 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amus rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:32 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<ieannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Please be advised that Mr. Perera has workers in the canyon again this morning cutting down large trees that are not fire hazards! Does he have a new permit or do you need to shut him down? This man is in the process of destroying all the habitat! Gregory Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 -voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(a)theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvgrp.com theadvi orygrO P Not just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word 'remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:10 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg - Thank you for your email. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 D-138 www.rpvca.gov amysi@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@ roll inghillsestatesca.gov>;'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<ieannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill((Dtheadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvari).com thcadvisorygro Up Not just a& ice.Atteniten. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-139 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:47 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy/Ara, Can you tell me why the Elkmont canyon project is going before the city council before the application for the project has been submitted ? Also the resolution 90-93 has a long list of steps and commissions the applicant must deal with before the application to vacate the prohibition on easements will be considered, and yet all those steps appear to be skipped, please explain, thanks, Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:31 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Thank you Andrew. Please note that the Public Works inspector is on his way to the property now to tell them to stop the work, as the encroachment permit they had to access the property was only for Friday and Saturday. The inspector will also tell them that they need to obtain a new encroachment permit to allow them to access the property. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys6d�rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:29 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy, My name is Andrew Rein and I live in RHE right on the edge of Elkmont canyon, Please be advised that I am told by my neighbors that trees are still being cut down in the canyon today (Monday) as I write this, D-140 As you know, this has been a point of contention this weekend, and although the applicant continues to tell everyone he's done clearing brush, every day they start up again. Please be advised that as a long time resident of the canyon, I have dealt with the fire department about this canyon for many years and this tree cutting is far beyond the scope of what the fire dept. would require, I must ask you at this time that you scan and email to me the brush clearance map, from the fire dept. that was used to pull the permit, as the brush cutting/tree cutting is clearly out of scope. As you know, there is no access, building permit or grading permit for this canyon and this tree cutting that goes on is damaging the natural environment and must end. regards, Andrew Rein andy2175m4(a)verizon. net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmvS�Drpvca.gov> To: Gregory Schill <_scg hi11gtheadvisorygrp.com> Cc: 'David C. Wahba' <davidwkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeanniengrollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Carol Ann Glover' <carol g sbblmb. com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ(c�r�,rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM krpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC( Epvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowski(kgmail.com>; slarking <slarkin gmail.com>; Andrew Rein <andy2175 m4kverizon.net> Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:14 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg - We have determined that the meeting has been continued to the August 16th City Council meeting. I will be sending out an email shortly to all interested parties. However, there are a few people for whom I don't have a phone number or email. I'll contact them via mail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cb-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba' <davidw(cr�,rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannien(a�rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carolksbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJgrpvca.gov>; Ara Mihraman <AraM(cr�,rpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaCgrpvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowskikgmail.com>; slarkingkgmail.com; Andrew Rein <andy2175m4kverizon.net> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 D-141 Amy, We also need to know the status of the July 19th meeting. You stated Friday that Mr. Perera emailed and wants to delay to a later date. We need an answer please. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(a theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvqrp.com theadvisorygro p Not just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word 'remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS a)rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:46 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP; 'Carol Ann Glover; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg I have followed up with Public Works and they are sending a Public Works inspector out to the property to stop the work and advise the workers they need an updated Encroachment permit if they wish to continue the work. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:32 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraMkrpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwnrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' D-142 <jeannien e,rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carolcksbblmb.com> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Importance: High Amy, Please be advised that Mr. Perera has workers in the canyon again this morning cutting down large trees that are not fire hazards! Does he have a new permit or do you need to shut him down? This man is in the process of destroying all the habitat! Gregory Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(aMheadvisorvgrp.com web: www.theadvisoryarp.com the adv1sorygro uNot just advice. Attention_ Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmySPrpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:10 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg - Thank you for your email. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM D-143 To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkEpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwnrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <ieannien(a)rollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Carol Ann Glover' <carol 0) sbblmb. com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP® The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(@theadvisoryprp.com web: www.theadvisorvari).com the a dvi ory roup Not just adrice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-144 Amy Seeraty From: Gregory Schill <gschill@theadvisorygrp.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:04 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 What tree codes do you have? Are some of these trees protected from being cut down? Do you have his county notice on brush clearance yet? You need to know what he is allowed to do versus what he is actually cutting down. Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 -voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: aschill(cDtheadvisorvarp.com web: www.theadvisorygrp.com theadviso ygroUp Not just advice. Attention. . Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:46 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg - I have followed up with Public Works and they are sending a Public Works inspector out to the property to stop the work and advise the workers they need an updated Encroachment permit if they wish to continue the work. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a-)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 D-145 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:32 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<jeannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Please be advised that Mr. Perera has workers in the canyon again this morning cutting down large trees that are not fire hazards! Does he have a new permit or do you need to shut him down? This man is in the process of destroying all the habitat! Gregory Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvari).com thea dvisory g rou Not just advice. At tion. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:10 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg - Thank you for your email. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amus rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 D-146 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@ roll ingh i llsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<ieannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <caroll@sbblmb.com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 -voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvari).com tho a dvi orygr Up Not just a rice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-147 Amy Seeraty From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:14 AM To: 'Gregory Schill' Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco; 'Kathleen Markowski'; slarking@gmail.com; Andrew Rein Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg We have determined that the meeting has been continued to the August 161h City Council meeting. I will be sending out an email shortly to all interested parties. However, there are a few people for whom I don't have a phone number or email. I'll contact them via mail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill [mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<jeannien@rollinghiIIsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC@rpvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com>; slarking@gmail.com; Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Amy, We also need to know the status of the July 19th meeting. You stated Friday that Mr. Perera emailed and wants to delay to a later date. We need an answer please. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: aschill(@theadvisorvaro.com web: www.theadvisorygrp.com theadvisory ri up, Not just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:46 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg - I have followed up with Public Works and they are sending a Public Works inspector out to the property to stop the work and advise the workers they need an updated Encroachment permit if they wish to continue the work. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysC@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:32 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<ieannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol@sbblmb.com> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Please be advised that Mr. Perera has workers in the canyon again this morning cutting down large trees that are not fire hazards! Does he have a new permit or do you need to shut him down? This man is in the process of destroying all the habitat! Gregory Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free D-149 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvqrp.com theadvisory roup Not just advice- Attention.. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS a rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:10 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Greg - Thank you for your email. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(aDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw@ roll ingh i llsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'<ieannien@rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol(@sbblmb.com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 -voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free D-150 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorygri).com the a dviso ygrOUP Not just adrice. Attenfion. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-151 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:03 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: Gabriella Yap Subject: Visit with la county agricultural commissioner Hello, After calling the LA County agricultural Commissioner and in follow-up to the conversation Amy and I had with Miriam Pina, agricultural deputy, I was surprised that Miriam got in the car with another deputy (Vincent) and drove out to inspect the canyon. They had walked the canyon and then called me on the telephone to meet me. They came to my home to look at my backyard and I also invited Kathleen Markowski from across the hill to come over. The deputies were quite shocked with the destruction of the trees. Perera was not informed to take them out. He was only told to trim them and do weed abatement with directions on how to do that. They had also given him clearance that he did not have to do anything else this year. They seem to be quite shocked that he would have requested to go back in the canyon and remove foliage when that was not the directive he told them. I find it perplexing that was the reason he gave to the city to get an encroachment permit! By coming out to see the canyon, they clearly understood that our hillsides are not stable. They agreed that removing foliage will certainly cause an erosion problem when the rains come and is important for land stability as well as all of the animals that relied upon those trees. (It has been two days now and we don't hear owls anymore and see fewer hawks). I walked them next-door to my neighbor, Darlene Davison so they could see into the canyon. They did not believe that there were any fire hazards that could be viewed from that vantage point. We walked down the street to Beverly Teresinski and Nahid Mazhin, two other neighbors who had trees removed from behind their homes. They were surprised at how close the trees were to the property and understood how we were questioning the property lines based on where fences were. Their reference photo with lines is not exact. Amy, I would like to add this to the record for the upcoming council meeting as another reason why the prohibition of access should Not be removed. The council members should be aware that Perara was not upfront and honest with the city in regards to pulling out the foliage when he requested an encroachment permit. It should be clear that he was simply trying to clear the canyon. Had I not made the phone call and done the research with the county, his destruction could have continued to become more of a problem with movement of our hillsides. The prohibition of access easement is there for a reason and cars should not be driving there nor people climbing along slopes which slide underneath their footing or destroying our plants and natural habitats. Also, please note: when speaking with Ms. Pina and her partner, Vincent, they said they would be willing to state that Mr. Perrara had been notified that he did not need to continue with abatement at all this season and you can certainly contact them for additional information. Thank you, Merin Dahlerbruch D-152 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:03 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: Gabriella Yap Subject: Visit with la county agricultural commissioner Hello, After calling the LA County agricultural Commissioner and in follow-up to the conversation Amy and I had with Miriam Pina, agricultural deputy, I was surprised that Miriam got in the car with another deputy (Vincent) and drove out to inspect the canyon. They had walked the canyon and then called me on the telephone to meet me. They came to my home to look at my backyard and I also invited Kathleen Markowski from across the hill to come over. The deputies were quite shocked with the destruction of the trees. Perera was not informed to take them out. He was only told to trim them and do weed abatement with directions on how to do that. They had also given him clearance that he did not have to do anything else this year. They seem to be quite shocked that he would have requested to go back in the canyon and remove foliage when that was not the directive he told them. I find it perplexing that was the reason he gave to the city to get an encroachment permit! By coming out to see the canyon, they clearly understood that our hillsides are not stable. They agreed that removing foliage will certainly cause an erosion problem when the rains come and is important for land stability as well as all of the animals that relied upon those trees. (It has been two days now and we don't hear owls anymore and see fewer hawks). I walked them next-door to my neighbor, Darlene Davison so they could see into the canyon. They did not believe that there were any fire hazards that could be viewed from that vantage point. We walked down the street to Beverly Teresinski and Nahid Mazhin, two other neighbors who had trees removed from behind their homes. They were surprised at how close the trees were to the property and understood how we were questioning the property lines based on where fences were. Their reference photo with lines is not exact. Amy, I would like to add this to the record for the upcoming council meeting as another reason why the prohibition of access should Not be removed. The council members should be aware that Perara was not upfront and honest with the city in regards to pulling out the foliage when he requested an encroachment permit. It should be clear that he was simply trying to clear the canyon. Had I not made the phone call and done the research with the county, his destruction could have continued to become more of a problem with movement of our hillsides. The prohibition of access easement is there for a reason and cars should not be driving there nor people climbing along slopes which slide underneath their footing or destroying our plants and natural habitats. Also, please note: when speaking with Ms. Pina and her partner, Vincent, they said they would be willing to state that Mr. Perrara had been notified that he did not need to continue with abatement at all this season and you can certainly contact them for additional information. Thank you, Merin Dahlerbruch D-153 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:20 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; Ara Mihranian; So Kim;jeannien@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us; Amy Seeraty Subject: Meeting? Hello Ara, When we spoke on the telephone and you told me that the meeting was to be postponed, you said that we could also speak. Does this item remain on the agenda where it was? Will we be speaking when you get to the agenda item that was scheduled or will we be speaking in the public section? We will likely be away for the August meeting. I would like our letter to go into counsel for this meeting so they can be familiar and it can be addressed. Is that possible? Thank you, Merin Dahlerbruch Sent from Merin's iPhone. Please excuse typos and brevity. On Jul 11, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Interested Parties: As you are aware, the Elkmont Canyon easement matter was scheduled for the July 19, 2016 City Council Meeting. The property owner/applicant informed Staff that he will not be available for the July 19th meeting and thus requested that this meeting be continued to a future date. Based on the applicant's request, Staff will be recommending that the Council continues the matter to the August 16th City Council meeting. However, you may still choose to attend and speak at the July 19th meeting. Please note that your submitted comments will be attached to the Staff Report for the August 16th meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 D-154 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:00 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Fwd: Meeting? Hi Amy In the future please cc me on any emails you send out related to the Elkmont canyon, thanks Andrew Rein 11 Silver Spring Dr. RHE, CA 90274 3120-909-9093 On Jul 11, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Interested Parties: As you are aware, the Elkmont Canyon easement matter was scheduled for the July 19, 2016 City Council Meeting. The property owner/applicant informed Staff that he will not be available for the July 19th meeting and thus requested that this meeting be continued to a future date. Based on the applicant's request, Staff will be recommending that the Council continues the matter to the August 16th City Council meeting. However, you may still choose to attend and speak at the July 19th meeting. Please note that your submitted comments will be attached to the Staff Report for the August 16th meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www. rpvca. qov amys(@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 D-155 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:53 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy did the applicant get any signatures from the neighbors ? Did the planning director decide if/who is affected ? thanks, Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2016 9:24 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hello Andrew - Thank you for your email. This City Council meeting is the step detailed in Section 2 which states that Staff will review the application and present it at the City Council, which will decide if the request is to be pursued. If the Council approves the request, the project would then be presented to the Planning Commission, who would then make a recommendation which would be brought back to the City Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:47 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy/Ara, Can you tell me why the Elkmont canyon project is going before the city council before the application for the project has been submitted ? Also the resolution 90-93 has a long list of steps and commissions the applicant must deal with before the application to vacate the prohibition on easements will be considered, and yet all those steps appear to be skipped, please explain, D-156 thanks, Andrew Rein andy2175m4na.verizon. net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(@_rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4(d_)verizon.net> Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJ(cDrpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM(aD_rpvca.gov> Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:31 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Thank you Andrew. Please note that the Public Works inspector is on his way to the property now to tell them to stop the work, as the encroachment permit they had to access the property was only for Friday and Saturday. The inspector will also tell them that they need to obtain a new encroachment permit to allow them to access the property. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a-)rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:29 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy, My name is Andrew Rein and I live in RHE right on the edge of Elkmont canyon, Please be advised that I am told by my neighbors that trees are still being cut down in the canyon today (Monday) as I write this, As you know, this has been a point of contention this weekend, and although the applicant continues to tell everyone he's done clearing brush, every day they start up again. Please be advised that as a long time resident of the canyon, I have dealt with the fire department about this canyon for many years and this tree cutting is far beyond the scope of what the fire dept. would require, I must ask you at this time that you scan and email to me the brush clearance map, from the fire dept. that was used to pull the permit, as the brush cutting/tree cutting is clearly out of scope. As you know, there is no access, building permit or grading permit for this canyon and this tree cutting that goes on is damaging the natural environment and must end. regards, Andrew Rein andy2175m4(a_.verizon. net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(@rpvca.gov> D-157 To: Gregory Schill < sg chillka theadvisoryg_rp.com> Cc: 'David C. Wahba' <davidwkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <ieannien(krollinghillsestatesca.gov>;'Carol Ann Glover' <carolka sbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ(krpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM(krpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaCkE12vca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowski chi gmail.com>; slarking <slarking(kgmail.com>; Andrew Rein <andy2175 m4(c�r�,verizon.net> Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:14 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg We have determined that the meeting has been continued to the August 16th City Council meeting. I will be sending out an email shortly to all interested parties. However, there are a few people for whom I don't have a phone number or email. I'll contact them via mail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba' <davidwgrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannienkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carolksbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJgrpvca.gov>; Ara Mihraman <AraMgrpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaCgrpvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski' <kathleen.markowskikgmail.com>; slarkingkgmail.com; Andrew Rein <andy2175m4kverizon.net> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Amy, We also need to know the status of the July 191h meeting. You stated Friday that Mr. Perera emailed and wants to delay to a later date. We need an answer please. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP® The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: oschill(d)theadvisorvarp.com web: www.theadvisorVgrp.com D-158 theadvi ory ri up, Not just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word 'remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS(aPrpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:46 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg I have followed up with Public Works and they are sending a Public Works inspector out to the property to stop the work and advise the workers they need an updated Encroachment permit if they wish to continue the work. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCa)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:32 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(?rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraMgrpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannienkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <caro1gsbblmb.com> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Importance: High Amy, Please be advised that Mr. Perera has workers in the canyon again this morning cutting down large trees that are not fire hazards! Does he have a new permit or do you need to shut him down? This man is in the process of destroying all the habitat! Gregory Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 D-159 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(a)theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorygrp.com thoadviis ry roup Not just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:10 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg - Thank you for your email. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a?rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidw(c�r�,rollinghillsestatesca.g>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeanniennrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol(? sbblmb. com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg D-160 Gregory Schill, CFP® The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 -voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(i.theadvisorvgrp.com web: www.theadvisorvgrr).com #headvisorygroup Not just aadvice_AMmition- Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-161 Amy Seeraty From: Stephanie <ocbreed@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:54 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Protest Development of Elkmont Canyon Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, As property owners in Rancho Palos Verdes, it is extremely concerning to hear about the proposed development and reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. We oppose any and all types of access to Elkmont Canyon for real estate value preservation and for concerns regarding safety, noise disturbance, and environmental risks caused by the development. When our home was purchased, Elkmont Canyon had a Prohibition of Access, which assured us that the natural beauty of the area would not be disturbed. The land formation and serene, wide, open space makes our neighborhood unique. Palos Verdes is desired and much loved because it is not overrun with homes on every inch of real estate like other surrounding cities or even Orange County. Aesthetically, the proposed estate (equal in size to thirteen combined lots on Elkmont) does not fit in with the existing ranch -style homes and would be uncharacteristic of the surrounding area. Furthermore, a road into Elkmont Canyon would ruin the ambiance of the area. Since our backyard faces Hawthorne Blvd, we already suffer from the by-products that increased traffic has brought over the years since the 1960s, specifically, increased noise level and pollution which is already unappealing. We believe the impact of access into the canyon would cause further noise disturbance, traffic congestion/accidents, slope instability, and fire concerns that would threaten our home and quality of life. I request that the city not grant approval to reverse the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon. It would negatively affect my property value and quality of life as well as the other neighbors bordering this proposed estate. Please protect our interests as well as those of other neighbors living on Elkmont and Silver Spring. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our point of view. Regards, Stephanie Breed and Kara Waggoner 26689 Whitehorn Drive Rancho Palos Verdes D-162 Amy Seeraty From: Steve Fafard <sfafard@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:11 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Via Amy Serraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 6, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the known soil issues, fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road and home in the canyon would bring serious slope instability, fire, noise and traffic concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Name: Steven E. Fafard Address: 22 ROLLINGWOOD DR, ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 Phone Number: 310-373-1724 Email: sfafard@cox.net D-163 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:07 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy Do you have any geotechnical reports or soils reports for Elkmont canyon ? Do you know what reference materials were used when the re -zoning of Elkmont canyon as Hazardous Area was discussed ? thanks Andy Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wed, Jul 13, 2016 6:14 pm Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Andrew - I believe you are referring to the text within the CC Resolution 90-93 which states, "Signatures of at least 50% of the directly affected property owners, as determined by the Director of Public Works." As the Elkmont Canyon is the only property which is asking for the prohibition of access easement to be vacated, I believe that Mr. Perera is the only directly affected property owner, and we have his signature, thus meeting this requirement. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:53 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Hi Amy did the applicant get any signatures from the neighbors ? D-164 Did the planning director decide if/who is affected ? thanks, Andrew Rein andy2175mQ(c verizon. net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <Amy�rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4kverizon.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraMkp2vca.gov> Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2016 9:24 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req 00229 Hello Andrew - to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014 - Thank you for your email. This City Council meeting is the step detailed in Section 2 which states that Staff will review the application and present it at the City Council, which will decide if the request is to be pursued. If the Council approves the request, the project would then be presented to the Planning Commission, who would then make a recommendation which would be brought back to the City Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate 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 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:47 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hi Amy/Ara, Can you tell me why the Elkmont canyon project is going before the city council before the application for the project has been submitted ? Also the resolution 90-93 has a long list of steps and commissions the applicant must deal with before the application to vacate the prohibition on easements will be considered, and yet all those steps appear to be skipped, please explain, thanks, Andrew Rein andy2175m4(cDverizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(@D_rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4kverizon.net> Cc: Nicole Jules <NicoleJgKpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM(a,rpvca.gov> D-165 Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:31 am Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Thank you Andrew. Please note that the Public Works inspector is on his way to the property now to tell them to stop the work, as the encroachment permit they had to access the property was only for Friday and Saturday. The inspector will also tell them that they need to obtain a new encroachment permit to allow them to access the property. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:29 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkEpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraMkKpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hi Amy, My name is Andrew Rein and I live in RHE right on the edge of Elkmont canyon, Please be advised that I am told by my neighbors that trees are still being cut down in the canyon today (Monday) as I write this, As you know, this has been a point of contention this weekend, and although the applicant continues to tell everyone he's done clearing brush, every day they start up again. Please be advised that as a long time resident of the canyon, I have dealt with the fire department about this canyon for many years and this tree cutting is far beyond the scope of what the fire dept. would require, I must ask you at this time that you scan and email to me the brush clearance map, from the fire dept. that was used to pull the permit, as the brush cutting/tree cutting is clearly out of scope. As you know, there is no access, building permit or grading permit for this canyon and this tree cutting that goes on is damaging the natural environment and must end. regards, Andrew Rein andy2175m4(cDverizon. net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a_rpvca.gov> To: Gregory Schill < sg chill cr,theadvisoryg_rp.com> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannien cr,rollinghillsestatesca.og_v>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carolksbblmb.com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJ(krpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM(krpvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaCkrpvca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski'<kathleen.markowski(kgmail.com>; slarking <slarking(r gmail.com>; Andrew Rein <andy2175 m4gverizon.net> Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 10:14 am 3 D-166 Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg We have determined that the meeting has been continued to the August 16th City Council meeting. I will be sending out an email shortly to all interested parties. However, there are a few people for whom I don't have a phone number or email. I'll contact them via mail. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:14 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySka rpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannienkrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol ksbblmb. com>; Nicole Jules <NicoleJkrpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraMk1pvca.gov>; Nadia Carrasco <NadiaC( ]]2vca.gov>; 'Kathleen Markowski'<kathleen.markowski(kgmail.com>; slarking( gmail.com; Andrew Rein <andy2175m4 ckr,verizon.net> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Amy, We also need to know the status of the July 19th meeting. You stated Friday that Mr. Perera emailed and wants to delay to a later date. We need an answer please. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschiIIC@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorygri).com the advi s o rygroupi Mt just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender D-167 immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word 'remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS(a)rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:46 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover'; Nicole Jules; Ara Mihranian; Nadia Carrasco Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg - I have followed up with Public Works and they are sending a Public Works inspector out to the property to stop the work and advise the workers they need an updated Encroachment permit if they wish to continue the work. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcbrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:32 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmySkp2vca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraMkEpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwkrollinghillsestatesca.g_o_v>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <'eannien e,rollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol k sbblmb.com> Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Importance: High Amy, Please be advised that Mr. Perera has workers in the canyon again this morning cutting down large trees that are not fire hazards! Does he have a new permit or do you need to shut him down? This man is in the process of destroying all the habitat! Gregory Schill 5250 Willow Wood Road Rolling Hills Estates Gregory Schill, CFP@ The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(@theadvisorygrp.com web: www.theadvisorvgrp.com theadvisorygroUp Not just advice. Attention. Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word 'remove" in the subject line. From: Amy Seeraty [mailto:AmyS(a)rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:10 AM To: Gregory Schill Cc: 'David C. Wahba'; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP'; 'Carol Ann Glover' Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014- 00229 Hello Greg - Thank you for your email. Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Gregory Schill[mailto:gschill@theadvisorygrp.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:49 AM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(krpvca.gov> Cc: 'David C. Wahba'<davidwnrollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Jeannie Naughton, AICP' <jeannien(krollinghillsestatesca.gov>; 'Carol Ann Glover' <carol (ksbblmb. com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon -A Initiation Req. to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement -Case No. ZON 2014-00229 Importance: High Amy, Attached is my objection letter to the initiation request to vacate a prohibition of access easement listed on the Tract Map (Case No. ZON 2014-00229). Please confirm via email today that you have received my letter and it is legible. Thank you, G reg Gregory Schill, CFP® The Advisory Group 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 785 Torrance, CA 90503 310.536.7111 - voice 310-245-7130 - cell 800.782.3617 - toll free 310.536.7113 - facsimile email: gschill(@theadvisorvgrp.com web: www.theadvisorvqrp.com D-169 theadvisory rou Not just advice—Attenftn_ Securities and investment advisory services offered through FSC Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC, and a Registered Investment Advisor. Additional investment advisory services are offered through The Advisory Group, a Registered Investment Advisor. The Advisory Group is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. This message and any attachments contain information which may be confidential and/or privileged and is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named on this transaction. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message. If you do not wish to receive marketing e-mails from this sender, please reply to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. D-170 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED JUL 13 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. 4/1 Signature: Name: bW1qy/V14c, Address: 'V111,—',P5���� Phone Number: Email: D-171 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:34 PM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: PDF Signed Elkmont Canyon Dahlerbruch letter.pdf, Final PDF Elkmont pictures.pdf, Foliage removal .rtf, canyon easements.pdf, ATT00001.txt Hello, Council: It is our understanding that the Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement on tonight's agenda will be continued to the next meeting. However, we were told that we are able to speak since it was already calendared and we will likely be away in August for the next meeting. We look forward to seeing you tonight and hope that you will have an opportunity to review the attached documents. Thank you, Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch D-172 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-872-8487 merinlmd .pmail,com Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV, CA 90275-5391 July 8, 2016 RE: Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: We have lived in our home since August 1996. When we purchased our home, we were informed that we owned our property down almost to the bottom of the canyon. We had no reason for concern about development because there was no access allowed in as explained on the city tract maps. The person two doors down from us owned all the way across the canyon and our neighbor next door owned all the way across as well. To give a little additional history: In July 2005, we were given a paper at our doorstep and I believe also by Fedex months earlier where a person by the name of Yasin Shahzad, R. E. Broker (CA, DRE, Lic#01243299) was trying to sell us property that was behind our house. Along with that paper, I have uncovered a paper in my notes documenting that I called the city and spoke with Dave who stated "These lots are not legal lots at this point as far as the city understands but could change if someone provides evidence they were created_ The whole parcel was sold in March 2005 but (just) because someone sold it does not mean legal lots or illegal either. (They) can't build on storm drain easements." He further went on to state that the "way it would benefit me (would be that it) adds to my lot size because able to build more on pad and could build a larger house." (Single story.) About three years ago, the owner of Elkmont Canyon hired a survey company. They traipsed across my hillside and put up stakes on my property as well as the property next door (the one that clearly owns across the canyon) and marked all the way down the canyon. Just because they put up stakes does not mean they own what is marked{ They chopped down plants and it dislodged hillside on our property. We called the police and the city of RPV at that time. A few days later I went to the city and made sure that the city had proper records of our lot and property description based on our escrow papers. When I went to the city last week, those papers were still in our file, We formally oppose the "Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement" on Elkmont Canyon (Case No ZON2014-00229). This access should not be granted for many reasons - D -1 73 easons: D-173 • The recent Traffic Survey on file states that traffic hasn't increased up Hawthorne since the 2003.study. This is completely ludicrous. Community members have seen increased traffic over the years with additional home developments, Terranea, Trump International Golf Course, etc. Many owners have also observed an increase on Hawthorne of accidents and sirens. We need to see an updated traffic survey with current numbers reflecting accident rages, speed distribution, traffic statistics, etc. • Access would create a hazard for carsitrucks entering and leaving Hawthorne. As designed, it is a very busy street and entering traffic will cause additional accidents. Cars leaving from the canyon would be forced to drive up hill on Hawthorne BPvd. and there make a u -turn at Blackhorse to head back down towards Torrance and this would change traffic patterns and create a potential for additional accidents. • The easements for fire, water, sewage, etc. were placed in the Elkmont Canyon for a reason. They were explicit and intentional. Changing or eliminating them will compromise the integrity of the land and create danger to all of our properties. • When the developers of the surrounding subdivisions built homes, don't you think they would have built in the canyon if it was safe and allowable? • The prohibition of access was explicit and intentional. Allowing a road goes against the use of what was intended for protection of the canyon and homes bordering the canyon. • Elkmont Canyon is designated as a'Natural Hazard Zone" as noted on the site plans. • Any activity in Elkmont Canyon is noisy. Sound reverberates and echoes creating noise concerns and disruption of the habitat. • Any additional activity (including building equipment) in the canyon would disrupt the land and slopes. The soil is not compact, nor stable. • Adding ponds, vineyards, roads, homes, or doing any type of grading is very concerning considering, the instability of the soil on the slopes. ■ Landslides have been documented in both RHE and RPV city records on properties nearby and of similar topography. • There is a document from RHE in the Elkmont Canyon file that requests for RPV to notify the City of RHE because of its adjacent nature. The City of RHE does own property in the 500' radius. Why has the City of RHE not been kept abreast of developments over the past years as requested? In Why have residents not been kept informed over the last few months and years? • Vehicle activity in Elkmont Canyon will disrupt the ecological environment. There are hawks, owls, raccoons, possum, birds, lizards, butterflies, snakes, insects, etc. that live in the canyon. Are there endangered or protected species in the canyon that need to be considered? Elkmont Canyon is a natural fire hazard (as noted by the city clearing the area before the annual fire season). Placing a building in the canyon with foliage will increase the potential for fire and endanger the surrounding communities. D-174 • Removing additional foliage from the area will create landslides. • It is well documented that in 1961, access off Hawthorne Boulevard had been relinquished in conjunction with other plots of land creating efficient traffic patterns for the city. • Property Lines were designated when the developments were built ... and now somehow years later they have changed on city documents without consent of current homes owners. It is obvious that it was a 1962 or later illegal subdivision. • The proposed development is not in keeping with neighborhood compatibility. There are no buildings that come close to the size of the proposal in height or square footage. • The size and weight of trucks is restricted on Hawthorne Blvd for a reason. The heavy construction equipment required for a development the size of the proposal is alarming. With a proposal of a 4 -car garage along with a sizeable house with a guesthouse, the proposed road would have a considerable amount of travel. • Why is the community just now learning that new development discussions in Elkmont Canyon have been going on for 10 years? This same issue was dealt with years ago and was reconfirmed that there was not going to be any development in the canyon. • Why had issues been brought to city council for approval before the planning commission could get involved? • There are documented questions about compliance. Integrity of the city is in question. This land is not to be accessed from Hawthorne Boulevard and to have development. • Many ether properties were listed on the land maps with the prohibition of access easement. Granting access to the canyon property sets a precedence that would allow other property owners who are excluded to petition the city to have their prohibitions removed. • Access from Hawthorne into Elkmont Canyon was relinquished in 1961. All homes purchased since then were purchased knowing that nothing would be built in the back yards of homes that line the canyon, both in RPV and RHE. This created value for buying a home in that location. Therefore, if anything is built in the canyon, it would negatively affect the value of those homes, quality of life, and the comps for the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. • The current owner of Elkmont Canyon bought property knowing he/she didn't have access to Hawthorne by virtue of the written and recorded easements. There is no reason after all these years it should change. They shouldn't have bought the property if they were concerned about access. • Proposed development in Elkmont Canyon is not compatible with our neighborhoods. In years past, another home proposed a 2ndstory and it was denied to ensure compatibility of the neighborhood. At that time it was confirmed that a precedent should not be set. In addition, the size of the proposed home is not consistent with the dynamics of the neighborhood. • When the homes were built along the canyon, the ground was not reinforced. Dirt was literally pushed over the edge of the properties when they were leveled. Building now on the slopes, developing access roads, or even planting vineyards 3 D-175 will compromise the hillside and negatively affect the foundations of the homes surrounding. Multiple property owners along the Elkmont Drive side have voiced concern over their property lines. The Elkmont Canyon owner has staked property that many Elkmont Drive owners along the ridge believe they own. The surveyors took out plants that belonged to owners on the ridge. The survey is only as goad as the property is if it was legally obtained and registered. Their entire surrey is up for dispute. Open space. Isn't the city required to have enough open space? What type of precedence will this set for other canyon properties with similar easement restrictions in our city when their owners decide to request removal of prohibitions of access? Putting a fire trail in on either side will not work with the unstable hillsides. Many owners will attest to the fact that when they step on their hillsides, the ground collapses underneath them. The Elkmont Canyon owner must be aware of this because the surveyors were having a very difficult timing maintaining their footing and they caused much of the hillsides to collapse when they attempted their staking. Many of the hillside properties have runoff that drains directly into the canyon_ Property owners will need to continue to drain into the canyon. Having a mad, let alone a home, in a flood plain and disturbing the current flow of drainage is not sensible or safe. Property owners along the hillside should not have to incur taking of their resources such as financial, emotional, and time to fight this "request to vacate a prohibition of access easement" when this canyon has clearly been restricted from development based on deeds, prohibitions, easements, written and documented maps, etc. How was a conditional certificate ewer issued when the prohibition of access was clearly written? This Conditional Certificate should not be valid or legal. We are sending attachments that have pictures of our property in a separate document. With the potential impact to over 188 notified properties, legal challenges to the city of RPV that are certain to follow from many residents, ramification of setting a precedence when others petition for these types of removals, and serious concern of land instability and potential of fire and flood to bordering properties, this request to remove the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon must be denied.. Thank Yo rte- Erik a Merin Dahlerbruch 4 D-176 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com Pictures: Surveyors hacked up plants And hillside not stable and drains into canyon D-177 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com This article on the FEMA website, that discusses the dangers of building a home in a canyon and the increased risk of wildfires pertains to Elkmont Canyon. There is a very valid reason why the canyon is regularly rolled and kept clear to protect from fire in the bottom of the canyon. "- Canyons. A wildfire at the bottom of a vegetated canyon can lead to extremely hazardous conditions upslope. A canyon acts like a chimney, collecting hot gases and directing superheated convection and radiant heat upslope. Canyons funnel winds (see Figure 3) that can fan a fire and lead to extreme fire behavior (rapid spread of the wildfire and ignition of an entire area). An entire canyon can pre -heat from rising hot air and gases and explode in flames, creating a firestorm." Canyon view and back of our property to bottom tree. Taken from neighbor's house D-178 SCALE I" = 601 IN i SHEET RPORATED TE RRITORY -OF THE .COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AGE -13- OF 4 `SHEETS X512 UN I NCO BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT "H", PARTITION OF. THE RANCHO LOS PALOS VERDES, ALLOTTED TO JOTHAM BIXBY BENT E T AT R� -Jr OV,ii t BY DECREE OF PARTITION IN ACTION "BIXBY ET AL. VS. /z i9// " SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN CASE NE 2373 IN THE DISTRICT A L ' A �+ COURT OF THE 17TH. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF 114 BOOK CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ATPAGE or�, Er -cc, ENTERED IN BOOK 4 PAGE 57 OF JUDGEMENTS IN THE SUPER- «,A,.��,f ���;,�,CAUK IOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY, RECORDS OF L 0 S ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BY o� SURVEYED BY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION % I The bearing (N. 12°15'/4"E) of the Center Line of Si/ver Spur Road as shown on Map of Tract NY 21351 as recorded 1n Book 598 Pages 32 to 38 inriusive of Maps, Records of Los 4ngvles County was taken as The bosis of bearing shown on this map, ALL 211 IRON PIPES SHOWN HEREON AS SET ARE 611 BELOW SURFACE OF GROUND We hereby centify that we are the owners of or are interested In tho lands induded within the subdivision shown on this map within the colored border lines, and We consent to the P'8PWxdA7n and recondaion of said map and subdivision, and herby dedicale to the public use all the streets, high ways, and other public ways shown on said reap. and o/�� qq�oni to rhe County, of Los �Angs �S , T ale noted o Bald arV sewer, stdrm drain and diai/�ave P . P� mop and 711 uses inciderlr &ep eln , /nci�d/r'9 'She r/9hq to makE �onn�tia7s lhe'ewilh % any ad oin�hq p� ems' OP WE FURTHER, CERTIFY TF4AT, EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON 0MMtSSIONE THIS MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNi'y KNOW OF NO EASEMENT OR GT EX"T THE p j;3 N THE EASE - MENTS HEREBY OFFtRED FOR DEDICATION TO THE PUgUG,OTHER TaAN PU3uCL.y OWNED WAiEQ LINES 5EVvF25 O2 STORM DRAINS i TWAT We WILL GRANT NO RIGHT OR INTEREST WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF EXCEPT WHERE SUCH RIGHT SAID EASEMENTS OFFERED TO THE PU13Ut0 , 02 INTEREST 15 EXPIZESSLy MADE 5U5JECT TO THE SAID EASEMENTS. AS A DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE WHILE ALL OF SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THIS SUBDIVI- SION REMAIN PUBLIC -HIGHWAYS FOR SUCH TIME ONLY, WE E REBS ABANDON ALL EASEMENTS OF INGRESS TO THE SAID SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD SO THAT OWNERS OF LOTS 1, 2, 71, 23 T027 INCLUSIVE AND 52 TO -58 INCLUSIVE ABUTTING THESE HIGHWAYS DURINGSLICH S WHATEVER ITIMHE WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS OF HIGHWAYS AS SUCH EXCEPT THE GENERAL EASEMENT OF TRAVEL WHICH TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC. IF ANY GE OF ALIGN- 'MENT ORLWIDTH ONGS OF SUCH HIGHWAYS RESU TS !IN T14E VACATION ()FAN'( PART THEREOF WITHIMAMD A U&CENT TO THIS SUIB'01v1-'101J,SUCH VA- CATION TERMINATES THE ABOVE IDEDICATION AS TO THE PART VACATED - ELK MONT LANDowN C®. A PARTNERSHIP BY PERKINS REALTY PART COO A CO POF+.97tON • SEC0.0 0.`l ' PRES'�DENT V COUNTY OF L OS AAAGEL ES EASEMENT HOG/.DE2 /3Y /SEED /PEC01?DE/.) 1? -853 PAGE 764 OFFIC/14L HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETS, CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A TRUE AND COMPLETE SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION _.JULY 1958 -• THAT THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHARACTER AND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PLACE OR WILL BE IN PLACE WITHIN A" Twe7 4w,, MONTHS FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS MAP; TH",ID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE. SURVEY TO BE READILY RETRACED AND THAT TIE NOTES TO ALL CENTERLINE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON AS SET BY ME WILL BE ONI FII F IN THE OFFICE OF THE_-.OQUNjY _ ENGINEER VVITHINTwc',,,,fj=four MONTHS FROM RECORDING DATE SHOWN I-IEREOr,I. RUGIS7ERE CIVU EN(41NFER Np; 5335_�._.- THE PRESENT OWNERS or- AN EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO THE MC CART4Y COMPANY , A CO2PORAMON , 13Y (GEED RECORDED 1N BOOK 52370 PAGE 20 OFFICIAL RBCARD5, AND AS GRANTED TO ZOLLINGW00D HOMES COMPANY, A CO -PARTNERSHIP, gY DEED RECORDED IN 5001- 54201 PAGE 392 OFFICIAL RE - COI2D5, HAVE BEEN OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 4 7 19 11587' CAL, O;DETERM�IN6VTNENOWNE SHIPMAP ACT I THEREOFCH AS IT IS IMPRACTI- STATE OF CAL 117ORNIA S'S' COUNTY OF L''S ANGELES ON THIS 13 DAY OF !"lA RC N '19 61 . BEFORE ME MARGARET E. waH•NEn ;, NOTAP,Y PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COUNTY. APPEAPED 13. R. f'110 RR 13 KNOWN TO M!7 i :'- BE: TFiE PRESIDENT. AND JOSEPH 11E YS",V KNOV,%1 TO ME: -t 0 B3 THE SECRETARY OF TI,-iE PERKINS REALTY CO, _I HE CORPORATION THAT EY.ECUTED THE VV;TIAN V-,;si-i L1mENT AS A F f -.F T NER GF THE ELKMONIT LAND CO. A.NO KNOVVr`I TO ME: TO DE: 1 HE FEES ;r•!S WHO '-XECL; T ED THE WITHIN IN- STRUMENT ON BEHALF 0�= ;'HE CORPORATION THEREIN NAMED AND ACKIIJ�'vLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH CORPORATION EXE - LUTED !-!-4E SAMIEi AS SUCH PARTNER. AND THAT SUCH PART- N_=tRSHiP E-XECUT D THE SAI4'IE. MAeGARET E• YUEtJ1JEK !vim RY `' '�' MY GOMIvIISSION EXPIRES/�(f�• / �JG� I!9 !4E TRACT Na) IT IS O4tDERED THAT THE TIP OF TRACT RO. 13 14EPtOY APPROVED; THAT THE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 3 47J_.S:O°_._-.-......... FILED WITH THIS BOARD TO INSL•?F. PAfOENT.OF TAXES AND SPECIAL AS- SESSMENTS COLLEC7;-0 AS TAXES BE APPROVED: THAT ALL STREETS, HIGHWF"- AND OTHER PU3LW WAYS AND E-A EMENTS SHOWN ON SAtC "ate AN5 OFFERED FOR DEDICAPON BE AND THE SAKE ARE + : ' 4CCEPTED ON BEHALF OF TN.E PUBLIC.. That Ire offer � ` c�ed�'cat�o�; foi- abindonme.,t u,c.,;� ri96tS Of 1ng1-e5S dnd e9i-ess be acce,ofeo' brhd/� of the avb,z r HE' c ilFy THAT THE Fu 7:45 ADOPTED F HELD .. � f.1 IL -.—.k—"' ._., ✓ �� ..• .•.. v..i ....... :. GORDON T. NE$VwG• CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPtAYISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELS, STA7�F.OF CALIFORKUL BY r -tel i i �� �:a. 1 hereby cerfify thaf, I have examined, this mat-, fhai it cGnforms > Lt ,ianrlrally 10 the Tentative map and all approved olteratiens thereor-; that all provi_ions of ccppliccJ !s ': ate law and local R�b- dhvkion ordinances have been compiied with; and that I am satisfied that this map is t hniea correct. Dated, �o�i/ /�� 1.961 r r. SCALE KIM SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUR VEYED BY ENGINEER/NG SERV/CE CORPORATION 40 140, I'=60" F r N 2 9 M6 6o�paf Z �l O1— . /',1 � Y /-i�E 0/' ri-ocf N° 2/269 1W..9. aca -B//3 N. BSO o3' 27 W. / 927- N17704 4'4 27N177044'4Q`46o ?06 s�406. O t9 26 06 _ 0, N j 4 e9Q n0 '94�a 6�6ry \ ioV✓Psc 390",,s0,`\\ � h � a i 401 30, 800 �o• o 0 N',v�141)l 3 o� rya � � 4 CL Sp O d, a y S 9 n� � I2 a°y3�19 •ego, ��2 S¢f 2°i.a 6 (� d tu ri h o oh N liz o0 40 30 8 0' � N• o 7IoA�wlol %h Q �• Boa. ly V K 40 Q 3\00 l '44 Q, "\n Igo' Q o 8 0 N ��/�ic ` ,o��j s a\oee, � Ioil 5 ESE Lv N: J oIn ti co. - Nry 4.0� 8 0 Al li �I i I i 71 1.143 Ac. 9? sem° to. s ro, 4110`R 1896 76 �r0FA�5'.LY LINE OF A VA21ABLEWIDTNEA5EMeJ1T POR8(V _ DR,41N Pu RP0585 RI'JER NO 1Ofd232S'LY LINEARi LE WIDTH EA5EMENT FOSLOPE PP R O.R. 54201.392 } .�.�I L+7'00"W. 64' N.ow.277 � SQ} S�,T 40G.73 DRIVE O 131 y :.n R=/5L7733, N.Bs-ogbo9!!o0_A-4.0^00��Ob�0R0 ti 10n ti 4:N25' 25: z-/s'L--2356' 4� ► 6O"� IIt O z� oN Q, c �m N . —V 42 •, o o �o.► a f I 5 0' �+ 82 N.85009'0o'W. p o W /22 o N.85°09,00" a �• � o = ioo' W W o to QM o 43 F. 'Orn 8 I V Y1 Z 0 o.5!«E Rad . IIt O z� oN Q, c �m N . —V N88003'27N 731 Off / Fd 2" I . P. per trent♦ rah m 7 N�21269 M.B•Go6-g/13 �p 71 "9D:5 400.00' N68°03'27"W 148.00' °2,q 46'/8Y� 1� o ZzsgzF 0 a liU C Sly and$WLS' Lines of frac+Ne 21269 M.B. 606-8/ib °NO Oo N N p FSB` Fqs� , Lh Q 66 65 AV Q? o z s�T o Z ti� 0/'�V7eb Sr0 4g9 Ole / O nmI l7 ` � ��l `^ 2'�' Fd 2" I.P, per tracF Fd2%P.PerTrocl`N= 21.71' — O4 / T �D 4►� 'Ls, s. 0/13 �/B9°SB:a�?Y 2/2�o9B!o06B�3 ----- /V %s' N' 21269 M.B.6o6- ¢/3.66 v � ti� !°iso s 257.72' 14. 9 58� u/i cto' 2° ;fig 75b;98T. �s bs p a � �,� ?g, y 10. Z, � !� 72.00'_. .. 97, - --- .. � /82.69" k 0 l of ?Cit� dD�(�, z j Q 89.s4� 2 49\�° �yoa� 211° / �i . �SASSMENT g �i � 235.00 SLOP \\ -01 N �° � �° VG X6, e �I\ SM u�18 FSA VA91A6uE top w6� � �i T e.547.36 _ ti d F4S''\' WIDTH E $WENT FON051lhhh 0PE �Oti 33.00' L=28.3!' d-!2°(4' �i \ •� Fjt s9 F� C, �/ I PuRP s PER RIDER ' i,.�'I D n1 L- S 00•. 1, +� \ FR 0�1'I\B�' 0 •!3 -- G•R_52370.20•_ _ �_ ` `!I / • --�— -- — oS� O�y / N85°Q9/00��`y 277,70' 9 7e, C 2 \ �o DU,q'v#-o Tp\ .� (0.13 +-' ae N B6° 00' W• 197.°� L4 L-19$.49, 4; /30 ;L e�0 8 v\ P°s�s F 2a"� �I_ 6.47' _ 83.95_ — — 'J7.o - �( � 6� `meg �9 �_ N85oo9'o0/icy. 0�06.7d' Qc x•630?�dp, A`' 91 �� , , (8�i O -- 97' ' –-` E D 0 4=40a oNTy OF LOS 1 006. s o ••° o \ �q 6ELGE5 FDREMSANITAR�,.�u PURPOSES 1V83°o9oo"/,j/ /s' G� \ 9` ��E0327 0 N 66 3-0 3 9!%'_ O� 697 4`40 2 0 cv�•. 36 O� S k`5Soo' ,/o r!°rf G°'O1g0a5Z NATURA PpRCEI 00' 6„ (��!y0 78 4140 w� B th��u DRA/N1 p..e' p. •A' 0 O�PCC£L �o O / � 0 R, lc S.A• /Z/b,.•._ a S Rf \ , r' —r-- Q7 aP p� Q 29°l ?�a' /�, �!� ;9� 0� $� <°°4Sy9R ��!! �y n/B/•37/3'iti' �'� .o •c� N. / ' � / � � � • ` \' �l °/ /S Q. '' QJ \ tri o y ♦ Q� • 7Q fp 7d �1 �t� t . SO. p�'� P���' I {. /?. 3 .t, fpw % 4 `d d?5 6 ¢\ °, �('+O r �• Pq� o c °day ,d 9o�s/ O ;- �• D, , S, tiV po 6 S`('� 0 . ,^ 1 ,. , , •• �'4' , d N ►�� I 41�/ OQ, �,� O "N V `Y G a�Vs^a°ro °B4j'Oa ° I •d°s"�d` o^'� p��(,° Kto �I �' �� ,4 8 !y �,� �� t1 ly ss�\ 0 ya9 y S 7� V ^.16�' �y / t m 72aaan 4y6d' s9so ti o� ,Q o�� 0,\� fop s•/.�`\ s6��ya �'y SEE 36 1521' °4646"W 92. . 2!' amp �3`, DRIVE 5 SHEET i s : ° �0' h o� / do •� / �y0 / \cr_� cvCb ���A o tv"yy ti°I oa 1 ' t y / Pr CP ' \ Na iZs'w / 'ti° opo` 1 r / 5ef 5 / AN) w o s A� d m s�° . s3 '� / SCA LE0601 73 92 4, t O d0 A aa A 25 2 S8, �� ti O oys 6 �s8o a d D ° 91, �wif .ar ,' T� 5.67 1 • , O: 1-g- .4 je ti� OV PFII/l✓ ��d '� � j s "' 0 ca / 55�Nv : _ , g`60 � wmm v� � �� x; �:i � 4 r D-181 SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY .OF LOS ANGELES SURVEYED SY ENG/NEER/NG SERWCE CORPORAT/ON �O tipR4c \\T, 8s 'sem 3 I I env W�- 6e,, o m ri) a � ►6 ` � °r,� iD Qe�. y 70• rr�if/ Pp0 SN1 �o tj 2. X25-0 . 'sit sir 5,56 �19 5 PC,- �'/o9St 7p �6'S8' �o •• ,� v� i= � l3�HS 33S w J Q V N BOULEVARD O 2G2_.7�i I0 scFs�� ,or•ig-yl �rS �16 8F OF •SIS: � Amy Seeraty From: Kit Fox Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:05 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Subject: Fw: Elkmont canyon easement Kit Sent using OWA for iPhone From: Cathy <cathy.salerno@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:30:02 PM To: CC Subject: Elkmont canyon easement Dear City Council members, I want to tell you how much we strongly oppose the easement being considered on the canyon. We love the canyon and want it to remain a parklike setting not building no roads. Please preserve this wonderful piece of land we all use to hike on and walk our dogs on etc. You are elected officials and we expect and hope you will listen and vote according to your community and do not pass this. I also want to state that we have a very serious coyote problem in this area. As a pet owner we are frightened to let our cat outside and fear for safety of young children. Please do something about this growing problem. The coyotes seem to be getting more aggressive and coming right up to the houses even during daylight hours. Thanks, Cathy Salerno John Salerno Paul Salerno Samuel Salerno D-183 Amy Seeraty Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: City Service Requests From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 10:16 PM To: Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submittal: City Service Requests City Service Requests Customer Service Requests Use this form to electronically communicate with the City for just about anything! An email will automatically be sent to the appropriate person to handle your request. For emergency service please contact the appropriate public service agency. To which department Planning should we address this? First Name Angie Last Name Rosen Street Number 46 Street Name Rollingwood Street Type Drive Apartment Number Field not completed. City Rolling Hills Estates State CA ZIP 90274 Home Phone Field not completed. Office or Other Phone 310-213-7379 Email auntekitacox.net Best place to reach you Office / Other should questions arise: Should we inform you of Yes, contact me through email. the action taken? 1 D-184 Service Request, Inquiry or Comment Provide us with information regarding your request, inquiry or comment. Please be as specific as possible. Location or Address of Elkmont Dr Service Request, Inquiry or Comment Description I would like to add my name to stop any construction or building on Elkmont Dr RPV Thank You Angie Rosen Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. D-185 07/23/2016 16:43 3103783653 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: • t "RORK-1T� I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon, PAGE 01 At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: �.•• �� Name: 114 De -W. -x? Address: .2,6�,c& Phone Number: (21-) — ;�s -3 Email: 0 r -/h ef, (? �, W_ $1 e Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Via Amy Serraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 July 6, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: RECEIVED iUl_ 26 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the known soil issues, fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road and home in the canyon would bring serious slope instability, fire, noise and traffic concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: Name: Janis Masters Address: 4844 Elmdale Drive, Rolling Hills Estates Phone Number: 310-375-6340 Email: jjmasters@msn.com D-187 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:42 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: kathleen.markowski@gmail.com; gregoryschill@gmail.com; slarking@gmail.com Subject: soils reports and topo maps Hi Amy, I know I asked you before about geology and/or soils reports for Elkmont canyon, and you said that no soils reports had ever been submitted for the Elkmont canyon projects. Now on the topic of maps, my question is: has a topographic map of Elkmont canyon been submitted to the city in support of any recent applications for Elkmont canyon ? if so I'd like to get a copy of that map, Please advise if such a map exists and how I can get a copy, thanks Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net � ii Rancho-Pa'It-s-Ve&-d.es City Council c/o Amy Seeraty � RECEIVED ncl,q-Pza4osverdes 3094o Hawthorne Boulevard Z;'U ; 10 Zp» Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 COMMUNITY DEVELCiPMEN11. July 8, 2o3.6 DEPARTMENT Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills EstatesAZaP4o=aPos es and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since i96z. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The"City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: a'ue� 0'Y', Name: Address: l S/� ►���''� SP2/�YC� �,Q, %�H�� �� Phone Number: 3 f 4 — q69 — 9Q Email: ak?C 0,) 7 )`m 0 9 Ver'i 16x)4 0E ?d a,71 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:16 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: soils reports and topo maps Hi Amy I recently learned that there has been some civil engineering going on with respect to Elkmont canyon If you have any files, drawings, reports, or any other written materials regarding Elkmont that were prepared and/or submitted by civil engineers, please advise, thanks Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Cc: kathleen.markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com>; gregoryschill <gregoryschill@gmail.com>; slarking <slarking@gmail.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 11:51 am Subject: RE: soils reports and topo maps Hello Andrew - Please see the attached survey with topographic lines. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amyskp2vca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:42 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Cc: kathleen.markowski@gmail.com; gregoryschill@gmail.com; slarking@gmail.com Subject: soils reports and topo maps Hi Amy, I know I asked you before about geology and/or soils reports for Elkmont canyon, and you said that no soils reports had ever been submitted for the Elkmont canyon projects. Now on the topic of maps, my question is: has a topographic map of Elkmont canyon been submitted to the city in support of any recent applications for Elkmont canyon ? if so I'd like to get a copy of that map, D-190 Please advise if such a map exists and how I can get a copy, thanks Andrew Rein andy2175m4(cr�,verizon.net D-191 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:33 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont canyon soils reports and topo maps Hi Amy, As you probably know, there was a letter sent to the applicant in 2014 regarding the evaluation by the city of the Elkmont project. Among other things, this letter specified that the existing storm drain and slope easements would have to be vacated by written recorded document, before the application could be deemed compete. Please advise: Are there any documents in process now by the City of RPV regarding the vacating those easements ? thanks, Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> To: AmyS <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 10:15 am Subject: Re: soils reports and topo maps Hi Amy I recently learned that there has been some civil engineering going on with respect to Elkmont canyon If you have any files, drawings, reports, or any other written materials regarding Elkmont that were prepared and/or submitted by civil engineers, please advise, thanks Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Cc: kathleen.markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com>; gregoryschill <gregoryschill@gmail.com>; slarking <slarking@gmail.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 11:51 am Subject: RE: soils reports and topo maps Hello Andrew - Please see the attached survey with topographic lines. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department D-192 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:42 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Cc: kathleen.markowski@gmail.com; gregoryschill@gmail.com; slarking@gmail.com Subject: soils reports and topo maps Hi Amy, I know I asked you before about geology and/or soils reports for Elkmont canyon, and you said that no soils reports had ever been submitted for the Elkmont canyon projects. Now on the topic of maps, my question is: has a topographic map of Elkmont canyon been submitted to the city in support of any recent applications for Elkmont canyon ? if so I'd like to get a copy of that map, Please advise if such a map exists and how I can get a copy, thanks Andrew Rein andy2175m4(a)verizon. net D-193 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:14 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont canyon Hi Amy, Regarding the Elkmont project, a letter was issued by the RPV planner on 7/16/14, listing 18 items that were in need of further information by the applicant. In regard to item 1 of the letter, it mentions a meeting of the RPV city council addressing access to the parcel from Hawthorne Blvd. A meeting date of Sept 2 is cited, I will assume that date was September 2, 2014, Did a meeting with the city council regarding this issue take place ? If so, what was the presentation to the council and what was the outcome of that meeting ? Please advise, thanks Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net D-194 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 7:17 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont canyon Hi Amy, Regarding the Elkmont project, a letter was issued by the RPV planner on 7/16/14, listing 18 items that were in need of further information by the applicant. In regard to item 18 of the letter, it mentions a review of the application package by the RPV public works department, and also mentions that other state and federal permits may be required for the application. Did the RPV public works department review the application, and if so what was the outcome of that review ? Do you have any other information regarding state and federal permits that might be required for the project ? Please advise, thanks Andrew Rein andy2175m4(cDverizon. net D-195 Amy Seeraty From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: FYI. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Ara Mihranian Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:15 PM Amy Seeraty; So Kim Fwd: Elkmont Canyon 20160823 - Letter to Dyda.pdf, ATT00001.htm From: Jason Ebbens <jasongbroedlowlewis.com> Date: August 23, 2016 at 3:03:55 PM PDT To: cc(? rpvca.gov Cc: daleshire(cr�,awattorne. sem, Ara Mihranian <AraM(& vca.gov>, davidwgrollinghillsestateCA.gov, Jeffrey Lewis <jeff(c�r�,broedlowlewis.com> Subject: Elkmont Canyon Mr. Dyda, Attached please find a letter of today's date. A copy of the same has been sent via U.S. Mail. Thank you, Jason R. Ebbens Paralegal BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP 734 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 1 90274 Tel. (310) 935-4001 1 Direct (310) 945-2536 1 Fax. (310) 872-5389 Email: Tason@BroedlowLewis.com I Web: www.BroedlowLewis.com This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately. D-196 business law • litigation & appellate practitioners August 23, 2016 VIA E-MAIL (cckrpvca.gov) AND CONFIRMED BY U.S. MAIL Hon. Ken Dyda, Mayor City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Elkmont Canyon, Case No. ZON2014-00229 Dear Mayor Dida: This office is litigation counsel for "Save Elkmont Canyon" — a group of over 59 residents of Rolling Hill Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes who oppose the pending application by Lionel Perera to develop Elkmont Canyon. Although we are mindful that the only pending application before the City Council is the narrow question of whether the City should grant access to Hawthorne Boulevard from the landlocked property, the broader questions of the environmental impacts of the proposed construction are also addressed below. The homeowners around Elkmont Canyon purchased their homes at market prices reflective of the serene views of Elkmont Canyon. They relied on the fact that decades ago, the owner of Elkmont Canyon publicly dedicated all rights of ingress and egress. In contrast, Mr. Perera purchased his property at a significant, below- market discount because the lot was landlocked. He (and his predecessors) knew they were purchasing landlocked property without any legal right of access. The pending application to develop the property is legally deficient and must be denied. 1. The Property and its History of Ownership and Development The 1961 Abandonment of Ingress and Egress Rights. In 1961, Tract Map No. 24719 was recorded including a dedication by the then -owner of Elkmont Canyon, the Elkmont Land Co. The dedication for public use confirmed that the owners of the Elkmont Canyon lots "hereby abandon all easements of ingress and egress" to and from Hawthorne Boulevard. The owner recorded the Tract Map on April 12, 1961. Elkmont Canyon has been landlocked without access to roads since 1961. p: 310.935.4001 f: 310.872.5389 734 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 i Rolling Hills Estate, CA 90274 broedlowlewis.com D-1 9 7 Page 2 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM In 1962, the Elkmont Land Co. illegally subdivided the canyon into 13 separate portions by grant deed. Between 1962 and 2000 the land was held by various entities.' On March 21, 2005, Elkmont Canyon was purchased by Abdul Aziz Khakwani ("Khakwani.") The City's files include a title policy. Item 10 of that title policy notes the issue of access. The 2006 Application for 13 Certificates of Compliance. In 2006, Khakwani, applied for thirteen certificates of compliance as to thirteen portions of the property (Case Nos. SUB2006-00004-00016). The application was denied by the Planning Director and the denial was upheld by the Planning Commission. In connection with that application, the City Attorney wrote an April 28, 2006 letter concerning the access limitations for the property as noted in Tract Map No. 24719. This access limitation has the practical effect of making the subject property landlocked. Prior to development, legal access rights must be obtained. However, due to the dedication of access rights through the recordation of Tract No. 24719, the City is under no obligation to give up its right to prohibit access from Hawthorne Boulevard to the property. (April 28, 2006 Letter by David Snow to Kit Fox, emphasis added). That cautionary language was also contained in a May 2, 2006 letter by the City to the property owner. The City of RHE's Opposition to Construction in Elkmont Canyon. In connection with the 2006 application, David Wahba, Planning Director for the City of Rolling Hills Estates wrote to Joel Rojas, then -Planning Director for the City. Wahba noted that RHE objected to the subdivision of Elkmont Canyon into thirteen lots: The City of Rolling Hills Estates would also like to go on record to state that we would be opposed to a subdivision within this canyon area including the construction of homes, due to the close proximity of existing homes located in Rolling Hills Estates to the South on Willow Wood Road and Silver Spring Road and to homes located on Elkmont Drive. Further, this area serves as a natural drainage course, a buffer between the homes in our two cities and may have soils and geology concerns to adjacent homes. Lastly, access to this subdivision would be provided via Hawthorne Blvd., in the event that a private property owner wouldn't grant an access ' A full description of the title history of Elkmont Canyon is set forth in an April 28, 2006 letter by then -Assistant City Attorney, David Snow to then -City planner, Kit Fox. � �i Page 3 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM easement, which could be problematic given the speeds and traffic flow on Hawthorne Blvd. (August 17, 2006 letter by David Wahba to Joel Rojas, emphasis added).2 On August 22, 2006, Kit Fox issued a staff report recommending that the appeal of the director's determination concerning the number of lots be denied. That staff report contains the following statements: • The subject property is a vacant 4.45 acre canyon. • Two acres of the canyon are encumbered by slope, storm drain and sewer easements and flood hazard areas that were recorded with Tract No. 24719 in April 1961. • "In addition, the canyon has no legal rights of access to either Silver Spur road or Hawthorne Boulevard because the rights of ingress egress and abandonment by the original subdivider of the tract in April 1961." On August 22, 2006, the Planning Commission upheld the director's decision and denied the appeal. Thereafter, a certificate of compliance was recorded in connection with Elkmont Canyon as instrument number 06-2441596.3 That document included a number of conditions, including, the first condition that the owner "obtain rights of access to the parcel in a manner acceptable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes." The 2006 Consideration to Re -Zone Elkmont Canyon to Open Space Hazard. On September 12, 2006, the Planning Commission was scheduled to consider whether to rezone Elkmont Canyon from residential to "Open Space Hazard." The staff report for that item included Staff s estimation that the Elkmont Canyon only contained one acre that was not encumbered by extreme slope areas, easements or flood areas. The staff report indicated that "the property would still have no legal access to a public right-of-way." 2 Members of Save Elkmont Canyon have been in touch with the City of Rolling Hills Estates' planning department. We are informed that they remain opposed to the development of this canyon. Before the application proceeds further, we would urge the City to consult with the City of Rolling Hills Estates to ascertain their view on the project. 3 Although it is not determinative of the outcome of this development application, we observe that the certificate of compliance issued and recorded in 2006 may not have been legally sufficient. We note that on February 12, 2016, Amy Seeraty emailed Mr. Perera concerning questions about the sufficiency of the certificate. D-199 Page 4 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM The rezoning hearing was deferred to October 10, 2006. At that meeting, the city staff recommended that no action be taken to re -zone the property and the Planning Commission accepted that recommendation. The 2007-2013 Efforts to Sell or Commercially Develop the Property as a Banquet Hall or Montessori School. In August 2007, the City wrote to Khakwani in response to requests to develop the property. The City's August 24, 2007 letter states that the property has no legal access and only the City Council could grant such access. • Between 2007 and 2011, the land was listed for sale by real estate agent Yasin Shahzad of Real Dreams Realty, Inc. The listing stated "ask City regarding how to get access." And included "request permission to have access from Hawthorne Blvd." • On September 21, 2010, the City wrote to Sakeena Mirza in connection with an inquiry about obtaining access to the Property. Ms. Mirza was considering operating a Montessori school on the Property. In that letter, the City advised Mirza that staff would not recommend that the City Council permit access from Hawthorne Blvd. for any commercial use of the property. • On January 3, 2011, Khakwani wrote to the city and requested that the matter of access be put before the Planning Commission and City Council. • On January 19, 2011, the City wrote to Khakwani and reminded him that staff would not recommend that the City Council permit access from Hawthorne Blvd. for any commercial use of the property. • In mid -2011, Khakwani continued to write to the City to request access. On July 29, 2011, he offered to sell the property to the City for at least $1.625 million. • In March 2013, Dean Pernicone contacted the City about developing the property as banquet hall. The banquet hall idea was later abandoned. • July 17, 2014, Lionel Perera writes to the City indicating that he recently purchased the property from Khakwani for $500,000. 2. The Current Project The pending application was initiated on June 17, 2014 when the owner filed a "Residential Planning Application" with the City. The application describes a 10,832 square foot two-story home to be constructed on 4.48 acres of undeveloped canyon land. The development will include a guest home and a staggering 24,360 square foot D-200 Page 5 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM driveway (the equivalent of half a football field). The application discloses that there will be 17,060 cubic yards of grading. City Staff has determined that the application should be split into two steps: First, the access issue should be reviewed by the City Council in accordance with Resolution 90-93 to address the issue of access to Hawthorne. If the City Council grants the application, then the matter is to be set before the Planning Commission for consideration of access, grading, compatibility, etc. 3. The Application Should be Deemed Incomplete Due to the Lack of Signatures of "Directly Affected Property Owners." Staff has concluded that the applicant must comply with the procedures set forth in Resolution No. 90-93. That resolution requires that any application be accompanied by "signatures of at least 50% of the directly affected property owners, as determined by the Director of Public Works." (Res. No. 90-93, § 1 (d).) We are informed that Ara Mihranian made the determination that only Mr. Perera signature was necessary for the application to proceed. Respectfully, we disagree with Mr. Mihranian's decision. All residents bordering Elkmont Canyon will be "directly affected" by granting ingress and egress rights to Elkmont Canyon. In formulating Resolution No. 90-93, the City's required signatures of 50 percent of multiple property owners. The inclusion of a percentage and reference to more than one property owner suggests that the City intended in enacting Resolution No. 90-93 that affected neighbors — not just the owner seeking access — needed to be involved in the application. If the City had intended to only require the property owner who wanted access sign the application, then the additional requirement of a 50 percent of "directly affected" neighbors would have been superfluous. The requirement of signatures of directly affected neighbors was obviously included by the 1990 City Council as a means to avoid the very situation presented by this application. We suggest that, at a minimum, all homes along Elkmont Drive, Willow Wood Road, Silver Spring Drive and Foxpoint Lane be included in the signature requirement. Until such time as those signatures are obtained, the application should be rejected and deemed incomplete. 4. The "Access" and "Planning" Issues Should be Determined at the Same Time The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) precludes "piecemeal" review of environmental impacts. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. P. Board of Port Cmrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1358). Staffs current approach to have the City Council review only the issue of access without consideration of the grading, compatibility and other significant environmental impacts of the project constitutes an impermissible "piecemeal" review of this project. Respectfully, staff is wrong. The entire project and its attendant affects must be considered in its totality to comply with CEQA. D-201 Page 6 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM 5. The City Should Find that the Construction of a Massive Single Family Home, Guest House and 24,360 Foot Drive Way, All Requiring 17,000 Cubic Yards in Grading in a Sensitive Landslide Area Constitutes "Unusual Circumstances" Requiring CEQA Review CEQA normally does not apply to the construction of a single family residence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15303). However, the categorical exemptions for single family residences should not apply here due to the unusual size, location, nature and scope of the project and the resulting significant environmental impacts. As the California Supreme Court has held "an agency may not apply a categorical exemption without considering evidence in its files of potentially significant effects...." (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 CalAth 1086, 1103). The following potential significant effects are presented by the project and constitute "unusual circumstances": a. Traffic. The most obvious impact of the project is granting access to and from the proposed home off of a new driveway to be constructed on Hawthorne Blvd. Hawthorne is a major artery into and out of Palos Verdes. On May 7, 2015, Mr. Perera provided a sight distance analysis for the proposed driveway off of Hawthorne. The analysis, paid for by Mr. Perera, was prepared by KOA Corporation (the "KOA Study.") The KOA Study relies on traffic volume from 2003. The KOA Study uses traffic volumes of 18,028. The KOA Study data is outdated. On September 10, 2010, the City had a traffic impact analysis prepared by Wildan Engineering (the "Wildan Report.") The Wildan Report indicated daily volumes of 27,965 in 2010 with a suggested future growth rate of 0.646% per year. Regardless of which data and which report is relied on, the impact of this project on Hawthorne Blvd. needs to be examined in the context of CEQA and mitigation measures, if any are feasible, must be examined. b. Slope Stability. The project contemplates significant grading. As pointed out in the City of RHE's 2006 letter opposed to development, there are geology and grading issues in Elkmont Canyon. The canyon contains extreme slopes of more than 35% grade. Past landslides have occurred in the area. In 2008, there was a landslide in the Silver Spring / Foxpoint area. The landslide was about 500 feet from the proposed access point that Mr. Perera wants on Hawthorne. In addition to the 2008 Fox Point landslide, the City should consider the nearby landslide at Rock Bluff Park. The parcel was originally developed as residential until a landslide occurred in 1960. The surface of this park still shifts today. The Rock Bluff Park is located approximately 2,300 feet from the proposed access point on Hawthorne Blvd. D-202 Page 7 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM As part of the application process, the City should consult with the City of Rolling Hills Estates' Planning and Building & Safety staff to learn about the significant grading and slope stability issues presented by the 2008 Foxpoint and 1960 Rock Bluff landslide. Moreover, on December 17, 2013, the City and the City of Rolling Hills Estates prepared a Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (the "Hazard Plan.") That document discussed the hazard risks that development creates. Page 147 of the Hazard Plan describes areas that are "particularly susceptible to landslides." Such areas, according to the Hazard Plan, have the following features: • On or close to steep hills • Steep road -cuts or excavations • Existing landslides or places of known historic landslides • Steep areas where surface runoff is channeled • Fan -shaped areas of sediment and boulder accumulation at the outlets of canyons • Canyon areas below hillsides and mountains that have had recent wildfires. With the exception of the final point, all of the features that the City identifies in its Hazard Plan as "particularly susceptible to landslides" are present in Elkmont Canyon. The Hazard Plan also notes that allowing water to flow in such areas may trigger landslides. Even allowing the watering of a lawn may result in "damaging landslides." (Hazard Plan, p. 145). Likewise, altering the vegetation and removing native vegetation "increases the risks of landslide." (Hazard Plan, p. 145). Because the proposed project in Elkmont Canyon meets the City's definition of areas "particularly susceptible to landslides," a CEQA analysis of the impacts of the project and any possible mitigation measures should be prepared. c. Flood Zone. As indicated in the City's correspondence to the property owners over the years, Elkmont Canyon is covered by easements for slope, storm drain, sewer and flood purposes. The development proposed by Mr. Perera should be analyzed in the context of CEQA so that the significant impacts of the project can be identified and any feasible mitigation measures be discussed by the City Council. D-203 Page 8 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM d. Fire Hazard. Any home built at the end of the canyon would have a solitary escape route from fire. A fire at the mouth of the canyon would cut the homeowner's sole route off leading to an unreasonable risk of death. However, the fire risks to the project applicant are dwarfed by the risks created for the neighboring homes at the top of Elkmont Canyon. According to FEMA, constructing a home at the bottom of a narrow canyon creates an unreasonable risk of wildfires: "A wildfire at the bottom of a vegetated canyon can lead to extremely hazardous conditions upslope. A canyon acts like a chimney, collecting hot gases and directing superheated convection and radiant heat upslope. Canyons funnel winds ... that can fan a fire and lead to extreme fire behavior (rapid spread of the wildfire and ignition of an entire area). An entire canyon can pre- heat from rising hot air and gases and explode in flames, creating a firestorm." (Homebuilder's Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones, Technical Fact Sheet Series, FEMA P-737 (Sept. 2008).) The risks of fire to the applicant and his neighbors should be assessed in the context of CEQA to ensure that all significant impacts are identified and mitigation measures, if any, are put into place. e. Impact on Habitat. Elkmont Canyon is home to an extremely large number of native birds (possibly protected) including nesting raptors - various owl species, various hawk species, hummingbirds, various perching birds, numerous butterfly species, coyotes, raccoons, squirrels, reptiles, skunks, fox and possums. The canyon is filled with native plants, trees, shrubs, wildflowers which provide food, shelter and nesting areas for this wildlife. The native vegetation also controls erosion of the slopes of the canyon. Grading and construction will create a significant threat to the native nesting birds, butterflies, and other wildlife that rely on Elkmont Canyon to survive. There will be a complete loss of the canyon ecosystem. f. Impact on Property Values. The property values for the neighbors will plummet if this construction is authorized. View of a canyon or open space has a profound effect on property values. This proposed development will diminish property values and take away privacy and views of the residents. g. Noise Impacts. The project contemplates significant grading in the near term. The activity along the driveway and in the home will also have long term noise impacts as sound is amplified in the canyon to the homes above. The short term and long term noise impacts of the project should be identified and any mitigation measures put into place. D-204 Page 9 o f 11 August 23, 201 6 LM The foregoing environmental impacts constitute "unusual circumstances" warranting the preparation of an EIR and application of CEQA to this project. We respectfully request that the City Council direct staff to apply CEQA and require the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. 6. Granting Unprecedented Access to Hawthorne Would Constitute a Gift of Public Property / Funds The relinquishment of ingress and egress rights in 1961 constitutes public property held in trust by the City of RPV. If the City vacates those rights without consideration, it will constitute an illegal gift of public funds and a violation of the quasi -fiduciary relationship the City has towards Elkmont Canyon. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104). The City is under no legal obligation to relinquish the rights it obtained in 1961 and should not voluntarily do so without the City receiving consideration for such rights. 7. The Council Should Reject the Owner's Veiled and Baseless Threats of Litigation Over an Unlawful Taking The correspondence from the owner of the project includes veiled threats of litigation over "takings" of his property. For example, on July 22, 2011, the property owner requested payment of $1.625 million from the City as compensation for the "non use" of his property. The City's file on "Elkmont Canyon" reflects an unsubstantiated fear by City staff of a "takings" lawsuit. On December 14, 2015, at 2:02 p.m., Amy Seeraty sent an email stating that "Ara also pointed out that since it has already been determined that there is a legal lot (created through that conditional certificate of compliance), it would be considered a `taking' if the Council were to deny the access." Respectfully, Ara Mihranian, is wrong. The pending application is not to determine whether a legal lot exists. That determination was made by the City in 2006. The pending application is to determine whether the owner (who bought the property with actual and constructive notice that it had no legal right of access) can enlarge existing rights by creating access rights were no such legal rights existed before. Any decision by the City Council to maintain the status quo and withhold enlargement of legal rights is not a "takings" within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Any "takings" claim by the property owner has no merit because the City has not "taken away" access. Elkmont Canyon has been landlocked since 1961. The City has never reduced the uses that the property owners of Elkmont Canyon have had over the years. A "takings" claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution requires a plaintiff to show that the City's regulation of a property deprives the owner of all its economic use. (Yee P. City of Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519). However, all economic use was eliminated in 1961 when the original subdivider relinquished access rights. The City has taken no action between 1961 and the present to diminish the owner's use. Moreover, the fact that a particular piece of D-205 Page 1 O of 11 August 23, 201 6 LM property happens to be landlocked does not require that neighboring properties provide an easement. (Murphy v. Burch (2009) 46 Cal.4th 157, 171). Even if a valid "takings" claim could be asserted, given that the owners were on constructive notice of the access issues since 1961 and actual notice of the access issues since 2006, any claim for a taking has long since expired under the statute of limitations. Before voting to grant the owner access to Hawthorne Blvd., the City Council should ask the City Attorney to advise the council members in closed session on the exposure to litigation for a "takings" claim should the City deny the application concerning access. In particular, the council should ask the City Attorney, in closed session, whether any such claim would be time barred or whether the City's actions in denying the application constitute a "takings" within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 8. The Council has Never Decided the Access Issue Before and Staffs Recommendations are non -Binding on the Council An August 18, 2016 Daily Breeze article quoted Mr. Perera suggesting that the City had already decided to give his property to access in 2011. The article states: [Perera] cites a 2011 letter as the basis for his belief that he will be granted permission to create access. In the letter from So Kim, then - associate planner for Rancho Palos Verdes, to Abdul Aziz Khakwani, the former owner of the land, Kim said the city would support granting access to the canyon from Hawthorne Boulevard for the construction of one home. "They're going to give the access no matter what, because it's a legal lot and I'm paying property tax," Perera said. It should be noted that a January 19, 2011 letter by Kit Fox of the City to the property owner stated that staff would not support a contemplated commercial development of the property, staff would only support a residential development but that "the decision to grant access (or not) ultimately lies with the City Council and not with the staff..." While Mr. Perera claims to rely on statements made by So Kim, the City's file is replete with letters to the property owner that development applications are approved by the City Council, not individual staff members and that the City is under no obligation to grant the owner the access rights relinquished in 1961. Any argument by Mr. Perera that he relied on staff statements should be reviewed in the context of multiple other statements by staff that the City Council makes these types of determinations. 9. The Concerns of Non -Residents are Valid and Should be Heeded The City is now grappling with two lawsuits over the approval of a variance to allow the Green Hills mausoleum to remain. That conflict occurred in large part because the concerns of non-residents (from the City of Lomita) went unheeded by D-206 Page 11 of 11 August 23, 201 6 LM City staff. We would urge the City not to repeat that same mistake here. The residents of Rolling Hills Estates have valid concerns regarding this project and we would suggest that their concerns be taken seriously. Moreover, the environmental impacts described above will affect residents of the City and residents of neighboring Rolling Hills Estates in equal measures. 10. Conclusion The project application is incomplete and need not be considered by the City Council until 50 percent of the affected neighbors sign the application requesting access. Should the application ever be completed, the City should require an Environmental Impact Report to assess the significant impacts identified in this letter and develop adequate mitigation measures, if any such measures are feasible. The threats of litigation by Mr. Perera lack merit and are time-barred. On behalf of Save Elkmont Canyon, l wanted to thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of these important issues. I would also suggest that members of the council and staff members processing this application visit the affected properties bordering Elkmont Canyon before voting on this issue. If I can help facilitate such a visit, please let me know. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Lewis cc: Client David Aleshire (daleshire@awattorneys.com) Ara Mihranian (AraM@rpv.com) David Wahba(DavidW@RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov) D-207 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 5:07 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: kathleen.markowski@vistasir.com Subject: Re: Elkmont Update Thank you Amy! Any other info on the staff/ city attorney recommendation? Also- what is a good day/ time for you to come see our homes/ canyon. Thanks again for keeping me updated:) Sent from my Whone On Aug 29, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hello Kathleen - It is my understanding that the Elkmont Canyon item will indeed be brought to the September 20th City Council meeting. The notice will be published and mailed out on Thursday September 1St. However, if anything changes I will let you know. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 � �i Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:09 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: AW attorneys Hi Amy Is the firm Aleshire & Wynder LLP working for the city of RPV ? Or is it working for the applicant on Elkmont ? thanks Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net D-209 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:31 PM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: kathleen.markowski@vistasir.com; Gregory Schill; Lisa Larking; Merin Dahl; Stuart Larking; Marc T. Artino; Jay Fodor; artireyes; Jeffrey Lewis Subject: Re: 9/8 Site Visit? Amy and Ara- I confirmed w/ a few neighbors that Thurs. 9/8 @IOam works for the site visit to Elkmont Canyon. Let's meet at our home- 5250 Willow Wood Rd, RHE @ l0am, than we will go to Stuart Larking's home, followed by a couple of homes on Elkmont Dr. If you would like to walk into the canyon, wear comfortable shoes, as it's steep and the ground slips a bit while walking down ... We have a gate for easy access at the bottom of our property. Thank you again for taking the time to do this- It is so appreciated! Kind Regards, Kathleen On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Amy Seeraty <AmyS(a�p2vca.gov> wrote: Hi Kathleen - I understand that you are working with Jeff Lewis. He confirmed that we can coordinate with you to arrange the site visits and he suggested that we visit your property as well as Stuart Larking's. However, please let me know if any additional neighbors wish us to visit their property. Please also let me know if 10am on Thursday September 8t" would work for you and the neighbors, as that is when the Director and I are both available. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. D-210 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys(a),rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen.markowski a,gmail.com 14f D-211 Amy Seeraty From: PAUL MCLELLAN <pmclellan2@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:59 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Elkmont Canyon I don"t see how the city could approve this request. The driveway would enter a major highway not a 25 mph residential street. There are no other such entries on Hawthorne Blvd in RPV. Don't approve! Paul & Bev McLellan Blackhorse Road Sent from Mail for Windows 10 D-212 Amy Seeraty From: martinkuIIi@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 4:46 PM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian; CC Subject: Elkmont Canyon - Support! Hi, I live in the Silver our neighborhood at 5318 Littlebow Rd. I am writing to support the access easement and even the development of Elkmont Canyon. I don't know who is developing the property, but I do know the neighbors are complaining because they have theirs and they don't want anyone else to have any. It's the old, "pull up the ladder behind me" maneuver. 1) A hazardous driveway on highly traveled Hawthorne Blvd. - this is BS. It's only an issue if you are spending and breaking the law. Theee are already driveways on Hawthorne Blvd. 2) Slope stability issues for the homes built on around the canyon- there have been past landslides in the area - so long as this properly geologically tested an engineered this wont be a problem. It will probably be better designed than the existing terrain. 3) Flood hazard issues, as Elkmont Canyon is a natural drainage course - Storm water management is nothing new. So long as the developers design to indicate the water, where is the problem? 4) Increased fire hazard issues - more fire hazard that dead brush? I'm pretty sure this will reduce fire hazards. 5) Destruction of an entire canyon ecosystem - It's a couple of acres, not a Canyon ecosystem. Will the owners complete a biologicalibird survey? Again if they do and it is a-ok, where is the problem? 6) Negative impact on property values and complete destruction of views for surrounding homes, and the list goes on... - Hyperbole much? How is an expensive new house going to negatively impact values? How will this completely destroy the views? They are views of someone else's property. Do I have a right to views of someone else's yard? If so, I want to demand that my neighbors plant better bushes and now their yard more often. I don't think that is required in the city is it? Long and short, I think the neighbors should butt out and focus on their properties. If they wanted to keep it open space, shouldn't they have bought the property for their own use? By their own admission of Next-door.com, they knew it was for sale at a discounted price. Why didnt they buy it? Why is it the new property owner's responsibility to pander to the adjoining property? I feel that in many of these cases you only hear from the vocal opposition. Well, here is a message from a vocal supporter. Sincerely, Martin Kulli D-213 Amy Seeraty From: K Petrash <skjpetrash@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 7:18 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: elkmont canyon I object to the proposal to remove a prohibition of access easement to Elkmont Canyon to make way for 10,800+ SF home/compound, w/ a driveway the size of half a football filed. This proposed development is situated throughout the entire 4.45 acre canyon that is currently in it's natural state, and home to an abundance of wildlife & native plants. 1) A hazardous driveway on highly traveled Hawthorne Blvd. 2) Slope stability issues for the homes built on around the canyon- there have been past landslides in the area 3) Flood hazard issues, as Elkmont Canyon is a natural drainage course ,4) Increased fire hazard issues 5) Destruction of an entire canyon ecosystem, 6) Negative impact on property values and complete destruction of views for surrounding homes, and the list goes on... Kathi Petrash RPV resident D-214 Amy Seeraty From: Gabriella Yap Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 12:18 PM To: Ara Mihranian; Amy Seeraty Subject: Fwd: Elkmont Canyon Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Angie Rosen <auntekit@cox.net> Date: 9/2/2016 8:59 PM (GMT -08:00) To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Elkmont Canyon I vote to keep Elkmont Canyon in It's natural state as is. Angie & Dan Rosen Sent from my iPhone D-215 Amy Seeraty From: Cathy <cathy.salerno@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 5:09 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Strongly urge you to STOP canyon development Please, Please, Please do NOT allow anyone to build a home or develop the canyons in PV. We live near one and love walking our dog there, flying remote control airplanes, kids playing there etc. It is one of the best parts of PV is the canyon and the wide open feeling of nature right in our back yards. When we purchased our home over 23 yrs ago we loved the close proximity to wold plants, butterflies, etc. No one in this area wants this land developed. Please vote against allowing this to happen, vote not to ingress or egress and no development. PERIOD. Thanks, Cathy Salerno Cathy Salerno Team South Bay Realty Realtor, SRES, PV Specialist (310) 493-6463 More MONEY for your home, More HOME for your money! D-216 Amy Seeraty From: Ara Mihranian Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 1:41 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: FW: PLEASE stop development of canyon Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(aD-rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Cathy [mailto:cathy.salerno@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 5:11 PM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: PLEASE stop development of canyon I urge you to PLEASE stop the development of a home or road to build in the canyons in PV. We live near one and we love it. We walk our dog there, the kids play there, you can enjoy nature, butterflies, native plants etc. It is one of the reasons we moved to PV is the nature and unspoiled land the canyons provide. Please do not allow anyone to buy;d a home or any roads through this wonderful natural land. Thanks, Cathy Salerno Cathy Salerno Team South Bay Realty Realtor, SIRES, PV Specialist D-217 (310)493-6463 More MONEY for your home, More HOME for your money! D-218 Amy Seeraty From: Gabriella Yap Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 12:21 PM To: Ara Mihranian; Amy Seeraty Cc: Kit Fox Subject: Fwd: Element Canyon Development Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Koichi Yanaga <koichi@yanaga.com> Date: 9/2/2016 9:39 PM (GMT -08:00) To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Element Canyon Development Public Notice - Elkmont Canyon (APN 7576-026-028) Although I am not directly affected by this development I am concerned for the environmental impacts of this plan. I currently reside in RHE and believe this will set a precedent on future construction activities. I am opposed to this plan. Thanks for your time. Koichi Yanaga 5326 Littlebow Road 1 D-219 Amy Seeraty From: Kathryn Krenz <kathryn.krenz@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2016 6:39 PM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian; CC Subject: Elkmont Canyon RPV City Council - I wanted to register my opposition to the proposed development in the middle of Elkmont Canyon. I am opposed for several reasons: * It is not right to promise homeowners a natural canyon, then change the rules. * A personal driveway on Hawthorne Blvd would be dangerous due to heavy traffic. * The City of RPV should not be allowed to override Resolution 90-93, which requires signatures of 50% of the homeowners affected. From what I read on Nextdoor, the City did not require signatures from any of the affected homeowners. * We need dedicated green space. Thank you for listening. - Kathryn Krenz 27545 Longhill Dr., RPV D-220 Amy Seeraty From: Gennie Rim <gennie.rim@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 11:39 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: John Kahrs Subject: RE: Elkmont Canyon Attachments: Rim Kahrs_ElkmontCanyon.pdf Hi Amy, I've attached a letter in regards to the Elkmont Canyon development proposal. Please feel free to reach if you have any questions. Thank you, Gennie Rim & John Kahrs D-221 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council c/o Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax: 310-544-5291 July 8, 2016 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: I am a resident of Rolling Hills Estates/Rancho Palos Verdes and am very concerned about the impact of the proposed reversal of the Prohibition of Access into Elkmont Canyon. Due to the fire danger, flood danger, lack of city council procedure, environmental, and real estate concerns I oppose any access into Elkmont Canyon. At the time I purchased my home, Elkmont canyon had a Prohibition of Access which gave us the assurance that the canyon would never be developed. The serene and peaceful open space was a major component of our home purchase and a large part of the appeal and value of our property. A road in the canyon would bring noise and traffic concerns along with slope instability and fire concerns. Please do not grant a reversal of the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon that has been in place since 1961. Any reversal would adversely impact my quality of life and property value. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interest of their citizens by mitigating the risk of any potential conflict in this matter. Signature: -- Name: / Address: 3/ �l��r ` /2, 9Dz741 Phone Number: Email: dl'l n i c . ),.K. �9suG� i <d►ti Gt �y it A-( D-222 Amy Seeraty From: primepacific.trading@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 10:16 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: ELKMONT CANYON, Hi Amy: We have lives at 5103 Elkmont Dr. for over 30 years. This is in regards that the City Council is considering to grant Lionel Perera access from Hawthorne Blvd. to the Elkmont Canyon. I want to go on record that there are dozens of reasons that this should not take place, however, these are the most critical to us. 1- Traffic safety. By the time cars reach Elkmont Canyon they are speeding up and going over 60 miles per hour. There are no doubts in my my mind of accidents and probably fatalities. 2- Hillside Land Slide. When we bought the house, there was a brick retainer wall facing the canyon, without that wall our back yard would now be in the bottom of the canyon. If you step over the retaining wall your feet would sink a foot or more, the hillside is very unstable. If the City grants to vacate the prohibition of access easement to the canyon, and bulldozers move land around, I am pretty certain that my back yard and other back yards would end up sliding into the canyon. We have 60 Families that are not only against this, but are also pretty angry. We already hired an attorney and are determined to stop this. The city Council has a very simple decision to make. Make 1 developer angry or make 60 RPV homeowners angry. Let me assure you, if this goes against the homeowners who have lived here for years that this will end up in litigation against the developer as well as the City that we love. We care too much for our homes and their value not to fight this, even if it takes years. Sam Rosenzweig 5103 Elkmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90725 310 874 0167 D-223 Amy Seeraty From: Kit Fox Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 8:10 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: Gabriella Yap Subject: FW: Elkmont Canyon FYI Kit Fox, Aicp Citic of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544--5226 kitf@rpvca.gov From: Connie Semos [mailto:bconmast@msn.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 10:49 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Elkmont Canyon I oppose the Elkmont Canyon proposal. My family has lived in RPV for more than 30 years. I've witnessed the incremental McMansionization of the peninsula and continue to be amused at how far some people will push the envelope. There area myriad of reasons to deny this owner his present proposal. To name just two, accessing Hawthorne Blvd there would be an accident waiting to happen. And the natural habitat of the canyon will be disrupted. Agreeing to this proposal in any form is a betrayal to the rest of the residents. We expect our elected officials to make good on their promise to keep safe our semi -rural community and the quality of life we all cherish. Connie Semos 1 D-224 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:34 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: kathleen.markowski@vistasir.com; Merin Dahl; Gregory Schill; Jeffrey Lewis Subject: Re: 9/8 Site Visit? Good Morning Ara and Amy- Just confirming our site visit to Elkmont Canyon tomorrow (Thurs) at 10am... Any new info on your end? I am assuming we are still on for the 9/20 CC meeting? Our address is: 5250 Willow Wood Rd, RHE We look forward to seeing you tomorrow:) On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowskika gmail.com> wrote: Thanks so much Amy & Ara- 9/8 @ I Oam works for me, I know Merin and perhaps a few others would be interested too .... I forward your email, and will confirm back later today.. Again- Thank you for taking the time to do this- It is so appreciated :) On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Amy Seeraty <AMySkEpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Kathleen - I understand that you are working with Jeff Lewis. He confirmed that we can coordinate with you to arrange the site visits and he suggested that we visit your property as well as Stuart Larking's. However, please let me know if any additional neighbors wish us to visit their property. Please also let me know if 10am on Thursday September 8t" would work for you and the neighbors, as that is when the Director and I are both available. Thank you. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes D-225 Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD.rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen.markowski(a, email. com Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen.markowskiggmail.com D-226 Amy Seeraty From: Bette Jones <bettespage@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 4:40 PM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: Case #Zon2014-00229 Hello... I am writing this in response to the Notice dated September 1, 2016. Our property is within 500' of the proposed project. Having driven up and down Hawthorne Blvd for a great many years, we feel that having access to Elkmont Canyon from this busy boulevard would present a dangerous condition as well as interrupt the normal flow of traffic. This access would certainly cause traffic delays, as large trucks and buses would need to slow up and gaining speed on the Hawthorne incline would be impossible. We strongly urge the City Council to deny access to Elkmont Canyon from Hawthorne Blvd. Thank you, Michael and Bette Jones Sent from my Pad D-227 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:15 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Cc: Merin Dahl Subject: Thank you! Amy and Ara- Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to come out to see our backyards and Elkmont Canyon. It is very much appreciated! Also- Do we all need to re -send our letters to you? Or will you use the letters you have on file from the last notice? Thanks again, Kathleen and Merin Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen.markowski&gmail. com IN 1 D-228 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 5:54 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Elkmont Canyon- One of the many posts on Next Door Hi Amy- I am copying one of the many NextDoor posts regarding Elkmont Canyon .... Will you add this thread/email to the letters? All of this is for one person who knew he was purchasing a landlocked property w/ a dedication that prohibited access- and paid a discounted price, when all of us- the 35+ surrounding properties paid top dollar because of the views and trusted the canyon would never be developed because of the dedication. More importantly are the hazards it will cause to the surrounding homes and wildlife. I really don't understand how the city could consider this, but I do have have faith the City Council and staff will listen to the public :) Thank you for all if your work thus far, and please keep us in the loop if there are any new developments. We are assuming we are on for the 9/20 CC meeting... 0" Saving Elkmont Canyon Gregory Schill from Silver Spur • 6d ago [91 Protect ELKMONT CANYON and ALL RPV CANYONS PV Residents- Do you live on a canyon or enjoy views of open space? Please inform yourself about the current consideration by the city council of RPV to remove a prohibition of access easement to Elkmont Canyon to make way for 10,800+ SF home/compound, w/ a driveway the size of half a football filed. This proposed development is situated throughout the entire 4.45 acre canyon that is currently in it's natural state, and home to an abundance of wildlife & native plants. In 1961 a prohibition of access, formed as a dedication to the public was recorded on the tract map, by the (then) owner of Elkmont Canyon. This prevented all rights of ingress/egress to the canyon, making it landlocked and keeping it in it's natural state. The property owners around the canyon relied on this dedication when they purchased their homes- and assumed the canyon would remain natural, and their serene views would never be changed. In 2013 the canyon was purchased by a private party at a below market discounted price because the property was landlocked w/ full knowledge there was no rights of ingress or egress. He is now asking the city of RPV to remove the public dedication, gain access to the property (off Hawthorne Blvd.) and develop the entire canyon. RPV city staff has determined the application should be split into 2 steps- First obtaining access, then development. For the access the RPV city staff states the applicant must comply with Resolution 90-93. One of the requirements of D-229 Resolution 90-93 is signatures of at least 50% of directly affected property owners. City staff has determined that only the applicants signature was necessary- We respectfully disagree with this decision - All 35+ residents bordering Elkmont canyon will absolutely be "directly affected". We feel this decision by city staff basically took away our voice and rights as property owners who live on Elkmont Canyon. Equally important is a myriad of other issues that the proposed access will create. 1) A hazardous driveway on highly traveled Hawthorne Blvd. 2) Slope stability issues for the homes built on around the canyon- there have been past landslides in the area 3) Flood hazard issues, as Elkmont Canyon is a natural drainage course ,4) Increased fire hazard issues 5) Destruction of an entire canyon ecosystem, 6) Negative impact on property values and complete destruction of views for surrounding homes, and the list goes on... If this dedication to the public is removed, this could set a precedent for alll of the open space & canyons in RPV- If you oppose please write to the city of RPV and city council and voice your opposition. Let's keep the open space we all enjoy - This could happen to your canyon next.... If you object you can email the RPV planning dept: Amy Serraty: amys@rpvca.gov Ara Mihranian: aram@rpvca.gov The City Council: cc@rpvca.gov For more info see attached for the public notice or the city of RPV's website http://www.rpvca.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?Al... Public Notice - Elkmont Canyon (APN 7576-026-028) The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, September 20, at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Public Notice - Elkmont Canyon (APN 7576-026-028) RPVCA.GOV PublicNotice_ Elkmont.pdf Shared with Silver Spur + 8 nearby neighborhoods in General THANKED! .18 You, Jeffrey, Kathy, and 15 others thanked Gregory 0 Jay Fodor from Silver Spier bd agu I recently purchased a home that is just above Elkmont Canyon. We purchased the property as our retirement home because of the natural country feel of the canyon that opens up below our back yard. I am a nature lover, so I have enjoyed the trees, birds and other animals that inhabit the canyon. I found that the canyon has developed its own ecosystem over the years and is home to a pair of red tailed hawks, hooded orioles, Downey woodpeckers, northern flickers, horned owls , scrub jays, and hummingbirds to name a few. I have also seen raccoons, skunks, and opossums in the canyon. Some native plants, such as lemon aid berry bushes, coyote bush, and toyon are also starting to take root in the canyon. Granting access to this property will damage this eco system and destroy the natural setting I have grown to love and that adds value to our home. I urge anyone who loves nature and is tired of the continuous habitat destruction in our area to oppose this development project. D-230 Thanked! You, Jeffrey, Stu, and 5 others thanked Jay 91 Carrie Fernandez from La Cresta - 5d ago What's wrong with the city. They have been allowing way too much building especially on land they should not build on. Thanked! You, Jeffrey, and Louise thanked Carrie H_ Susie Wong Tso from Silver Spur • 5d ago Thanks, Carrie for your comment. There are homeowners on the upper ridge of the canyon on Basswood who have sub -divided their lots and very large homes have been built in the canyon. I thought part of the master plan of the city of RPV was to preserve our "green spaces." Thanked! You and Ami thanked Susie Gregory Schill from Silver Spur • 4d ago Everyone, the best thing you can this week is to email the city of RPV (email addresses in original post) your opposition to this access and development. The reason RPV came into existence was to stop development on the peninsula! Thanked! You, Jeffrey, Carrie, and 1 other thanked Gregory E_ Kathryn Krenz from Peninsula Center • 4d ago Thank you for alerting us to this issue! I just sent the following to the emails you gave: RPV City Council - I wanted to register my opposition to the proposed development in the middle ofElkmont Canyon. I am opposed for several reasons: * It is not right to promise homeowners a natural canyon, then change the rules. * A personal driveway on Hawthorne Blvd would be dangerous due to heavy traffic. * The City of RPV should not be allowed to override Resolution 90-93, which requires signatures of 50% of the homeowners affected. From what I read on Nextdoor, the City did not require signatures from any of the affected homeowners. * We need dedicated green space Thank you for listening. Thanked! You, Jeffrey, Merin, and 1 other thanked Kathryn Joan Davidson from Montemalaga • 4d ago D-231 Does it matter that Hawthorne Blvd. was a state route 107? And then possibly became LA County N7? Rancho Palos Verdes was not a city at that time, and yet Rolling Hills Estates was a city at that time. Does that effect allowing an exit from a new road onto Hawthorne? I believe that Hawthorne was built through from PV Dr. North to Silver Spur when the Rolling Hills High was being built in about 1961. There are perhaps laws and/or implications that Hawthorne was or is a state route and perhaps can stop the development from being built with an exit onto Hawthorne. Besides the obvious- it would be incredibly dangerous. Old newspapers are a good source of information. And perhaps old city records. Thanked! You thanked Joan O Jackie Taus from Silver Spur - 4d ago I would like to add that the better we protect the canyons and preserve nature then the coyotes (once all of the buildings go up ) have nowhere to go .... Do we really want them in our backyard? I feel need to preserve our canyons because this is where wildlife lives remember this is their home we invaded it Thanked! You, Jim, Joan, and 1 other thanked Jackie x❑ Gregory Schill from Silver Spur • 3d ago Thank you all for responding. We need everyone's support in stopping this destruction of natural habitat and property values. Thank Jim thanked Gregory 191 - Barry Yudess from Crest • 2h ago The RPV City Council is responsive to an issue when the council chambers are packed and residents take their three minutes to talk to the council. Additionally, on the 9/20/16 agenda is an update on the Ladera Linda Toxic Soil Criminal Investigation. Everyone on the Hill should be at this meeting and let your concerns be known to the RPV City Council that we want to preserve our environment from over building and keep it safe for children and residents from toxic materials. Thank Susie, Jim, and Virginia thanked Barry H1 Lisa Riera from Silver Spur • 4m ago Spoke to two people today, one from our tract and one from Basswood -RPV allowed the construction of a hideous monstrosity on Baybridge, the owner then built another monstrosity on the FIRE ROAD down below AND the house next door and rebuilt that and a 3rd house next to that is in the process of being torn down and another hideosity (hideous+monstrosity) being built. Neighbors complained to RPV city hall and construction continued against their wishes. RPV doesn't care they're all about money. Take a drive over there and see. And while I'm on a rant, our lawns should die so they can build homes from the golf course to the Lomita Sheriff D-232 station -anyone recall that battle? How much is our water going to cost? How long will it last?? Money is all that matters apparently not the quality of life nor scarce resources of thousands of residents. Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen.markowski g gmail. com 0 D-233 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 10:04 AM To: Amy Seeraty; Ara Mihranian Subject: Elkmont Canyon letters Amy and Ara- I am just confirming that we all do not need to re -send our letter's that we had sent to you previously re: Elkmont Canyon, and that you will be sending them to the CC prior to the 9/20 meeting. Also- I wanted to confirm you received a new letter last week from RHE Thank you! Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen. markowskiggmail. com 0 D-234 Amy Seeraty From: Kathleen Markowski <kathleen.markowski@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 5:54 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Elkmont Canyon- One of the many posts on Next Door Hi Amy- I am copying one of the many NextDoor posts regarding Elkmont Canyon .... Will you add this thread/email to the letters? All of this is for one person who knew he was purchasing a landlocked property w/ a dedication that prohibited access- and paid a discounted price, when all of us- the 35+ surrounding properties paid top dollar because of the views and trusted the canyon would never be developed because of the dedication. More importantly are the hazards it will cause to the surrounding homes and wildlife. I really don't understand how the city could consider this, but I do have have faith the City Council and staff will listen to the public :) Thank you for all if your work thus far, and please keep us in the loop if there are any new developments. We are assuming we are on for the 9/20 CC meeting... 0" Saving Elkmont Canyon Gregory Schill from Silver Spur • 6d ago [91 Protect ELKMONT CANYON and ALL RPV CANYONS PV Residents- Do you live on a canyon or enjoy views of open space? Please inform yourself about the current consideration by the city council of RPV to remove a prohibition of access easement to Elkmont Canyon to make way for 10,800+ SF home/compound, w/ a driveway the size of half a football filed. This proposed development is situated throughout the entire 4.45 acre canyon that is currently in it's natural state, and home to an abundance of wildlife & native plants. In 1961 a prohibition of access, formed as a dedication to the public was recorded on the tract map, by the (then) owner of Elkmont Canyon. This prevented all rights of ingress/egress to the canyon, making it landlocked and keeping it in it's natural state. The property owners around the canyon relied on this dedication when they purchased their homes- and assumed the canyon would remain natural, and their serene views would never be changed. In 2013 the canyon was purchased by a private party at a below market discounted price because the property was landlocked w/ full knowledge there was no rights of ingress or egress. He is now asking the city of RPV to remove the public dedication, gain access to the property (off Hawthorne Blvd.) and develop the entire canyon. RPV city staff has determined the application should be split into 2 steps- First obtaining access, then development. For the access the RPV city staff states the applicant must comply with Resolution 90-93. One of the requirements of D-235 Resolution 90-93 is signatures of at least 50% of directly affected property owners. City staff has determined that only the applicants signature was necessary- We respectfully disagree with this decision - All 35+ residents bordering Elkmont canyon will absolutely be "directly affected". We feel this decision by city staff basically took away our voice and rights as property owners who live on Elkmont Canyon. Equally important is a myriad of other issues that the proposed access will create. 1) A hazardous driveway on highly traveled Hawthorne Blvd. 2) Slope stability issues for the homes built on around the canyon- there have been past landslides in the area 3) Flood hazard issues, as Elkmont Canyon is a natural drainage course ,4) Increased fire hazard issues 5) Destruction of an entire canyon ecosystem, 6) Negative impact on property values and complete destruction of views for surrounding homes, and the list goes on... If this dedication to the public is removed, this could set a precedent for alll of the open space & canyons in RPV- If you oppose please write to the city of RPV and city council and voice your opposition. Let's keep the open space we all enjoy - This could happen to your canyon next.... If you object you can email the RPV planning dept: Amy Serraty: amys@rpvca.gov Ara Mihranian: aram@rpvca.gov The City Council: cc@rpvca.gov For more info see attached for the public notice or the city of RPV's website http://www.rpvca.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?Al... Public Notice - Elkmont Canyon (APN 7576-026-028) The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, September 20, at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Public Notice - Elkmont Canyon (APN 7576-026-028) RPVCA.GOV PublicNotice_ Elkmont.pdf Shared with Silver Spur + 8 nearby neighborhoods in General THANKED! .18 You, Jeffrey, Kathy, and 15 others thanked Gregory 0 Jay Fodor from Silver Spier bd agu I recently purchased a home that is just above Elkmont Canyon. We purchased the property as our retirement home because of the natural country feel of the canyon that opens up below our back yard. I am a nature lover, so I have enjoyed the trees, birds and other animals that inhabit the canyon. I found that the canyon has developed its own ecosystem over the years and is home to a pair of red tailed hawks, hooded orioles, Downey woodpeckers, northern flickers, horned owls , scrub jays, and hummingbirds to name a few. I have also seen raccoons, skunks, and opossums in the canyon. Some native plants, such as lemon aid berry bushes, coyote bush, and toyon are also starting to take root in the canyon. Granting access to this property will damage this eco system and destroy the natural setting I have grown to love and that adds value to our home. I urge anyone who loves nature and is tired of the continuous habitat destruction in our area to oppose this development project. D-236 Thanked! You, Jeffrey, Stu, and 5 others thanked Jay 91 Carrie Fernandez from La Cresta - 5d ago What's wrong with the city. They have been allowing way too much building especially on land they should not build on. Thanked! You, Jeffrey, and Louise thanked Carrie H_ Susie Wong Tso from Silver Spur • 5d ago Thanks, Carrie for your comment. There are homeowners on the upper ridge of the canyon on Basswood who have sub -divided their lots and very large homes have been built in the canyon. I thought part of the master plan of the city of RPV was to preserve our "green spaces." Thanked! You and Ami thanked Susie Gregory Schill from Silver Spur • 4d ago Everyone, the best thing you can this week is to email the city of RPV (email addresses in original post) your opposition to this access and development. The reason RPV came into existence was to stop development on the peninsula! Thanked! You, Jeffrey, Carrie, and 1 other thanked Gregory E_ Kathryn Krenz from Peninsula Center • 4d ago Thank you for alerting us to this issue! I just sent the following to the emails you gave: RPV City Council - I wanted to register my opposition to the proposed development in the middle ofElkmont Canyon. I am opposed for several reasons: * It is not right to promise homeowners a natural canyon, then change the rules. * A personal driveway on Hawthorne Blvd would be dangerous due to heavy traffic. * The City of RPV should not be allowed to override Resolution 90-93, which requires signatures of 50% of the homeowners affected. From what I read on Nextdoor, the City did not require signatures from any of the affected homeowners. * We need dedicated green space Thank you for listening. Thanked! You, Jeffrey, Merin, and 1 other thanked Kathryn Joan Davidson from Montemalaga • 4d ago D-237 Does it matter that Hawthorne Blvd. was a state route 107? And then possibly became LA County N7? Rancho Palos Verdes was not a city at that time, and yet Rolling Hills Estates was a city at that time. Does that effect allowing an exit from a new road onto Hawthorne? I believe that Hawthorne was built through from PV Dr. North to Silver Spur when the Rolling Hills High was being built in about 1961. There are perhaps laws and/or implications that Hawthorne was or is a state route and perhaps can stop the development from being built with an exit onto Hawthorne. Besides the obvious- it would be incredibly dangerous. Old newspapers are a good source of information. And perhaps old city records. Thanked! You thanked Joan O Jackie Taus from Silver Spur - 4d ago I would like to add that the better we protect the canyons and preserve nature then the coyotes (once all of the buildings go up ) have nowhere to go .... Do we really want them in our backyard? I feel need to preserve our canyons because this is where wildlife lives remember this is their home we invaded it Thanked! You, Jim, Joan, and 1 other thanked Jackie x❑ Gregory Schill from Silver Spur • 3d ago Thank you all for responding. We need everyone's support in stopping this destruction of natural habitat and property values. Thank Jim thanked Gregory 191 - Barry Yudess from Crest • 2h ago The RPV City Council is responsive to an issue when the council chambers are packed and residents take their three minutes to talk to the council. Additionally, on the 9/20/16 agenda is an update on the Ladera Linda Toxic Soil Criminal Investigation. Everyone on the Hill should be at this meeting and let your concerns be known to the RPV City Council that we want to preserve our environment from over building and keep it safe for children and residents from toxic materials. Thank Susie, Jim, and Virginia thanked Barry H1 Lisa Riera from Silver Spur • 4m ago Spoke to two people today, one from our tract and one from Basswood -RPV allowed the construction of a hideous monstrosity on Baybridge, the owner then built another monstrosity on the FIRE ROAD down below AND the house next door and rebuilt that and a 3rd house next to that is in the process of being torn down and another hideosity (hideous+monstrosity) being built. Neighbors complained to RPV city hall and construction continued against their wishes. RPV doesn't care they're all about money. Take a drive over there and see. And while I'm on a rant, our lawns should die so they can build homes from the golf course to the Lomita Sheriff D-238 station -anyone recall that battle? How much is our water going to cost? How long will it last?? Money is all that matters apparently not the quality of life nor scarce resources of thousands of residents. Kathleen Markowski Vista Sotheby's International Realty 310-948-1888 c 310-375-9616 f BRE # 01292536 kathleen.markowski g gmail. com 0 D-239 Amy Seeraty From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmd@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 1:22 PM To: Ara Mihranian; Amy Seeraty Cc: CC Subject: New document for submission along with old documents for resubmission re Elkmont Canyon Attachments: PDF Signed Elkmont Canyon Dahlerbruch letter.pdf, ATT00001.htm; Final PDF Elkmont pictures.pdf, ATT00002.htm; Foliage removal .rtf, ATT00003.htm; canyon easements.pdf, ATT00004.htm Dear Amy and Ara: Thank you for coming out yesterday to see Elkmont Canyon! We were glad you were able to see the destruct from the tree removal that Perera had performed and the marks from the driving in the canyon (with a non - approved grading of a road) that they used when they removed valuable trees that were holding up the hillsid (We have already had numerous documented discussions on how Perera was told by County Weights and Measures that he did not need to remove trees and that the clearance work had been completed to their satisfaction prior to him going to the city to get a permit to enter the property. The granting of the temporary permit was based on his lie that he needed to do brush clearance. We all know that he cleared the canyon sc would look empty to build!) We were also fortunate that you were able to see the water trail in the soil from wt a fire hydrant was hit a few weeks ago on Silver Spur and drained into the canyon. We also voiced our conce about the hillsides coming down when it rains because in the past brush clearance was never taken as far up Perera has gone on people's hillsides. In addition, we were glad you were able to see Stuart Larking slip on h slope because the ground is not compacted on the slopes of the entire canyon and gives way when pressure applied. Thankfully, we were able to visit many homes on both sides of the canyon and you were also able to see the proposed entrance off of Hawthorne from above and see the traffic flying by at great speeds. Once again, we implore you to remove the Initiation Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement fr( the agenda on September 20th and any future date until Mr. Perera has the 50% required signatures pursuan City Council Resolution No. 90-93. As the notice was sent to those whose properties are located within 500'c the proposed project, these homeowners are all clearly affected by Perera's request and need to be counted the required 50% signatures. We suggest the city attorney weigh heavily on this stipulation when making a determination that will affect many owners who have now formed a Save Elkmont Canyon group! We know our original letters were submitted in August but we want to make sure they are included again in ai future discussions so they are attached to this email. Please submit this email on top as new correspondence Sincerely, Merin Dahlerbruch Begin forwarded message: From: Merin Mayl Dahlerbruch <merinlmd(a-)-gmail.com> D-240 Subject: Elkmont Canyon Date: July 19, 2016 at 3:34:11 PM PDT To: CC(a rpvca.gov Cc: Ara Mihranian <aram rpvca.gov>, Amy Seeraty <amys(o-)-rpvca.gov> Hello, Council: It is our understanding that the Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement on tonight's agenda will be continued to the next meeting. However, we were told that we are able to speak since it was already calendared and we will likely be away in August for the next meeting. We look forward to seeing you tonight and hope that you will have an opportunity to review the attached documents. Thank you, Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch D-241 SCALE I" = 601 IN i SHEET RPORATED TE RRITORY -OF THE .COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AGE -13- OF 4 `SHEETS X512 UN I NCO BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT "H", PARTITION OF. THE RANCHO LOS PALOS VERDES, ALLOTTED TO JOTHAM BIXBY BENT E T AT R� -Jr OV,ii t BY DECREE OF PARTITION IN ACTION "BIXBY ET AL. VS. /z i9// " SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN CASE NE 2373 IN THE DISTRICT A L ' A �+ COURT OF THE 17TH. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF 114 BOOK CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND ATPAGE or�, Er -cc, ENTERED IN BOOK 4 PAGE 57 OF JUDGEMENTS IN THE SUPER- «,A,.��,f ���;,�,CAUK IOR COURT OF SAID COUNTY, RECORDS OF L 0 S ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BY o� SURVEYED BY ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION % I The bearing (N. 12°15'/4"E) of the Center Line of Si/ver Spur Road as shown on Map of Tract NY 21351 as recorded 1n Book 598 Pages 32 to 38 inriusive of Maps, Records of Los 4ngvles County was taken as The bosis of bearing shown on this map, ALL 211 IRON PIPES SHOWN HEREON AS SET ARE 611 BELOW SURFACE OF GROUND We hereby centify that we are the owners of or are interested In tho lands induded within the subdivision shown on this map within the colored border lines, and We consent to the P'8PWxdA7n and recondaion of said map and subdivision, and herby dedicale to the public use all the streets, high ways, and other public ways shown on said reap. and o/�� qq�oni to rhe County, of Los �Angs �S , T ale noted o Bald arV sewer, stdrm drain and diai/�ave P . P� mop and 711 uses inciderlr &ep eln , /nci�d/r'9 'She r/9hq to makE �onn�tia7s lhe'ewilh % any ad oin�hq p� ems' OP WE FURTHER, CERTIFY TF4AT, EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON 0MMtSSIONE THIS MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNi'y KNOW OF NO EASEMENT OR GT EX"T THE p j;3 N THE EASE - MENTS HEREBY OFFtRED FOR DEDICATION TO THE PUgUG,OTHER TaAN PU3uCL.y OWNED WAiEQ LINES 5EVvF25 O2 STORM DRAINS i TWAT We WILL GRANT NO RIGHT OR INTEREST WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF EXCEPT WHERE SUCH RIGHT SAID EASEMENTS OFFERED TO THE PU13Ut0 , 02 INTEREST 15 EXPIZESSLy MADE 5U5JECT TO THE SAID EASEMENTS. AS A DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE WHILE ALL OF SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THIS SUBDIVI- SION REMAIN PUBLIC -HIGHWAYS FOR SUCH TIME ONLY, WE E REBS ABANDON ALL EASEMENTS OF INGRESS TO THE SAID SILVER SPUR ROAD AND HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD SO THAT OWNERS OF LOTS 1, 2, 71, 23 T027 INCLUSIVE AND 52 TO -58 INCLUSIVE ABUTTING THESE HIGHWAYS DURINGSLICH S WHATEVER ITIMHE WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS OF HIGHWAYS AS SUCH EXCEPT THE GENERAL EASEMENT OF TRAVEL WHICH TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC. IF ANY GE OF ALIGN- 'MENT ORLWIDTH ONGS OF SUCH HIGHWAYS RESU TS !IN T14E VACATION ()FAN'( PART THEREOF WITHIMAMD A U&CENT TO THIS SUIB'01v1-'101J,SUCH VA- CATION TERMINATES THE ABOVE IDEDICATION AS TO THE PART VACATED - ELK MONT LANDowN C®. A PARTNERSHIP BY PERKINS REALTY PART COO A CO POF+.97tON • SEC0.0 0.`l ' PRES'�DENT V COUNTY OF L OS AAAGEL ES EASEMENT HOG/.DE2 /3Y /SEED /PEC01?DE/.) 1? -853 PAGE 764 OFFIC/14L HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETS, CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A TRUE AND COMPLETE SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION _.JULY 1958 -• THAT THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHARACTER AND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PLACE OR WILL BE IN PLACE WITHIN A" Twe7 4w,, MONTHS FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS MAP; TH",ID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE. SURVEY TO BE READILY RETRACED AND THAT TIE NOTES TO ALL CENTERLINE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON AS SET BY ME WILL BE ONI FII F IN THE OFFICE OF THE_-.OQUNjY _ ENGINEER VVITHINTwc',,,,fj=four MONTHS FROM RECORDING DATE SHOWN I-IEREOr,I. RUGIS7ERE CIVU EN(41NFER Np; 5335_�._.- THE PRESENT OWNERS or- AN EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO THE MC CART4Y COMPANY , A CO2PORAMON , 13Y (GEED RECORDED 1N BOOK 52370 PAGE 20 OFFICIAL RBCARD5, AND AS GRANTED TO ZOLLINGW00D HOMES COMPANY, A CO -PARTNERSHIP, gY DEED RECORDED IN 5001- 54201 PAGE 392 OFFICIAL RE - COI2D5, HAVE BEEN OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 4 7 19 11587' CAL, O;DETERM�IN6VTNENOWNE SHIPMAP ACT I THEREOFCH AS IT IS IMPRACTI- STATE OF CAL 117ORNIA S'S' COUNTY OF L''S ANGELES ON THIS 13 DAY OF !"lA RC N '19 61 . BEFORE ME MARGARET E. waH•NEn ;, NOTAP,Y PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COUNTY. APPEAPED 13. R. f'110 RR 13 KNOWN TO M!7 i :'- BE: TFiE PRESIDENT. AND JOSEPH 11E YS",V KNOV,%1 TO ME: -t 0 B3 THE SECRETARY OF TI,-iE PERKINS REALTY CO, _I HE CORPORATION THAT EY.ECUTED THE VV;TIAN V-,;si-i L1mENT AS A F f -.F T NER GF THE ELKMONIT LAND CO. A.NO KNOVVr`I TO ME: TO DE: 1 HE FEES ;r•!S WHO '-XECL; T ED THE WITHIN IN- STRUMENT ON BEHALF 0�= ;'HE CORPORATION THEREIN NAMED AND ACKIIJ�'vLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH CORPORATION EXE - LUTED !-!-4E SAMIEi AS SUCH PARTNER. AND THAT SUCH PART- N_=tRSHiP E-XECUT D THE SAI4'IE. MAeGARET E• YUEtJ1JEK !vim RY `' '�' MY GOMIvIISSION EXPIRES/�(f�• / �JG� I!9 !4E TRACT Na) IT IS O4tDERED THAT THE TIP OF TRACT RO. 13 14EPtOY APPROVED; THAT THE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF 3 47J_.S:O°_._-.-......... FILED WITH THIS BOARD TO INSL•?F. PAfOENT.OF TAXES AND SPECIAL AS- SESSMENTS COLLEC7;-0 AS TAXES BE APPROVED: THAT ALL STREETS, HIGHWF"- AND OTHER PU3LW WAYS AND E-A EMENTS SHOWN ON SAtC "ate AN5 OFFERED FOR DEDICAPON BE AND THE SAKE ARE + : ' 4CCEPTED ON BEHALF OF TN.E PUBLIC.. That Ire offer � ` c�ed�'cat�o�; foi- abindonme.,t u,c.,;� ri96tS Of 1ng1-e5S dnd e9i-ess be acce,ofeo' brhd/� of the avb,z r HE' c ilFy THAT THE Fu 7:45 ADOPTED F HELD .. � f.1 IL -.—.k—"' ._., ✓ �� ..• .•.. v..i ....... :. GORDON T. NE$VwG• CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPtAYISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELS, STA7�F.OF CALIFORKUL BY r -tel i i �� �:a. 1 hereby cerfify thaf, I have examined, this mat-, fhai it cGnforms > Lt ,ianrlrally 10 the Tentative map and all approved olteratiens thereor-; that all provi_ions of ccppliccJ !s ': ate law and local R�b- dhvkion ordinances have been compiied with; and that I am satisfied that this map is t hniea correct. Dated, �o�i/ /�� 1.961 r r. SCALE KIM SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUR VEYED BY ENGINEER/NG SERV/CE CORPORATION 40 140, I'=60" F r N 2 9 M6 6o�paf Z �l O1— . /',1 � Y /-i�E 0/' ri-ocf N° 2/269 1W..9. aca -B//3 N. BSO o3' 27 W. / 927- N17704 4'4 27N177044'4Q`46o ?06 s�406. O t9 26 06 _ 0, N j 4 e9Q n0 '94�a 6�6ry \ ioV✓Psc 390",,s0,`\\ � h � a i 401 30, 800 �o• o 0 N',v�141)l 3 o� rya � � 4 CL Sp O d, a y S 9 n� � I2 a°y3�19 •ego, ��2 S¢f 2°i.a 6 (� d tu ri h o oh N liz o0 40 30 8 0' � N• o 7IoA�wlol %h Q �• Boa. ly V K 40 Q 3\00 l '44 Q, "\n Igo' Q o 8 0 N ��/�ic ` ,o��j s a\oee, � Ioil 5 ESE Lv N: J oIn ti co. - Nry 4.0� 8 0 Al li 71 1.143 Ac. 9? sem° to. s ro, 4110`R 1896 76 �r0FA�5'.LY LINE OF A VA21ABLEWIDTNEA5EMeJ1T POR8(V _ DR,41N Pu RP0585 RI'JER NO 1Ofd232S'LY LINEARi LE WIDTH EA5EMENT FOSLOPE PP R O.R. 54201.392 } .�.�I L+7'00"W. 64' N.ow.277 � SQ} S�,T 40G.73 DRIVE O 131 y :.n R=/5L7733, N.Bs-ogbo9!!o0_A-4.0^00��Ob�0R0 ti 10n ti 4:N25' 25: z-/s'L--2356' 4� ► 6O"� IIt O z� oN Q, c �m N . —V D-243 42 •, o o �o.► a f I 5 0' �+ 82 N.85009'0o'W. p o W /22 o N.85°09,00" a �• � o = ioo' W W o to QM o 43 F. 'Orn 8 I V Y1 Z 0 o.5!«E Rad . IIt O z� oN Q, c �m N . —V D-243 N88003'27N 731 Off / Fd 2" I . P. per trent♦ rah m 7 N�21269 M.B•Go6-g/13 �p 71 "9D:5 400.00' N68°03'27"W 148.00' °2,q 46'/8Y� 1� o ZzsgzF 0 a liU C Sly and$WLS' Lines of frac+Ne 21269 M.B. 606-8/ib °NO Oo N N p FSB` Fqs� , Lh Q 66 65 AV Q? o z s�T o Z ti� 0/'�V7eb Sr0 4g9 Ole / O nmI l7 ` � ��l `^ 2'�' Fd 2" I.P, per tracF Fd2%P.PerTrocl`N= 21.71' — O4 / T �D 4►� 'Ls, s. 0/13 �/B9°SB:a�?Y 2/2�o9B!o06B�3 ----- /V %s' N' 21269 M.B.6o6- ¢/3.66 v � ti� !°iso s 257.72' 14. 9 58� u/i cto' 2° ;fig 75b;98T. �s bs p a � �,� ?g, y 10. Z, � !� 72.00'_. .. 97, - --- .. � /82.69" k 0 l of ?Cit� dD�(�, z j Q 89.s4� 2 49\�° �yoa� 211° / �i . �SASSMENT g �i � 235.00 SLOP \\ -01 N �° � �° VG X6, e �I\ SM u�18 FSA VA91A6uE top w /� l 6� � T e.547.36 _ ti d F4S''\' WIDTH E $WENT FON051lhhh 0PE �Oti / i ' 1 33.00' L=28.3!' d-!2°(4' �i \ •� Fjt s9 F� C, �/ I PuRP s PER RIDER ' i,.�'I \;�D 8 n1 L- S 00•. 1, +� \ FR 0�1'I\B�' 0 •!3 -- G•R_52370.20•_ _ �_ ` `!I / • --�— -- — oS� O�y / N85°Q9/00��`y 277,70' 9 7e, C 2 \ �o DU,q'v#-o Tp\ .� (0.13 +-' ae N B6° 00' W• 197.°� L4 L-19$.49, 4; /30 ;L e�0 8 v\ P°s�s F 2a"� �I_ 6.47' _ 83.95_ — — 'J7.o - �( � 6� `meg �9 �_ N85oo9'o0/icy. 0�06.7d' Qc x•630?�dp, A`' 91 �� , , (8�i O -- 97' ' –-` E D 0 4=40a oNTy OF LOS 1 006. s o ••° o \ �q 6ELGE5 FDREMSANITAR�,.�u PURPOSES 1V83°o9oo"/,j/ / R° s' G� \ 9` ��E0327 0 N 66 3-0 3 9!%'_ O� 697 4`40 2 0 cv�•. 36 O� S k`5Soo' ,/o r!°rf G°'O1g0a5Z NATURA PpRCEI 00' 6„ (��!y0 78 4140 w� B th��u DRA/N1 p..e' p. •A' 0 O�PCC£L �o O / � 0 R, lc S.A• /Z/b,.•._ a S Rf \ , r' —r-- Q7 aP p� Q 29°l ?�a' /�, �!� ;9� 0� $� <°°4Sy9R ��!! �y n/B/•37/3'iti' �'� .o •c� N. / ' � / � � � • ` \' �l °/ /S Q. '' QJ \ tri o y ♦ Q� • 7Q fp 7d �1 �t� t . SO. p�'� P���' I {. /?. 3 .t, fpw % 4 `d d?5 6 ¢\ °, �('+O r �• Pq� o c °day ,d 9o�s/ O ;- �• D, S, tiV po 6 S`('� , 0 . ,^ 1 ,. , , •• �'4' , d N ►�� I 41�/ OQ, �,� O "N V `Y G a�Vs^a°ro °B4j'Oa ° I •d°s"�d` o^'� p��(,° Kto �I �' �� ,4 8 !y �,� �� t1 ly ss�\ 0 ya9 y S 7� V ^.16�' �y / t m 72aaan 4y6d' s9so ti o� ,Q o�� 0,\� fop s•/.�`\ s6��ya �'y SEE 36 1521' °4646"W 92. . 2!' amp �3`, DRIVE 5 SHEET i s : ° �0' h o� / do •� / �y0 / \cr_� cvCb ���A o tv"yy ti°I oa 1 ' t y / Pr CP ' \ Na iZs'w / 'ti° opo` 1 r / 5ef 5 / AN) w o s A� d m s�° . s3 '� / SCA LE0601 73 92 4, t O d0 A aa A 25 2 S8, �� ti O oys 6 �s8o a d D ° 91, �wif .ar ,' T� 5.67 1 • , O: 1-g- .4 je ti� OV PFII/l✓ ��d '� � j s "' 0 ca / 55�Nv : _ , g`60 � wmm v� � �� x; �:i � 4 r D-244 SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS IN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY .OF LOS ANGELES SURVEYED SY ENG/NEER/NG SERWCE CORPORAT/ON �O tipR4c \\T, 8s 'sem 3 I I env W�- 6e,, o m ri) a � ►6 ` � °r,� iD Qe�. y 70• rr�if/ Pp0 SN1 �o tj 2. X25-0 . 'sit sir 5,56 �19 5 PC,- �'/o9St 7p �6'S8' �o •• ,� v� i= � l3�HS 33S w J Q V N BOULEVARD O 2G2_.7�i I0 scFs�� ,or•ig-yl �rS �16 8F OF •SIS: � Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com Pictures: Surveyors hacked up plants And hillside not stable and drains into canyon D-246 Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 merinlmd@gmail.com This article on the FEMA website, that discusses the dangers of building a home in a canyon and the increased risk of wildfires pertains to Elkmont Canyon. There is a very valid reason why the canyon is regularly rolled and kept clear to protect from fire in the bottom of the canyon. "- Canyons. A wildfire at the bottom of a vegetated canyon can lead to extremely hazardous conditions upslope. A canyon acts like a chimney, collecting hot gases and directing superheated convection and radiant heat upslope. Canyons funnel winds (see Figure 3) that can fan a fire and lead to extreme fire behavior (rapid spread of the wildfire and ignition of an entire area). An entire canyon can pre -heat from rising hot air and gases and explode in flames, creating a firestorm." Canyon view and back of our property to bottom tree. Taken from neighbor's house D-247 From: Merin Dahl <merinlmd@gmail.com> Subject: Thank you and meeting Date: July 11, 2016 at 12:54:16 PM PDT To: mpina@acwm.lacounty.gov Cc: Amy Seeraty <amys@rpvca.gov>, Ara Mihranian <aram@rpvca.gov>, gyap@rpvca.gov Bcc: merikinc@gmail.com Hello, Ms. Pina: Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today on the telephone. I appreciate you explaining to me about what was asked of Mr. Perara in regards to Elkmont Canyon. Looking at the aerial map, property lines are questionable. I have been extremely afraid to leave my house as Perara has been removing lots of live trees and with our property lines in question, we are afraid all of our back foliage will be wrongly removed. As you are aware, the ground is not stable and we are additionally concerned about slippage of our slope when the rains come if additional foliage is removed. I think I will sleep better tonight knowing that Perara was only told to take out dead brush and thin trees and never given the directive to remove trees down to stumps. And a few weeks ago as far as your office was concerned, he did not need to continue with additional clearance. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me after taking a look at the canyon on your own. Informing me of what is considered dangerous will be a tremendous help. I am hoping that the city will take note of this desecration to our properties, the hillsides, the canyon, and consider all of the animals that have been displaced. Mr Perara has conducted the removal for no reason but to clear the canyon for possible development... none of which has been approved due to the Prohibition of Access Easement that has been in place since 1961. Thank you again for taking time out of your day to give us the facts so that we and the City of RPV can be better informed. I look forward to meeting you in person. Sincerely, Merin Dahlerbruch 310-872-8487 9 I i Erik and Merin Dahlerbruch 5217 Elkmont Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-872-8487 merinlmd .pmail,com Amy Seeraty City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, RPV, CA 90275-5391 July 8, 2016 RE: Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: We have lived in our home since August 1996. When we purchased our home, we were informed that we owned our property down almost to the bottom of the canyon. We had no reason for concern about development because there was no access allowed in as explained on the city tract maps. The person two doors down from us owned all the way across the canyon and our neighbor next door owned all the way across as well. To give a little additional history: In July 2005, we were given a paper at our doorstep and I believe also by Fedex months earlier where a person by the name of Yasin Shahzad, R. E. Broker (CA, DRE, Lic#01243299) was trying to sell us property that was behind our house. Along with that paper, I have uncovered a paper in my notes documenting that I called the city and spoke with Dave who stated "These lots are not legal lots at this point as far as the city understands but could change if someone provides evidence they were created_ The whole parcel was sold in March 2005 but (just) because someone sold it does not mean legal lots or illegal either. (They) can't build on storm drain easements." He further went on to state that the "way it would benefit me (would be that it) adds to my lot size because able to build more on pad and could build a larger house." (Single story.) About three years ago, the owner of Elkmont Canyon hired a survey company. They traipsed across my hillside and put up stakes on my property as well as the property next door (the one that clearly owns across the canyon) and marked all the way down the canyon. Just because they put up stakes does not mean they own what is marked{ They chopped down plants and it dislodged hillside on our property. We called the police and the city of RPV at that time. A few days later I went to the city and made sure that the city had proper records of our lot and property description based on our escrow papers. When I went to the city last week, those papers were still in our file, We formally oppose the "Request to Vacate a Prohibition of Access Easement" on Elkmont Canyon (Case No ZON2014-00229). This access should not be granted for many reasons - D -249 • The recent Traffic Survey on file states that traffic hasn't increased up Hawthorne since the 2003.study. This is completely ludicrous. Community members have seen increased traffic over the years with additional home developments, Terranea, Trump International Golf Course, etc. Many owners have also observed an increase on Hawthorne of accidents and sirens. We need to see an updated traffic survey with current numbers reflecting accident rages, speed distribution, traffic statistics, etc. • Access would create a hazard for carsitrucks entering and leaving Hawthorne. As designed, it is a very busy street and entering traffic will cause additional accidents. Cars leaving from the canyon would be forced to drive up hill on Hawthorne BPvd. and there make a u -turn at Blackhorse to head back down towards Torrance and this would change traffic patterns and create a potential for additional accidents. • The easements for fire, water, sewage, etc. were placed in the Elkmont Canyon for a reason. They were explicit and intentional. Changing or eliminating them will compromise the integrity of the land and create danger to all of our properties. • When the developers of the surrounding subdivisions built homes, don't you think they would have built in the canyon if it was safe and allowable? • The prohibition of access was explicit and intentional. Allowing a road goes against the use of what was intended for protection of the canyon and homes bordering the canyon. • Elkmont Canyon is designated as a'Natural Hazard Zone" as noted on the site plans. • Any activity in Elkmont Canyon is noisy. Sound reverberates and echoes creating noise concerns and disruption of the habitat. • Any additional activity (including building equipment) in the canyon would disrupt the land and slopes. The soil is not compact, nor stable. • Adding ponds, vineyards, roads, homes, or doing any type of grading is very concerning considering, the instability of the soil on the slopes. ■ Landslides have been documented in both RHE and RPV city records on properties nearby and of similar topography. • There is a document from RHE in the Elkmont Canyon file that requests for RPV to notify the City of RHE because of its adjacent nature. The City of RHE does own property in the 500' radius. Why has the City of RHE not been kept abreast of developments over the past years as requested? In Why have residents not been kept informed over the last few months and years? • Vehicle activity in Elkmont Canyon will disrupt the ecological environment. There are hawks, owls, raccoons, possum, birds, lizards, butterflies, snakes, insects, etc. that live in the canyon. Are there endangered or protected species in the canyon that need to be considered? Elkmont Canyon is a natural fire hazard (as noted by the city clearing the area before the annual fire season). Placing a building in the canyon with foliage will increase the potential for fire and endanger the surrounding communities. D-250 • Removing additional foliage from the area will create landslides. • It is well documented that in 1961, access off Hawthorne Boulevard had been relinquished in conjunction with other plots of land creating efficient traffic patterns for the city. • Property Lines were designated when the developments were built ... and now somehow years later they have changed on city documents without consent of current homes owners. It is obvious that it was a 1962 or later illegal subdivision. • The proposed development is not in keeping with neighborhood compatibility. There are no buildings that come close to the size of the proposal in height or square footage. • The size and weight of trucks is restricted on Hawthorne Blvd for a reason. The heavy construction equipment required for a development the size of the proposal is alarming. With a proposal of a 4 -car garage along with a sizeable house with a guesthouse, the proposed road would have a considerable amount of travel. • Why is the community just now learning that new development discussions in Elkmont Canyon have been going on for 10 years? This same issue was dealt with years ago and was reconfirmed that there was not going to be any development in the canyon. • Why had issues been brought to city council for approval before the planning commission could get involved? • There are documented questions about compliance. Integrity of the city is in question. This land is not to be accessed from Hawthorne Boulevard and to have development. • Many ether properties were listed on the land maps with the prohibition of access easement. Granting access to the canyon property sets a precedence that would allow other property owners who are excluded to petition the city to have their prohibitions removed. • Access from Hawthorne into Elkmont Canyon was relinquished in 1961. All homes purchased since then were purchased knowing that nothing would be built in the back yards of homes that line the canyon, both in RPV and RHE. This created value for buying a home in that location. Therefore, if anything is built in the canyon, it would negatively affect the value of those homes, quality of life, and the comps for the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. • The current owner of Elkmont Canyon bought property knowing he/she didn't have access to Hawthorne by virtue of the written and recorded easements. There is no reason after all these years it should change. They shouldn't have bought the property if they were concerned about access. • Proposed development in Elkmont Canyon is not compatible with our neighborhoods. In years past, another home proposed a 2ndstory and it was denied to ensure compatibility of the neighborhood. At that time it was confirmed that a precedent should not be set. In addition, the size of the proposed home is not consistent with the dynamics of the neighborhood. • When the homes were built along the canyon, the ground was not reinforced. Dirt was literally pushed over the edge of the properties when they were leveled. Building now on the slopes, developing access roads, or even planting vineyards 3 D-251 will compromise the hillside and negatively affect the foundations of the homes surrounding. Multiple property owners along the Elkmont Drive side have voiced concern over their property lines. The Elkmont Canyon owner has staked property that many Elkmont Drive owners along the ridge believe they own. The surveyors took out plants that belonged to owners on the ridge. The survey is only as goad as the property is if it was legally obtained and registered. Their entire surrey is up for dispute. Open space. Isn't the city required to have enough open space? What type of precedence will this set for other canyon properties with similar easement restrictions in our city when their owners decide to request removal of prohibitions of access? Putting a fire trail in on either side will not work with the unstable hillsides. Many owners will attest to the fact that when they step on their hillsides, the ground collapses underneath them. The Elkmont Canyon owner must be aware of this because the surveyors were having a very difficult timing maintaining their footing and they caused much of the hillsides to collapse when they attempted their staking. Many of the hillside properties have runoff that drains directly into the canyon_ Property owners will need to continue to drain into the canyon. Having a mad, let alone a home, in a flood plain and disturbing the current flow of drainage is not sensible or safe. Property owners along the hillside should not have to incur taking of their resources such as financial, emotional, and time to fight this "request to vacate a prohibition of access easement" when this canyon has clearly been restricted from development based on deeds, prohibitions, easements, written and documented maps, etc. How was a conditional certificate ewer issued when the prohibition of access was clearly written? This Conditional Certificate should not be valid or legal. We are sending attachments that have pictures of our property in a separate document. With the potential impact to over 188 notified properties, legal challenges to the city of RPV that are certain to follow from many residents, ramification of setting a precedence when others petition for these types of removals, and serious concern of land instability and potential of fire and flood to bordering properties, this request to remove the Prohibition of Access to Elkmont Canyon must be denied.. Thank Yo rte- Erik a Merin Dahlerbruch 4 D-252 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 3:44 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Upcoming RPV city council meeting 9-20-16 Hi Amy, I received The notice that an RPV city council meeting will be held on 9/20/16, and the Elkmont Canyon application is on the agenda. As a civil engineer and resident of the canyon area, I have a prepared an engineering presentation that will explain a number of significant findings to the the city council about the history and future implications of the project. I need about 20 minutes to present my findings. Please advise regarding what assurance I have that I will be allocated the 20 min I need to present, Sincerely, Andrew L. Rein, PE -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2016 1:47 pm Subject: RE: AW attorneys Hello Andrew - Thank you for your email. Aleshire & Wynder LLP is the City's Attorney. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate 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 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:09 PM To: Amy Seeraty <:AmyS@rpvca.gov> Subject: AW attorneys Hi Amy Is the firm Aleshire & Wynder LLP working for the city of RPV ? Or is it working for the applicant on Elkmont ? D-253 thanks Andrew Rein andy2175mQ(a verizon. net D-254 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:34 AM To: Amy Seeraty Hi AMy In 2006, a conditional certificate of compliance for the Elkmont parcel was issued to Mr. Khakwani by the former planning director, Joel Rojas. My question is this: Is there any supporting documentation that was archived with that certificate that addresses the legality of the application? Was there any supporting documentation provided by the applicant in your files that shows the proposed parcel merger was legal and complied with the California subdivision map act ? please advise, thanks Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net D-255 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:35 AM To: Amy Seeraty Subject: was the cert of compliance for Elkmont supported with legal docs ? (repeat) Hi Amy In 2006, a conditional certificate of compliance for the Elkmont parcel was issued to Mr. Khakwani by the former planning director, Joel Rojas. My question is this: Is there any supporting documentation that was archived with that certificate that addresses the legality of the application? Was there any supporting documentation provided by the applicant in your files that shows the proposed parcel merger was legal and complied with the California subdivision map act ? please advise, thanks Andrew Rein andy2175m4@verizon. net D-256 Amy Seeraty From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 2:33 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Amy Seeraty Subject: Re: Upcoming RPV city council meeting 9-20-16 Hi Ara, Thanks for the reply, I will be at the meeting and we will see how it goes. By the way, it is now just over a week until the meeting of 9/20, and of course you will have to submit a staff report to the council on a certain date before the meeting, if the applicant does not cancel again, What day will that staff report be provided to the council ? And when will that report be available for review by the public ? Please advise, thanks, Andrew Rein andy2l75m4@verizon.net -----Original Message ----- From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net>; Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov> Sent: Sun, Sep 11, 2016 10:42 am Subject: Re: Upcoming RPV city council meeting 9-20-16 Mr. Rein, Public comments are typically limited to 3 minutes per speaker and in cases where there are several speakers on a particular item, the Council may elect to reduce the time to 2 minutes per speaker. In any case, a request for additional time is not decided by Staff but rather the Council. You will have to request additional time at the Council meeting. Ara From: Andrew Rein <andy2175m4@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 3:44 PM To: Amy Seeraty Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Upcoming RPV city council meeting 9-20-16 Hi Amy, I received The notice that an RPV city council meeting will be held on 9/20/16, and the Elkmont Canyon application is on the agenda. As a civil engineer and resident of the canyon area, I have a prepared an engineering presentation that will explain a number of D-257 significant findings to the the city council about the history and future implications of the project. I need about 20 minutes to present my findings. Please advise regarding what assurance I have that I will be allocated the 20 min I need to present, Sincerely, Andrew L. Rein, PE -----Original Message ----- From: Amy Seeraty <AmyS(@rpvca.gov> To: Andrew Rein <andy2175rnQa verizon.net> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM .rpvca.gov> Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2016 1:47 pm Subject: RE: AW attorneys Hello Andrew - Thank you for your email. Aleshire & Wynder LLP is the City's Attorney. Sincerely, Amy Seeraty Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amysCcD-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From: Andrew Rein [mailto:andy2175m4@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:09 PM To: Amy Seeraty <AmvS@rpvca.gov> Subject: AW attorneys Hi Amy Is the firm Aleshire & Wynder LLP working for the city of RPV ? Or is it working for the applicant on Elkmont ? thanks Andrew Rein andy2175m4(a�verizon. net D-258 Amy Seeraty From: Jeffrey Lewis <jeff@broedlowlewis.com> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:49 AM To: CC Cc: Ara Mihranian; Amy Seeraty; Dave Aleshire Subject: Elkmont Canyon - Sept. 20 meeting Mayor Dyda, As you know, I represent a group of over 59 residents opposed to the Elkmont Canyon project scheduled to be heard by the council on September 20. The purpose of this email is to: 1) Respectfully request that the Elkmont project be scheduled to be heard early on the agenda before the Ladera Linda and short term rental discussion items. Many of my clients are elderly and want to attend the meeting. They do not have the ability to stay late if the Elkmont project is scheduled for the end of the evening after the other items. 2) Respectfully request that my time to speak to the council be extended from 3 minutes to 10 minutes. I have a powerpoint presentation that I would like to give and I believe it will save time to grant me extra time to speak rather than have each and every member of my group make repetitive points to the council that are summarized in my presentation. Thank you for your consideration of these two requests and I look forward to addressing the council next Tuesday evening. Also, although I have not heard back from the City Attorney regarding my letter of August 23, I look forward to getting his response to the issues I raised in advance of the September 20 meeting. Best regards, Jeffrey Lewis BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP 734 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 190274 Tel. (310) 935-40011 Direct (310) 935-4002 1 Fax. (310) 872-5389 Email: Jeff(ae,BroedlowLewis.com I Web: www.BroedlowLewis.com Certified Specialist in Appellate Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately. D-259