The URL can be used to link to this page

20180426 Late CorrespondenceTO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK APRIL 26, 2018 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting. Item No. 1 Description of Material Emails from: Al and Barbara Sattler; June Horton; Barbara Ailor; Christine Campbell; SUNSHINE; Email exchange between Community Development Deputy Director Kim and Ralph Ortolano; Email exchange between Community Development Director Mihranian, Mayor Brooks, and Kathy Snell **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Wednesday, April 25, 2018**. Respectfully submitted, W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180426 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: From: So Kim Teresa Takaoka Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:16 AM Nathan Zweizig FW: General Plan Update Follow up Flagged Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:24 PM To: Barbara Sattler <bsattler@igc.org> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: General Plan Update Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sattler, Thank you for your email. Your comments will be forwarded to the City Council as late correspondence. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes w_ww. rpvca .ggy (310) 544-5222 From: BarbaraSattler[mailto:bsattler@igcorg] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:20 PM To: So Kim <SoK@r.QYca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: General Plan Update Dear Ms. Kim, We have read the comment letter regarding the General Plan update from Eva Cicoria and generally agree with her suggestions and analysis. We suggest that some modification of the wording she has suggested to define active vs. passive be included in the city's General Plan as stated below: Active Recreation: Active recreation is leisure activity which involves a high level of physical exertion, motion and energy, often requiring equipment specific to the activity. Active recreation may include levels of noise, speed and/or other characteristics which may interfere with the passive recreation or quiet enjoyment of others in the same space. Park sites designated for active recreation generally include facilities that are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. Passive Recreation: Passive recreation is leisure activity which allows natural ecosystems as well as the public in the area to function with minimal disturbanc~ and without exposure to harm from others' activity I. the area. Passive recreational areas remain mostly unstructured. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Al & Barbara Sattler 2 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: FYI Kit Kit Fox Ara Mihranian; So Kim Gabriella Yap Fw: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Designation--hearing April 26, 2018 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:43:28 PM Sent using OW A for iPad From: June Horton <JHorton@wmeentertainment.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:50:26 PM To: CC Cc: June Horton Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Designation--hearing April 26,2018 I am unable to attend the April 26, 2018 meeting in person, but would like to go on record. I understand that RPV is considering designating Vanderlip Drive as Open Space Preserve and I am vehemently opposed to this idea for a number of reasons. First, as a homeowner on Vanderlip Drive, I am troubled that I was not consulted or notified that this action was being considered. My family has owned our home on 85 Vanderlip Dr. since 1962, and it has always been viewed as a private driveway leading to our home. Neither the city, nor Portuguese Bend Homeowners Association has maintained the Drive ever-in fact, the residents on Vanderlip Drive pay for all the upkeep. The Portuguese Bend community is a private gated community open to residents and their guests. Are you planning to add other Portuguese Bend Streets to the Open Preserve Land? Having Vanderlip Drive accessed by large numbers of hikers, pets, sightseers, bikers etc. will without a doubt affect our privacy and sense of security, not to mention the cleanliness of the area. I've seen the hordes of cars on Del Cerro Park and the idea that Vanderlip Drive would be added and advertised as a destination is anathema to me. Don't get me wrong: I am very supportive of the designation of Open Space, and I was all in favor of expanded the protected areas .... but this does not seem like a well-thought out idea. Please don't do this. Sincerely, June Horton June Horton I WME J Horton 1J-Jwq1eent;;rtain rnent.corn 310.859.4512 /. From: To: Cc: Barbara Ailor So Kirn cc Subject: General Plan Update Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:02:18 AM Hello So, I completely support the concerns that Eva Cicoria expressed in her letter dated 24 April 2018 concerning the definitions of active and passive recreation. As a reminder, I want to add two queries that are certainly not new to this conversation. First, multiuse trails which means hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikes results in single use by mountain bikers only. As an example, our neighbor with three children were hiking in Forrestal to photo the Mariposa Lilly for their eldest child's 4th grade science project. A mountain biker came barreling down the trail at the family of five. The problem was the youngest son stood on the opposite side of the trail and decided he wanted to be with his Mom. He walked across and was narrowly missed by a speeding biker that demonstrated no concern or caution. They told me they "will never go back." Is this the result of passive recreation? Secondly, many trail development programs allow bikes on 3 to 5% grade, rarely 8%, but the trail must reverse back up hill. The consensus is that an average trail grade equal to or greater than 10% grade is non-sustainable. It would be prudent for the City to review the use of mountain bikes on specific trails with 10% grade. Does trail damage with ruts and eye-brow berms exemplify passive recreation use? Thank you for your consideration. Barbara Ailor From: To: Ara Mihranian So Kirn Subject: FW: General Plan Update Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:07:12 PM Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director Ci TV OF l ) A r-...ic1· 1C) 0 /\1 c· (' \ .rr·r]c E·s . '\,•\j 1~1 l _ l t·\~ )0 vc ,j_,_ 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov Do you need to this EH118ii? This c·rnaii rncssaqc rnntdirb information i;eionqing tc tie City of Raner<) Pdlos Verdes, which rnay be priviicguJ, confidential and/or protected frorn ciisclosure. The inforrna1:ion b intcndcC: only for use oft:hc individual or entity narncd. UnauU10rizccl ciissc01inatio11, distdbution, or copyinq is sl:ricl:ly prohibited. If you received this ernair in cnnr, or arc not an intended recipient, pica(;e notify the srnder irnrnediatcly. Thank you for your d'.Sistd1Kc and cooperat:!mL From: Doug Willmore Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:42 PM To: Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: General Plan Update FYI Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Christine Campbell <christinecampbdl407@gmail.com> Date: April 24, 2018 at 8:10:19 PM PDT To: cc@rpvca.gDv Subject: Re: General Plan Update General Plan Update Greetings. I understand that there is to be a discussion of the General Plan Update and I would like to express my concern. I would like to see the definitions of Active and Passive recreation better articulated. Please consider these definitions for the following: Active Recreation: Active recreation is leisure activity which involves a high level of physical exertion, often requiring equipment specific to the activity, and generally impeding the passive recreation or quiet enjoyment of others in the space. Park sites designated for active recreation generally include facilities that are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. Passive Recreation: Passive recreation is leisure activity which allows natural ecosystems as well as the public in the area to function with minimal disturbance and without exposure to harm from others' activity in the area. Passive recreational areas remain mostly unstructured. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. Thank you for your time and attention to these important issues that affect us all as well as our environment! Christine Campbell On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:27 AM Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.corn> wrote: Hi all, I just sent the letter, below, to the City of RPV. Please consider weighing in on this matter. There's not much time--the City Council meeting on the topic is Thursday. I'm fine with you forwarding my letter to City Council and saying that you concur ... or better yet write your own letter of concern. Fresh eyes may improve my quickly crafted definitions. -----Original Message----- From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aoLcom> To: sok <sok@rpvca.gov> Cc: cc <cc@rpvca.gov> Sent: Tue, Apr 24, 2018 8:09 am Subject: General Plan Update Hi So, I have but one request regarding the updated General Plan: Can we please do a better job of distinguishing between active and passive recreation? Our lack of attention to the plain meaning of these words has resulted in the current situation in which we find us where children playing on a jungle gym is considered active recreation, but mountain bikers charging down trails putting other people at grave risk is considered passive recreation. Page 30 of the Staff Report refers to "unchanged Active and Passive Recreation .... In the end, it was agreed to keep the existing definitions." This appears to be not quite true. The updated General Plan dropped a significant part of the definition of active vs. passive recreation by deleting the definitions included in the glossary. The updated General Plan includes the following definition of "active recreation": Active Recreation: Active recreational facilities are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. This is not a definition of "active recreation"; it is a definition of active recreational facilities. The glossary definition, which got at the activity itself was dropped. The update General Plan includes the following definition of "passive recreation". Passive Recreation: Passive recreational areas remain unstructured in order to allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. The 1975 General Plan included these definitions relating to facilities in the text of the Plan, but also included definitions of active and passive activities in the glossary. When the general public sees a park designation is "passive", they generally think of a more quiet space lacking big buildings and lots of noise and commotion, while a park designation of "active" is associated with structure(s) and/or a higher level of activity, more noise and commotion. When we think of passive activity in an area, we do not think that our lives are put at risk by the activity of others around us in that area. I concede that there was some lack of clarity in the 1975 General Plan on this issue. Unfortunately, in order to "solve" what was deemed an inconsistency between the textual and glossary definitions of active and passive recreation, apparently the glossary definition was simply dropped. In my view, this exacerbates the problem. The definitions in the updated General Plan should merge the textual and glossary definitions to provide greater clarity as well as add elements of the plain meaning of the terms. I suggest the following: Active Recreation: Active recreation is leisure activity which involves a high level of physical exertion, often requiring equipment specific to the activity, and generally impeding the passive recreation or quiet enjoyment of others in the space. Park sites designated for active recreation generally include facilities that are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. Passive Recreation: Passive recreation is leisure activity which allows natural ecosystems as well as the public in the area to function with minimal disturbance and without exposure to harm from others' activity in the area. Passive recreational areas remain mostly unstructured. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. Thank you for your consideration. Eva Cicoria Be the change you want to see in the world. From: Sent: To: Subject: Teresa Takaoka Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:30 PM Nathan Zweizig FW: Additional comments: Land purchase conditions. General Plan hearing April 26 From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 11:32 AM To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; sherihastings@yahoo.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; katherine.pilot@gmail.com; Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; pbvilla@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com; dennisgardner@me.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; pdownjac@hotmail.com; leetwid@yahoo.com; katrinavanderlip@yahoo.com; narcissavf@sbcglobal.net; kelvin@vanderlip.org; ksnellOOOl@aol.com; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Leon@gmail.com> <Gordon.Leon@gmail.com>; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; smhvaleri@cox.net Subject: Re: Additional comments: Land purchase conditions. General Plan hearing April 26 Hi Ara, Which of the Hon property purchase funding sources has the condition that if any of their money was used to purchase land (even if they provided only a portion of the purchase cost), the whole property is to be deed restricted with that agencies specified conservation easements? First, I am under the impression that these restrictions have not yet been recorded. More importantly, I am under the impression that when the City declared the creation of the Gateway Park area, the acreage was calculated by how many acres could be counted has having been purchased with the unrestricted funds. If the City did not record a lot split as part of the purchase, the discussion to change the unrestricted area from 25 to 17 acres becomes moot. I am inquiring to start the process of finding out what sort of action can be taken to release or prevent conservation restrictions on Gateway Park, Vanderlip Drive, the affected portion of Narcissa Drive and the Crenshaw Extension ROW. To put it bluntly, Staff has done the citizenry a huge disservice by pursuing grants which reduce the public's access to and use of City owned property. Are you in a position to propose a fix to this PB Reserve mess? Seems to me the text of the draft General Plan Update and the draft Land Use Map is closing some loopholes. Actually, the purchase of large tracts of land for open space purposes is in conflict with the existing General Plan. I kept this down to two questions. The name of the funding source and yes or, no. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 4/25/2018 10:27:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, AraM@rpvca.gov writes: 1 / Kathy, The City acquired the former-Hon property using funds provided by the State and Federal agencies, as well as other funding sources (County and private donations to the PVPLC), so that it can be enrolled in the Preserve and its natural resources protected in perpetuity. At that time, the City was fully aware that the lot included a portion of Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa Drive, which are private streets. The terms of the NCCP/HCP requires the land in its entirety be designated as Open Space Preserve to be consistent with the primary use of the property. The funding sources used to acquire the property restrict the City from transferring any portion of the property to a private entity or individual. That said, such a land use designation does not automatically imply that the private streets are accessible to the public, or that the private street are in violation of the NCCP/HCP. Furthermore, the General Plan Land Use designation is intended to generally reflect the use, the implementing document that establishes the regulatory authority is the Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code) and the Zoning Map. Procedurally, once the General Plan Update is approved, the City will begin the process to amend the Zoning Code and Zoning Map for consistency, and these documents will specify what uses are allowed in the Open Space Preserve zoning district. Public access within the Preserve is conditional pursuant to the NCCP/HCP. That essential means the public does not have unrestricted access throughout the property (including the private streets or private gated communities). The public must remain on designated trails. Those who veer off-trail are in violation of the Council-adopted Preserve Trails Plan and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and subject to possible citations. The City has no intention to provide trail access to Vanderlip Drive nor to remove the fencing that delineates the private street from the open space portion of the Preserve. For these reasons, I do not see the proposed land use change as creating a conflict with the current and future use of the private street. Lastly, putting the General Plan aside, your questions regarding maintenance of the road by the property owners and private street easement holders can be discussed as a separate matter. I hope this answers your questions. If not, please give me a call at 310-544-5227 in advance of tomorrow's Council meeting. 2 Thank you, Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development From: Kathy [mailto:ksnell0001@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:04 PM To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ksnell0001@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com Subject: Additional comments: Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa stripe changing to Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Mayor Brooks, Changing Vanderlip Driveway and the northern strip on Narcissa will be a violation of the Grant Deed for the parcel in question. In addition, I reviewed the General Plan and proposed maps a few months ago. Vanderlip and the Narcissa strip were not noted nor were the legals and addresses shown. All the other properties being changed showed maps and legals. In my opinion, the Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa strip changes to the General Plan did not get a fair hearing and comment for changes. The Grant Deed needs to be reviewed. The description of the parcel needs to be confirmed for the weird configuration. Those homes where they will have to drive over Preserve property need to be noticed. When did the City Staff figure out that Vanderlip & the Narcissa strip was owned by the City as I have several documents showing that Staff was confused. 3 An overlay residential district needs to include historically planted northern and eastern side to the fence. 35' Road plus 20' for landscaping. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Respectfully, Kathy Snell On Apr 24, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> wrote: Thanks for catching that, Kathy. I've already heard from all the residents, and Ara is looking into an overlay residential district. Susan Brooks Mayor 2018 Rancho Palos Verdes (Home) 310/ 541-2971 (City Hall) 310/544-5207 http://rpvca.gov D The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be interpreted as the individual work product of the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other entities. Sent from my iPhone D On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:16 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your comments. Your email will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. 4 So Sent from rny T-Mobilc 4G LTE Device --------Original message -------- From: Kathy <ksnellOOO l@aol.com> Date: 4/21/18 8:14 PM (GMT-06:00) To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>, Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>, Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>, pbvilla@aol.com, sherihastings@yahoo.com, dennisgardner@me.com, gardner4@eaiihlink.net, pdownjac@hotmail.com, ksnellOOOl@aol.com, leetwid@yahoo.com, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>, City Manager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>, sunshinerpv@aol.com, kpilot l@aol.com Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map hearing April 26, 2018. This is to request the removal of Vanderlip Driveway from the Draft General Plan map designating the driveway as Open Space Preserve. Including Vanderlip Driveway on the map as open space will encourage more unwelcome trespassers onto the drive and into Portuguese Bend Association neighborhood inviting crime and trash. Vanderlip Driveway has been the only access to multiple private homes beginning in the 1900's and needs to remain as such. What restrictions are placed on the "Open Space Preserve" mapping change in the General Plan for Vanderlip Driveway? How does the City intend to manage the roadway maintenance and the trail access? What fire abatement can be performed on the drive? Has RPV notified the owners of properties having easements to the driveway? If not, please don't approve this designation on the map as Open Space Preserve until the owners of the easements are notified and have an opportunity to comment on the change. RPV City Council needs to protect their residents and property rights. Should the driveway have been deeded to the residences on Vanderlip Driveway pre-NCCP due to liability issues but was overlooked by staff? 5 Respectfully, Kathy Snell 8 Vanderlip Driveway Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 310 541 1266 http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View I 1169 8 6 -----Original Message----- From: So Kim Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:41 AM To: 'Ortolano' <ortolanor@yahoo.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: FW: Settlement Agreement -Ortolano Hi Mr. Ortolano, In reviewing the minutes for the February 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, I stand corrected. While Staff recommended that the land use designation be changed to reflect the Settlement Agreement, the Commission voted to keep the existing land use designation. Staff will be reporting both the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter (not change the land use) as well as Staff's position (change the land use) to the City Council for their consideration at tonight's meeting. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 -----Original Message----- From: Ortolano [mailto:ortolanor@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:21 AM To: Ortolano <ortolanor@yahoo.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: FW: Settlement Agreement -Ortolano Dear Ms. Kim: To the contrary, the Planning Commissio_n voted to retain the current zoning, not to change it. You are proposing to change it. Furthermore, your department claims my lot is unbuildable only because you persist in maintaining RS-1 zoning on a lot that is slightly larger than 1/3 acre, in a neighborhood where that lot is surrounded by about 590 RS-3 lots. Which is more consistent with maintaining the tax base of our residential community, with its increasingly limited taxable land: RS-3 or Open Space Hazard? Which would benefit the community more? With respect to the Settlement Agreement you reference, I was deploying on a Navy ship for an extended period during which I'd be completely incommunicado with my attorney (back then, we didn't have all the communications we have today; and this was a sea lift ship with limited communications, not a combatant). Your attorney literally said that the City "would litigate until the cows came home" while I was on deployment. In a "supreme act of respect for our armed forces" (sarcasm intended), the City took advantage of this situation to advance that settlement, which was literally signed the day I deployed. It is absolutely NOT consistent with the previous act of the Planning Commission to now change this zoning in what you propose to present to the City Council. I am unaware of any different action purported to have been conducted on March 27, 2018. I've been out of town for several months. Sincerely, 1 Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr. OrtolanoR@yahoo.com 310-982-5499 On Wed, 4/25/18, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote: From: So Kim Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:56 PM To: 'Ortolano' <ortolanor@yahoo.com > Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@ r pvca.gov > Subject: FW: Settlement Agreement -Ortolano Hi Mr. Ortolano, I was forwarded your voicemail regarding your concerns with the proposed land use change for what is now known as 3778 Cool heights. You may recal l having emai l exchanges with me, before this item was presented to the Planning Commission in 2015 at a du ly noticed public hearing. In a nutshell, in September 1998, the City entered i nto a Settlement Agreement with you to resolve a land dispute . Acco r ding to the Settlement Agreement, Parce l C (see be low1 of a former developer-owned lot and Parcel E (see below) of a City-owned Forrestal property were conveyed to you . It shou ld be emphasized that consistent with the Settlement Agreement, grant deeds were recorded for both parcels C and E (now known as 3778 Coo lheights Drive) that prevent any construction, improvements, and developments that would require permits from the City. The purpose of a residential land use des ignation is to allow residentia l use, including the development of a home. Since residential use is not al lowed on the subject lot per the recorded grant deeds that run with the land, the current Residentia l land use designation is i nconsistent. As a result, the Planning Commiss ion in 2015 agreed with Staff's recommendation to change this land use from Residentia l to Natural Envi r onment/Hazard. Th is was reconfirmed on March 27, 2018. The Planning Commission's role is advisory to the City Council. So their recommendation to change this land use will be presented to the City Council at its upcoming public hearing tomo r row night. A public notice was issued i n the Peninsula News, a hard copy mailed to you and your neighbors, made available and the City's website, and announcement of availabi lity made via a list serve message. 2 As a reminder, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (Sect ion 3.2.4), you or your representatives shall not oppose, protest or otherwise object to a General Plan amendment to designate parcels C and E as "Natural Environment/Hazard" and a corresponding zoning designation of "Open -Space Hazard". Those provisions were included i n the Settlement Agreement because it was the intent of the parties that the General Plan and Zoning designations would be changed, as currently proposed by Staff, so that the newly created lot cou ld be ma i ntained and used as it was at the time of the settlement agreement and not developed with a residence. Attached are the recorded grant deeds and Settlement Agreement. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes w w w .rpvca.gov {310) 544-5222 3 Recorded Grant Deeds 11 ·WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: RECORDED/FILED IN OFFTCTACRECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 Attention: City Clerk DEC 16 1998 AT 8 A.M. "'--··~-.,.-------~ DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX s_o...._ ____ _ .. X .. Computcd on the consideration or value of property conveyl!d; OR SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Convcyanc1. "" .. : .-;;r l~u \·.-iua .. ,..Computed on !he cotuidenition or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. •This is a bonaiidu gift and the grantor GRANT DEED ~~ (/~ FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic hereby GRANT(S) to Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr., an individual the real property in the City of Ranchu Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Dated ~: c..;<? , 1998 / City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and po1itic STATE OF CALIFORNIA . / }ss COUNTY OF;:z?(f-1::1 UZJ...<.U,.f..../ } . ' ona!ly known to me (or proved to JRe on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the perso~),..whose natrutf0_, is/are subscribed to ~within instrument and acknO\~~~d to me that l!Sl/shet~; executed the same in.hji;fher/.1§,~ .-. authorized capacity~).( and thP,.t by h.islher/~.i.v'signatur~ .. on the instrument t~e perso@jir the entity upon behalf or·· ., which the perso@,acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS m:zy ha µ and of~seal. . Signature ___ (.d... t"".-Lt~Jl'.--i·j ., (This area for official notarial seal) Mall Tax Statements To Retum Addreas Above 98091199999.999991j 1491361.1 I 12 Exhibit A (portion of lot 92 describe<l as Exhibit C in that certain settlement agreement between the parties and certain other parties) That certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A, MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1PAGE1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO, 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14,87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51'.0!" EAST 61.50 FEET; THENCE ' 980911 99999.99999 sj 1491361.l 1 1002 (1/94) .98 2281569 J v 13 7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59 11 EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT HEREINABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Reserving to the public an easement for pedestrian ingress, egress, hiking, trail and mountain biking and other recreational purposes over the following described property: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRlBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 TO 27, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREON 6.83 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, SAID P01NT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SATD TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG LAST SATO PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 61.50 FEET; THENCE 4. SOUTH 13° 25' 24" EAST 14.87 FEET TO FIRST SAID PARALLEL LINE; THENCE 5. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 72.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Subject to the qualifications and exclusions set forth in that certain Settlement Agreement among the parties and certain other parties dated as of September, 1998, the Property is 98091199999.999991j 1491361.1 l 1002 (1/94) 98 2281569 ,1 14 further subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which shall run with the land and be binding on successors in interest: Neither Grantee nor Grantee's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or devisees shall construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon improve or otherwise develop the Property. For purposes of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions, "construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without limitation any addition to any structure, improvement or development for which a permit or permits from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required under applicable law, regulation, statute or ordinance. Said property is depicted as "Parcel C" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. 980911 99999-99999 &j 1491361.l I 1002 (1194) 98 2281569 ; r I 15 U'J m "U I .... .t:> I ..... $ ro .... -J fj ~ (JtJ r...;, !li ~ tr:! x ::r: ....... ...... tp ~ )> I ,__ ~~ ~ tl ISi N . ' 30 ~ 0 b q 10.<Li2' 0 "Cl !»' . ::..-i 0 tx:l t-< t"1 Scule: 1'= 30' l I I I 'l (fl I ?1 -< ,L z lb f'1 \6' -6' 9 l' ?O I tO l -.J t I c;l ~, <.D 01 ()) l "Cl !»' ::..-i () trJ t-< 0 21cc_00· LOT 92 LAC.A. MAP NO. 51 BOOK 1/1 <D1.so· v> q --rr Pafford Associates Surveyors 3470 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Co 90010 lei. (213) 487-5900 fAX (213) 351-3037 26 JUNE 1998 SURVEY NO. 98-018 N 0 0 0 . J 7.~9'- poll'H Of BfG\NN\NG '6 :::i --r r.¢.1 I nl 0\ LOT 111 TRACT NO. 2905 7 M.B. 739 /23-27 0 0 \ ::x=i :r \ < rn I ma• ~I V'I -·1 I 16 HECORED LAWYERS Tffi.E CIV,lVll"N't t WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 Attention: City Clerk 981 2281568 RECORDED/FILED IN Off!CIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE . LOS ANGELES COUNTY . CALIFORNIA DEC 16 1998 AT 8 A.M. Su r-V .... '' , ................ , ....... --·--A "" -/ '"" I .. ~., i~.',', •:·.~~~ ··•-' t"..1' • .. ; ",_. ~ l ,.,.........,r-g'"' rrEE s 3 G ·-···7 · !.~----.;...., _____ .,, ·~ ............. _ ••• 1 ......... ...,J..<.10\. • .,'...,;_,,£: DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX s_._o _____ _ .. X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ..... Comput~d on tho consideration or value less liens or encumhranc~s remaining at lime of sale. ..i~elved nothing 1n return, R & I 11911. GRANT DEt:u ~-· FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hernhy acknowledged, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body 1 corporate and politic hereby ORANT(S) to Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr., an individual the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Dated ~,;(8"' , 1998 / City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic WITNESS my ha:}jlfid offi~:aL , Signature ..,,Oc:tla. r;e.-/c.J7-~--V(./ 980911 99999.99999 sj 1491361.2 l }ss } Attest: SARA FERDMAN commission n l 144412 Notary Public -Cobfornio Los Angeles County My Comm. ~xpires Ju1.1 29. 200 I J····~· ·····1 ....... • SARA FERDMAN -CQ!nrnission # 1144412 z ~ , •a Notary Public -Co\ifornio ~ Los Angeles County My Comm. Expires Jun 29. 2001 ~-> --17 Exhibit A (portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit E in that certain settlement agreement between the parties and certain other parties) That certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1PAGE1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS 1 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNlNG AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DIST ANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THAT LINE DESCRIBED AS HA YING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET HEREINBELOW, BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 PEET NORT-HWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.2 I 1002 (1/94} 98 2281568 'l 18 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 6L50 FEET; THENCE 7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59 11 EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28° 51' 01 11 EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT NO. 29057, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS; THENCE SOUTH 28° 50' 45" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAlD TRACT NO. 29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55° 09' 15" WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 50' 45" EAST, 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49° 20' 45" EAST 180.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44° 44' 35" EAST 278.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Subject to the express exclusions and qualifications set forth in that certain Settlement Agreement between the parties and certain other parties dated as of September, 1998, the Property is further subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which shall run with the land and be binding on successors in interest: Neither Grantee nor Grantee's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or devisees shall construct upon 1 improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon improve or otherwise develop the Property. For purposes of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions, .. construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without limitation any addition to any structure, improvement or development for which a permit or permits from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required under applicable law, regulation, statute or ordinance. Said property is depicted as "Parcel E" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. 98091 l 99999.99999 sj 1491361.2 I 98 2281568 !002 (l/94) 19 Ul m -u I .... A I ..... ti) ti) !D ... -J (S) LJ ~ :I: -• t;l:1 ...... , ...., :P- t ........ \D -J :-; '"{) 1Sl !U .. ~ ~ ~ Cl) ....... c:.n Cf) ~ 30 ,., JV O· b Q Seo.le= 1 "= 30' Pafford Associates Surveyors 3470 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, Co 900 l 0 Tel. (213) 487-5900 fAX {213) 381-3037 26 JUN£ 19~8 SURVEY NO. 95.018 1o ro2· ,_ I I I ' ~ ::E_ I ' LOT 92 ':. I s . LAC.A. MAP NO. 51 'ti r L 'ti BOOK 1 /1 ~ ~ '~ :l:' Q -\~ ;:s • t'I 9 l . ~ '\. (C\50" A> ttj • I o ~ l "~/ vi ~ I v q gt ~l g i 21c,.OO' LOT 111 lRACT NO. 2905 7 M.8. 739/23-27 '6 ;.::; prnN1 or BEG\N\{\NG ~ I nl 01 a Q l :;() :r: I < r!l \ rn 0 I :!l ' Vl 20 Settlement Agreement 21 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE 1. PARTIES: The parties to this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ("Agreement") are Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr. ("Ortolano"), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City"), Diamond Brothers Three, a California limited partnership ("Diamond Brothers"), Frank Hsu and Joseph Hsu (the "Hsus"), So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, husband and wife (the "Lys"), and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife (the "Tsengs"). 2. RECITALS: This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: 2.1. Pursuant to that certain "AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE PARTNERSHIP AS SELLER AND THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AS BUYER" dated as of October, 1996, Diamond Brothers conveyed certain real property located within the City to the City in or about December, 1996. That property, consisting of, in part, portions of Lot 69 ("Old Lot 69") and portions of Lot 92 ("Old Lot 92") and referred to hereinafter as "City's Property", is more particularly described in Exhibit A hereto. In connection with such conveyance, Diamond Brothers reserved unto itself, i.e., did not convey, that certain portion of property referred to herein as 11 New Lot 92," which is more particularly described in Exhibit B hereto. No Certificate of Compliance certifying the lawful creation of New Lot 92 has been recorded. 2.2. On or about July 17, 1997, Diamond Brothers conveyed New Lot 92 to the Lys and the Tsengs for valuable consideration. 2.3. On July 17, 1997, Ortolano filed a civil action against the City, Diamond Brothers and the Hsus, which civil action is currently pending in the Superior Court for the county of Los Angeles, State of California, as case No. 174759 and is styled Ralph J. Ortolano v. Diamond Brothers Three, et al. (the "Lawsuit"). Ortolano named the Lys and the Tsengs as "Doe Defendants" in the Lawsuit in or around December 1997. In the Lawsuit, Ortolano alleges a cause of action for quiet title by which he claims title to portions of New Lot 92 and Old Lots 69 and 92 by adverse possession and a cause of action for trespass. 2.4. Each party herein denies any liability to each of the other parties herein. Nonetheless, the parties hereto are entering into this Agreement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation. 980910 R6876-01054 gmk 07S226J .8A 2.5. Therefore, is the intention of the parties hereto to settle and dispose of, fully and completely, any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages 1 and liabilities of any nature whatsoever that any party has or may have, individually or collectively, against any other party or parties which exist prior to the effective date hereof (as defined below), whether known or unknown, including but not limited to all claims, demands and causes of action reflected by, or incidental to, the Lawsuit. 2.6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2.5 and paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, this Agreement is not intended to affect in any way any rights, duties and/or obligations that do or might exist between husband and wife; further, this Agreement is not intended to affect in any way any rights, duties and/or obligations that do or might exist between the Hsus, individually or collectively, and Diamond Brothers. 3. TERMS: 3.1. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.2 through Section 3.2.4 of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to the transfers of real property specified in paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.5, inclusive, below. 3.1.1. The Lys and the Tsengs will cause that portion of New Lot 92 described at Exhibit c hereto to be conveyed by unconditional Grant Deed to the City in the form of Exhibit C-1 hereto, and the City shall accept said conveyance. The portion of New Lot 92 retained by the Lys and the Tsengs is described in Exhibit D hereto and shall be referred to hereinafter as "Revised New Lot 92.11 3.1.2. Upon delivery and acceptance of the Grant Deed referred to in paragraph 3.1.1, above, the City will cause the portion of New Lot 92 described in Exhibit c hereto, to be conveyed to Ortolano by restricted Grant Deed in the form of Exhibit C-2 hereto, except that the City shall reserve and retain an easement for public access as described Exhibit C-2 hereto. 3.1.3. The City will cause the portion of the City's Property described in Exhibit E hereto to be conveyed to Ortolano by restricted Grant Deed in the form of Exhibit E-1 hereto, subject to any requirement for approval of such conveyance by the state of California Wildlife conservation Board (11 WCB"), County of Los Angeles ("County") or other agency from which approval of the said conveyance is legally required. The portion of the city's Property not conveyed to Ortolano and retained by the City shall be referred to hereinafter as the "City's Revised Property." The property described in Exhibit C hereto and conveyed to Ortolano as specified in paragraph 3.1.2, above, together with the property described in Exhibit E hereto and conveyed to Ortolano as specified in this paragraph 3.1.3, shall be referred to hereinafter as "Ortolano's Property." 980910 R6876-0!054 gmk 0782261.SA -2 - 23 3.1.4. The parties hereto agree that the city shall be granted an easement for public access ten feet in width from the terminus of the Coolheights Drive right of way to the City's Revised Property across Ortolano's Property and Revised New Lot 92, as described in Exhibits F and G hereto, and the parties shall execute such conveyances and instruments as are necessary or requested by the City to establish such public easement. In furtherance of this provision, the Lys and the Tsengs shall cause to be conveyed to the City an easement for public access across Revised New Lot 92 as described in Exhibit G hereto, by Grant Deed in the form of Exhibit G-1 hereto. 3.1.5. It is mutually understood by the parties hereto that the conveyances ref erred to at paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 hereinabove are not subject to and are exempt from the Subdivision Map Act (Cal. Government Code §§ 66410, et seq.} ("Map Act") pursuant to and by virtue of Government Code § 66428. Upon delivery and acceptance of the deeds and conveyances referenced at paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 hereinabove, and except to the extent prohibited by the Map Act, the City shall cause to be issued and approved Certificates of Compliance with respect to Ortolano's Property, Revised New Lot 92 and the City 1 s Revised Property and the conveyances referenced at paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 hereinabove. 3.1.6. The Lys and the Tsengs agree to furnish a policy of title insurance insuring Ortolano's title in the property described in Exhibit c hereto free and clear of the lien of the mortgage deed of trust executed by the Lys and/or the Tsengs encumbering New Lot 92. 3.2. The City and Ortolano hereto understand and agree that use of Ortolano's Property shall be limited as follows: 3.2.1. It is understood and agreed that neither Ortolano nor Ortolano's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or devisees shall construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, Ortolano's Property. 3.2.2. In furtherance of paragraph 3.2.1, above, it is understood and agreed that the Grant Deeds referred to in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 1 above, shall specifically recite the restrictions contained herein, and Ortolano agrees to accept the same with said restrictions. 3.2.3. For purposes of paragraphs 3.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, above, and the restrictions therein set forth, "construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without limitation any addition to any existing structure, improvement or development for which a permit 98(l'Jl0 R6876-0J054 gtl\11: 0782261.SA - 3 - 24 or permits from the City would be required under then-applicable law, regulations, statutes or ordinances. 3.2.4. Also in furtherance of paragraph 3.2.1, above, and in furtherance of this Agreement and the purposes hereof, Ortolano agrees that neither Ortolano nor ortolano's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or devisees, shall oppose, protest or otherwise object to a General Plan amendment to designate Ortolano's Property as "Natural Environment/Hazard" and a corresponding re-zoning of ortolano's Property to "Open Space -Hazard" under the City's General Plan and Development Code. 3.2.5. It is understood and agreed by and between Ortolano and the City that Ortolano has used the land defined herein as Ortolano's Property for the purposes and activities specified in subparagraphs (a) through (m), below, and has made the improvements to Ortolano's Property specified in subparagraphs (a) through (m), below. Notwithstanding paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, it is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that, subject to paragraph 3.2.6, below, Ortolano shall be permitted to use Ortolano's property for the uses specified in Section 17.32.030 of the City's Development Code as may be amended from time to time in accordance with all other applicable ordinances and requirements, and shall be allowed to continue and maintain the uses of and activities and improvements on Ortolano's Property specified in subparagraphs (a) through (m), below, provided that Ortolano does not expand or intensify any such uses, activities or improvements. Photographs of Ortolano's Property and the conditions, uses and improvements existing thereon as of September 11, 1998 are on file in the City's Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. (a) existing split rail fencing around the perimeter of Ortolano's Property in the general location existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998 consistent with the type and dimensions existing as of September 11, 1998, in conformance with the City's Development Code; {b) existing wood panel fencing in the approximate location existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998, consistent with the type and dimensions existing as of September 11, 1998, in conformance with the City's Development Code; (c) existing unpaved footpaths of the size and type and in the locations existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998 consistent with the size and type existing as of September 11, 1998i (d) horticultural and agricultural uses, including the growing of fruits, vegetables and seed crops, existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998 980910 R6876-0JOS4 gm.k 0782261.8A -4 - consistent with the intensity of the horticultural and agricultural uses existing as of September 11, 1998; (e} weed and' brush abatement as required by applicable fire regulations in areas which have been previously cleared of native vegetation and habitat, provided that uncleared areas of native vegetation and habitat which exist as of September 11, 1998 shall not be disturbed; (f) landscaping, plants, trees, shrubs and groundcover existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998 consistent with the intensity of existing landscaping as of September 11, 1998, and subject to applicable laws and regulations including, without limitation, the provisions of Section 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; (g) the existing irrigation system as of or prior to September 11, 1998 consistent with the type, visual appearance and capacity of the system existing as of September 11, 1998, provided that the irrigation system shall be maintained in good repair and working order so as to prevent leakage and/or erosion; (h) existing retaining walls as of September 11, 1998i (i} activities such as the moving of dirt reasonably necessary to maintain pathways, garden beds, landscaping, retaining walls and other improvements existing as of September 11, 1998, or reasonably necessary for erosion control, land stabilization or drainage control, of such scope, size or degree less than that which would require a grading permit pursuant to Section 17.76.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code; (j) the existing unpaved horseshoe pitch and recreational activity area, including benches and unpaved and unenclosed shade structure ancillary to same existing as of or prior to September 11, 1998; (k) the existing storage shed structure of less than 120 square feet as of September 11, 1998, and up to two previously existing storage sheds provided the combined total area of the three sheds is less than 120 square feet and the shed or sheds are not habitable by humans, and provided further that, within thirty {30) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the existing shed is relocated in compliance with the City's Development Code so that it does not encroach within the front yard setback area or within the City's easement as referenced in paragraphs 3.1.2 and/or 3.1.4, and provided further that no shed or encroaches within any required setback area or 980910 R6S76-0!054 gmk 0782261,8'\ -5 - --------·---·----·----------72<-r=6r-- within the City's easement as referenced in paragraphs 3.1.2 and/ or 3. 1. 4; (1) the keeping of small domestic animals or pets (e.g., rabbits) as provided in Section 17.02.020(E) of the City's Development Code, provided that this provision is for the benefit of Ortolano personally and shall not run with the land notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, including one triangular rabbit hutch of approximately 200 square feet and one fenced dog run of approximately 14.5 feet by 63 feet, provided that such enclosure(s) for the keeping of said animals comply with all applicable provisions of City's Development Code and do not exceed a combined total of area of 1100 square feet, and are not habitable by humans, and provided further that they are consistent with those kept as of or prior to September 11, 1998, and provided further that no nuisance is created thereby or by such animals or pets; (m) the keeping of a maximum of five beehives for non-commercial purposes as provided in Section 17.02.020(G) of the City's Development Code, provided that no nuisance is created thereby. 3.2.6. Ortolano shall be required to apply for and obtain any and all required permits for any and all grading, fencing, landscaping, paving, construction or other improvements made at any time prior to this Agreement to Ortolano's Property, and shall be required to apply for such permits and to pay any and all applicable fees and penalties for such permits within ten days of the date he receives the deeds referred to in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, including, without limitation, permits as may be required for existing fences, walls, patios, irrigation system, grading or structures. 3.3. Ortolano consents to, and agrees not to protest in any way whatsoever, the creation of the "hammerhead turnaround" at the terminus of Coolheights Drive. 3.4. Upon conveyance of the property referenced in paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, above, Diamond Brothers shall distribute the sum of $30,000.00 as follows: 3.4.1. Diamond Brothers shall issue a check payable to "So Quoc Ly and Arthur Tseng" in the amount of $20,000.00. 3.4.2. Diamond Brothers shall issue a check payable to the "City of Rancho Palos Verdes" in the amount of $8,494.00 (which is calculated as $ 1.10 per square foot of the 0.19 acres of property described in Exhibit E hereto and to be conveyed by the city to Ortolano in accordance with paragraph 3.1.3, above, of this Agreement). 980910 R6876·01054 gntk: 0782261,SA - 6 - 3.4.3. Diamond Brothers shall issue a check payable to "Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr.11 in the amount of $1,506.00. 3.5. Within five days of the effective date hereof, counsel of record for Ortolano shall file a Request for Dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice to its refiling. 3.6. Within two business days of the effective date hereof, counsel of record for Ortolano shall deliver to counsel of record for the Lys and the Tsengs a Notice of Withdrawal of Lis Pendens in recordable form with respect to any Lis Pendens Ortolano recorded or caused to record respecting Old Lot 69, Old Lot 92, New Lot 92, Revised New Lot 92, the City's Property, the City's Revised Property and/or Ortolano's Property. 3.7. Each party to the Lawsuit shall bear his/her/its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the Lawsuit. 4. RELEASES AND PROMISES: In consideration of the foregoing, the parties promise and agree, and release and discharge as follows: 4.1. Except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Agreement, and except as to rights, duties, claims and obligations existing between husbands and wives and between general partners and limited partnerships, the parties hereto, and each of them, hereby covenant not to sue, acknowledge full and complete satisfaction of, and hereby release, remise, and forever discharge each of the other parties hereto, individually and collectively, including their respective predecessor and successor corporations, past and present directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, administrators, assigns, heirs, successors or predecessors in interest, and attorneys, of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of actiont obligations, agreements, liens, judgments, orders, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses of any kind, in law or in equity, existing prior to the effective date hereof, whether known or unknown, that such parties, individually and collectively, now hold, or have ever held against each of the other parties, individually and collectively, including but not limited to any and all claims, demands, or causes of action reflected in, or incidental to, the Lawsuit. 4.2. Ortolano hereby further agrees on his own behalf and on behalf of his successors and assigns and any future owner of Ortolano's Property, and covenants not to sue, and hereby releases, remises, and forever discharges the city, including its predecessors and successors corporations, past and present directors, officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, administrators, assigns, heirs, successors or predecessors in interest, and attorneys, of and from any and all 980910 R6876-0l054 gmk 0782261 .8A - 7 - 28 / ; ' claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, agreements, liens, judgments, orders, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses of any kind, in law or in equity, whether known or unknown, that Ortolano, now holds, has ever held, or may hereafter have or hold or claim to have or hold, against the City based on the deed restrictions specified in paragraphs 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3.3 of this Agreement, and/or based on the general plan amendment and zone change specified in paragraph 3.2.4 of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, claims for inverse condemnation. 4.3. The parties specifically waive the benefit of the provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which provides as follows: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1542, the parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is also intended to include in its effect, without limitation, claims which the parties do not know or expect to exist at the time of the execution hereof, and that this Agreement contemplates the extinguishment of such claims. 4.4. This Agreement is solely by and among the parties to this Agreement and does not release any party except as set forth herein, and except as provided in Section 6.1. 5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES: The parties represent, warrant, and agree as follows: 5.1. The parties have received independent legal advice from legal counsel with respect to the advisability of making the settlement provided for herein, or have voluntarily chosen not to seek the same, with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement, and with respect to the releases, waivers, and all other matters contained herein. The parties acknowledge that they have executed this Agreement without fraud, duress, or undue influence. This Agreement shall be construed fairly as to all parties and not in favor of or against any party regardless of which of the parties prepared this Agreement, and the parties hereby waive the benefit of the provisions of Section 1654 of the California Civil Code. 5.2. No party, nor any officer, agent, employee, representative, or attorney of such party, has made any statement, representation, or promise to any other party regarding any facts relied upon in entering into this Agreement, and no party relies upon any statement, representation or promise of any other party, or of any officer, agent, employee, 980910 R6876-0!0S4 gmk 078226L8A - 8 - / } ' representative, or attorney for such party, in executing this Agreement, or in making the settlement provided for herein, except as expressly stated in this Agreement. 5.3. The parties have read this Agreement and understand the contents hereof. 5.4. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the documents contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all corporate, partnership or city council action required for the parties to so act, and the signatories to this Agreement on behalf of each party have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement. 5.5. The parties have not heretofore assigned, transferred, or granted, or purported to assign, transfer, or grant, any of the claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, agreements, liens, judgments, orders, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses of any kind, in law or in equity, whether known or unknown, that any party now holds, will ever hold, or has ever held against any other party. 5.6. The parties will execute all such further and additional documents as shall be reasonable, convenient, necessary, or desirable to carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 6. MISCELLANEOUS: 6.1. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective predecessor and successor corporations, and the past and present directors, officers, shareholders, agents, servants, employees, representatives, administrators, partners, general partners, managing partners, limited partners, assigns, heirs, successors or predecessors in interest, adjusters, attorneys, and insurers. 6.2. This Agreement cohstitutes a single, integrated written contract expressing the entire agreement of the parties. There is no other agreement, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing signed by all parties affected by such modification. 6.3. The Agreement shall be considered severable, such that if any provision or part of the Agreement is ever held invalid under any law or ruling, that provision or part of the Agreement shall remain in force and effect to the extent allowed by law, and all other provisions or parts shall remain in full force and effect. 6.4. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed and delivered within the State of California, and the 980910 R6876-01054 gnil: 0782261,SA - 9 - rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the state of California. 6.5. If any controversy, claim or dispute arises out of or with respect to this Agreement, or enforcement or interpretation of the same, then the prevailing party or parties in any resultant legal proceeding shall be entitled to recover his/her/its attorneys' fees and costs from the losing party or parties, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. 6.6. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement. 6.7. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterpart facsimile signature pages, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective on the date last executed by one of the parties hereto if so executed in counterparts (the 11 effective date 11 ). PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDES A RELEASE OF KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS. DATED: September ~' 1998 RALPH J. ORTOLANO, JR. DATED: September I 1998 DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE Frank Hsu Its: General Partner DATED: September , 1998 FRANK HSU DATED: September 1998 JOSEPH HSU (signatures continue) 980910 RtS876-0l 054 gmk 07B226J .8A -10 - 31 r-,/ DATED: September~, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ! (,-, '· ' ' I ,. ( ~ ~ ,, 'r 6 .(' '>-,./ • city Clerk DATED: September , 1998 SO QUOC LY DATED: September I 1998 MUOI T. LY DATED: September I 1998 ARTHUR F. TSENG (A.K.A. FU TSENG) DATED: September , 1998 YU-CHEN TSENG 980910 R6876-0!054 gmk 0782261.&A -11 - 32 EXHIBIT I LEGAL DESCRlPTION OF PROPERTY THOSE PORTIONS OP LOT 69, 70, 90 1 9J. AND 92 017 L.A.C.A. NO. Sl, rN TJ.m CITY Ol7 RANCHO PAUJS vmmas. IN nm COt'l.blTY OP LOS ANGBl'..BB, STATR OP CALil'OR.NIA, AB Ps.R MAP RBCORDBI> m BOO!': 1, PAQ.S(SJ l OP' ASSJWSOM MAPS,. IN nm OPPIC!B OP THB COtlNTY .fUtCOR.Dmt Oll' SA.IO COt!N'l'l(, DBSCRIBBO JIB ltOLLOKS t nrronmma Nr nm MOST NOR'l.'l!BRLY CORNaR 0'1! UlT 90 I TltlmCB IN A ammlU\LLY SOtmm!U.Y DIR.SCnON ALONG Tim .l>TOR'1'l!lra8'l'1Y /llilD Wlt8'1'BRLY LINB.S OP SAID LOT, 'l'O nm NOl!.'I'IDIBS'l'BRt.Y t.nm OP' '1'l!ACT 22835, AB Pim MAP RBCXlRDBD IN BOOK 603 PAl.'mS 62 '1'!llWtlmI 65 Dfet.tlB:tVB OP MA.PS, Dl '1'BJI OPP'ICB OP 'n!B COUNTY ll.BCOJl.Olm OP SJUn COON'l'Yt TaBNCB NOR.TBKAS'1'3RLY, NOR.TIIB'Jl:t.Y 1IND SOtn'HlWlTBRI.tY ALONG 'l'ltB NOR'l'ml'SS'l'BltY, lOIS'tlllUiY ANO YOll."l.'!lKl\STY LIWS OP SA.ID TRACT TO Tml MOST S0ll'1'mm8TULY C'ORlllm OP' 'l"HB LAND DBSCJUlUID IN 'nIB ODD TO PALOS VKIUl1!S PBNmSOLA U!l'Il!':rm> SC'!IOOL D;IEmUC'l' 07 LOS ANGBLBa CCCl:il'fi, R.llCXllWBXI HlUl.CH 2, 1.970 AS ll?9'1'Rt1M81!1'1' NO. l.093, lN Jl()()lt 46'f.5 PAml 858, 01'1/'IOUL RBCORD8 Ol' 8A.It> cour.t'1t, 'rtllmCll ALCOO T1m WBSTD.t.Y. ""° ~y LnlBS OP SAID LAND, NOa'l'R 3•• Ol.' 47• BAB'.l', 368.26 PBBT1 THDCB ~ l.3" 28' 13• WBST, 40. 69 P'KBT; 'l'lm:RCR NOil.'nl 34. • Ol. 1 47• BAST, 674., 00 l'tmT I '1'lt8NCB Sotl'l'R 57• 45' oo• BAST, 250 .59 PBR'l' TO ':t1m llJWIN!l'.INQ OP A. T1WOlSNT Ctlll.VB c:xmcA.W B01J'1'.llWBS'l'Y l:U\.VING A .l'IADXUS 011' 1570. 00 PB11'l' 1 'm.BNCll: sotJT1:11Wl'1'SY, AUlNG WUD CllRVB 'X'lll!Otl(Ul A amT:ll.AL ANGl'.& OP' 31• 53' 37• .l\N ARC DIS'.l!ANCR OJ' 873. 94 l1'Bln' TO Tml KND OP' SAID ctnlVB1 TSRNCB '1'.llNG1l:N't TO SAJ:D CORVB, SOOTH 25° 51' 23 • EAST, 200. 00 PB.BT TO THB MOST tmsTKRLY a.llUiliR 01' TBll LAND DlWCR.IBBD IN ROAD DBlm TO TD COtlN'l'r OP LOS~. ~ NOVilMl\D 6 1 1967 AS INST:ll.tlKD'l' lllO. 188', Ill' BOOJ:: t>3821 PAGlll 2l.O, OP'PICIAL MCORDS OP SAID C!OONTY: THKNCB NOR.'1'lIBABTER1rY AND SOO'l'HBASTBlUiY AIDNQ TltB l.!roRTmf.BS'1'BltLY AND NOR~Y LlJttW OP' SAID t.Aml TO <:nm N'Oa~Y !tKllMIN'O"S OJI' DAT Cl&R'l'Am COOlUlll OK 'nm ~y Lll51lt OP l1'0Rll.ltSTAl. muw 60 P'Ul' wnra. AS SltOKlil ON 'l'HB MAP OP' 'l'RAC'l' 26834, AS PBR MAP RBCOR!Jlm IN BOOS: 691. PJ\GBS 3 THROtlG1l 8 mcLUSrvB '0.1' MlU'S, RBCOlUlS 01' SUD COtmTY, SHOKN AB IIAVDl'G A liRARnlG OP OOlt'rB 54• oe• 37• RAS'!' JWl) A LBNOTH ov 60 PDT; 'I'HlWCB ALONG TBB NOil'J.'HBU'l'IUlL y tJlllB OP YOlUUIB'1'J\l. DIUVB, SOl111t 25 • Sl.' 23 • KAST, 4 • 24 l7BB'1' TO nm NOR'?'llWBS'l.'Y COlUmR OP Im 161 OF SAID LAST M'&!l'riomm TRACT1 'l'UlmCB BABTDLY AW SOtmmAB'.rElUiY ALOHO '1'11'.S ~y MID MOJ'l.'l'HJWJ'l'lUU.,'l :t.nms OP' LO'l'S l.l:IC 'l"HltOtllill 161 OF SJl.l.I) TRACT 'rO '1'HB 80t1l'HKBS'rBRLY CORlilBR 01' Im U OV TRACT 30360, AS PER. M1P ucx:nu:mtl m BOOK 761 li'AOBS 41 AND 42 OP KJUIS, Rl?COR.DS OP Sl\.ID cotm'JIY; nuwcs NORTHBASTKRLY ALONG 'r1IB li'OR'l!'ll'llBS'l'BJU.Y :t.DlfUI OP utrB l2 JUm 1 OP SAID '1'U.C'r TO 'l'tm ~y <XlRNJm OP SAID t1Yr l., SAID CORWJI. unm ALSO 'llm SOtJ'l'.HWES'l'Y CORNlm OP TRACl' 29057' AB PliR MAP RZCOJU'lSD IN BOOK. 739 PJW!W )Zl '1'HR.OOGH 27 INCLUSIW 011' KAPS, RBCXlRDS OP SAXD COllNTll' 1 'l'HElllCB NOR.THBASTltll1'¥ .!l:lil'.D BOO'l'BBAS':rElUY ALO?ilG '1'llB NO~Y MlD N~Y Ltl!i!llS 01' SAID TRAC'1' TO 'l'HB SOIJ'l1lJIBBrBRY CORNJm OP TRAC'l' 27611, AS PP HAP ll:BCORDB.D lliT BOOX 705 PAGBS Jl. '1'HROOQll 36 lllCLUSXVB OP' MAPS, RBCOJU:lB OP' SA:m CX10NTY1 'l'BDCB l1lOlil'l'Hll'AS'l'BlUiY ALOSG '1'HB ~y t.mB OP SAID 'r1ilAC'1' TO '1'lm M:IS"l' ~y C0RNBR OP Im 83 01" 'l'RJl.C'1' u:a.011, AS Pm!. MAP RlZOORDm> m ~ HO PAallS 53 'l'ltllOt1Cl1t 59 INCU!BIVS OP MAPS, RBcotUlS 011' SAID CDml'f'tt 'l'BlmC3 lilOlt'l'HllllSY AUllll'CJ '11IB ~y t.DIB OP SAID wr '1'0 :.ms ~y coamm OP I.OT l. OP TR.11.C't 27526. AB PKR HAP RBCOlUl'BD IN .JJOOJ:: 781. PAQBS 43 ANJ) 44 OP MA.PB, RBCORDS OP BAIO comrt'YJ '1'.lllWCS NORTHlfRBTBRLY J\Ullro THE ~y LINlil OP SAID Inr TO n!.2 SOO'l'11lUtS1'B)lY ~ OP WT: 2 OF 'I':tlAC'l' 26661, AB PD MllP JU&CORDED IN SOOJt 792 PJU1lt9 5l ARD 54. OF MAPS, R&CORDS OP SAID COONTY1 '1'1ll!llCB NOR'l'HWBSTllll.LY ALONG '1'HB ~y LlllB OP' SAl'.D LO't TO 'nm 800"l'lllflWTERY COIUIER OP 8Al.D r.m' SlUD CORWm BBING ALSO THB SO!J'l"HBAB'.r:IY comma OP' Tf!R LAND DlUICRIBJ:U) m '?'WI: omw TO R..B. AND !'4.lt. MOIUUS RBCOIWRD ~ 12, 1945 AS !llSTRlJMBNT NO. 722, IN BOOK 22313 P.AQB 16, onxcuu. RBconDS OP SAID COONTY J THRNCR NOR'1'1lWPlS'1'l!Y JU.ONG '1'lm S~Y :t.:tNE OP SA:tP LAlW TO n!.S MOST satn'ltBlUIY OORNml OP PARCEL 39 OP' RRCORDS OP SOlWBY MAP FtLB.O tN BOOK 59 PJWBS 8 'l'KRO'OIJH lO mc:LtrBIVE OP RECORD OP SURVEY, IN 'llt'B OFt'!CH OP' THE comm l!BCOR.DER OP SAID COtJm"YI 'l'HPJNCH CON'l'llWING ALONG 'l'l:!ll SOOTHWl?STRRLY L.IlmS OP P11.RC'&t.9 39 AND lB TO TRE SOO'l1!l1!.ASTBKY LINE OF PARCJU. 371 'I'Hll:NC!I SOOTHWllB'l'BJUY ALONG 'mB SOO'l"HRASTERLY LI!l:BB 01? PAACBI. 37, 30 ANO 29 TO TBB MOST sotrrl1 CORmm OP P.ARCBL :.19 t THlWCB fil!STBlU,Y AND NOR~Y ALONG Till! SOtmmRLY J\NP S~Y LINllS OF PARCELS 19 TO 29 OP BAlD RBOORD OP S'OltV1lY TO 'l'HR POINT OP BB:GINJUNG, BXC'.BP'l'ING TRl?lU!P'ROM THAT PORTION OP' LOT 92 01' SAID L.A.C.A, MAP NO, 51 DESc:Ril3IW AB l"()LI..OWS1 l'ISGIWINO AT 'l'!m NORTHWBST COrumR OP' W'J: 110 OP TRACT NO. 29057, AS PBR MAP .!UlCORDlID m BOOK 739, P.llGBS 23 Tm!OUGH 27, OP MAP9s TRENC!t Botm! 2a• 50' 45• WEST ALONG 'l'HB lllWTKR.LY L:.r:l<S OP' SAID TltACT NO. :19057, 359.00 P'XS'l.'1 'l'HSNCP! NORTH 55• 09' 1s• WBST, 200.00 l'UTI TH!mC.S NORTH oo• so• 45• BAST, I 280,00 P'mrl'r 'l'HBNCB NORTH 49• 20' 4.5" S1IST 180.00 FBBT1 THIDICB SOOTH 44" H' 35• l!J\ST ::.178.67 PlmT TO '1'lm TROl!: POINT OP' BBGXNN!NG, CONTAINnlCl APPltOXIMATELY '.1.07,352.56 SQOARB. P'JmT, NOTE1 SAID PO.IUWOXNG BXCJn>Tl10 l'ORTION 011' LOT 92 IS SOMETIKZS J\1'90 lUU'ERRBD TO AS Im 4.2 01' 'l'BNTA'l'IVB 'l'RAC'1' MAP NO. 3788 5 • 10· 10·96 9039·00001 S: \DOC\ 153\96040015.AGS 3 33 / _, -' . ~/ EXHIBIT B THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT NO. 29057, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27, OF MAPS; THENCE SOUTH 282 50' 45" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55Q 09' 15" WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH OOQ 50' 45 11 EAST, 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 492 20' 45 11 EAST 180.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 442 44' 35 11 EAST 278.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 107,362.56 SQUARE FEET. NOTE: SAID FOREGOING PORTION OF LOT 92 rs SOMETIMES ALSO REFERRRED TO AS LOT 42 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37885. 34 Date: 14 Sapteniber 1998 Pafford Survey No.98. 018. O 1 Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes LEGAL DESCRIPTION Pafford A.Gsociates Surveyor& 3 4 70 Wilshire Boulevard Suite900 Los Angeles GA 90010·3 909 T.213.487.5900 F.213.381.3037 PORTION OF ORTOLANO PARCEL WITHIN DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY1 WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10. 17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH.28° 51' 01"WEST216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TOA LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 26° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LlNE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN SA1D DOCUMENT AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 1 O" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALt.EL Wfft-1 SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24u WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RJGHT ANGLES; THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28" 51' 01u EAST 61.50 FEET; THENCE 7. SOUTH 61" 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28" 51' 01'" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF l YING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT HERElNABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT No. 97-1065908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. /4Ss.p9S OATE SEP-14-1998 17=04 2133813037 96% P.04 35 (f) m ti I ..... l> l .... \l) <.D CD .... 'I a 1\1 ..... (,J ~ p VJ CSl I.A "'1 U) 'I ~ lJ tSl f\J ,.... iv 0 ·o C> Scale: 1 "::: 30' 30 o JO 60 90 Feei: --r Pafford Associates Surveyors RHRHRI l ! ! 34 70 Wilshi(e Bou !evord Los Angeles, Co 90010 1et (213) 487-5900 FAX (213) 3EH-3037 10.ro2· ~ I I I I ~ :!E_ l ~l >ij IL > ~ z lb n trj r1 \~ t-s 9 t • trj ::o I ~I !.. I gi ~I ~I l "O > :;o 0 trj t""' 0 2.11.0.00' LOT 92 LAC.A. MAP NO. 51 BOOK 1/1 (D1.".'>0' tY 0 26 JUNE 1998 SURVEY NO. 98.018 N 0 b 0 . ; 7 _CJS'[:.!-F. pO\NI Of 9£.G\N\i\NG ---r ~ \ o n 1 ~ o I LOT 111 TRACT NO. 2905 7 M.8. 739/23-27 0 0 \ Z:? ~I <Cl j m~I vi 3 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $.--"-0 _____ _ . .X .. Computed on the conside111tion or value of property conveyed; OR ..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Signature of Dcclarant or Agent determining tax • Fim1 Name GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, Husband and Wife and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife hereby GR.Ai'IT(S) lo The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic, the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Dated ________ , 1998 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ____________ __,__ }ss SOQuoc Ly On--------.. ______ before me, -----,..,-.---.,----------anotary public, personally appeared _____________ _ Muoi T. Ly . Arthur F. Tseng personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged Yu-Chen Tseng to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature------- (This area for official notarial st:<il) 980911 99999-99'999 ~j 1491361 0 37 Exhibit A (portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit C in that certain settlement agreement between the parties and certain other parties) That certain real property located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, JN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1PAGE1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF TIIE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTIIEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES~ THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET; THENCE 98091! 99999.99999 •i 1491361 0 1002 (1/94) ······-······-·--·-·----JS- 7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT HEREINABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Said property is depicted as "Parcel C" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. 9809ll 99999-99999 •i 1491361 0 1002 (1/94) 39 (.fl rn -u I ..... .[>. l .... UJ UJ CD ..... -J tSl u !\) ... ~ .... § ~ ~ -u ISi [\) ' m x ~ -to ::3 ~ -~ IV 0 b 0 Sea.le~ 1'= 30' J.O Pafford Associates Surveyors 0 JO 60 90 Feet E3HHHRI J I i 34 70 Wilshire Bou levord Los Angeles. Co 9001 0 "Tel (213) 487-5900 FAX (21J) 351-3037 10.<j,2' I-CJ > ~ 0 t:z:l t'i tTl I I I ' ri ~l ,-I -< ,L -lN z 0 f'l \6' -6' 9 l. '?J I ~I ~I 0, ~l 01 co I ""O > ~ () t:z:l t'i (J 2J<i>.00' 26 JUNE 1998 SURVEY NO. 98_ 018 LOT 92 LAC.A. MAP NO. 51 BOOK 1/1 /D1.?0' (.,l 0 LOT 111 TRACT NO. 29057 M.B. 739 /23-27 pQlN1 Of B(G\N\{\NG -----r .(i) I ,... ,......_ I 0 l I\ ~ 01 og, 22 :r: I < rn l mgl VI 40 Certificate of Acceptance This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed from So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, husband and wife, and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife) to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to the authority duly conferred by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic Dated: 980911 99999.99999 •i 1491361 0 1002 (l/94) 41 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 Attention: City Clerk DOCUMENT ARY TRANSFER TAX S.._:;.O ______ _ .. X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Signature of Declarant or Agem detemi.ining 1ax -Finn Name GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic hereby GRANT(S) to Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr., an individual the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Dated--------· 1998 STATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss COUNTY OF~~~~~~--~~~~-'-- On ________________ before me, ~---..,-,.,----..,.,,---~-,----~~---'a City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic Its: notary public, personally appeared --------------------- Attest: personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) By: --------------------- is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hisfher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) City Clerk on the instrument the person(s) or the entity up<m behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature-·-----·------------ (fhis area for official notarial seal) 980911 99999.99999 •j 1491361.1 I 42 Exhibit A (portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit C in that certain settlement agreement between the parties and certain other parties) That certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10. l 7 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59'' WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HA YING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET; THENCE 98091l 99999,.99999 sj 1491361.1 I 1002 (1/94) 43 8. 9. SOUTH 61° 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET~ THENCE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT HEREINABOVE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE PER INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Reserving to the public an easement for pedestrian ingress, egress, hiking, trail and mountain biking and other recreational purposes over the following described property: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE l OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 TO 27, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THEREON 6.83 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 61.50 FEET; THENCE 4. SOUTH 13° 25' 24" EAST 14.87 FEET TO FIRST SAID PARALLEL LINE; THENCE 5. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 72.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Subject to the qualifications and exclusions set forth in that cer~in Settlement Agreement among the parties and certain other parties dated as of September, 1998, the Property is 1002 (1194) 44 further subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which shall run with the land and be binding on successors in interest: Neither Grantee nor Grantee's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or devisees shall construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon improve or otherwise develop the Property. For purposes of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions, "construct,,.. "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without limitation any addition to any structure, improvement or development for which a permit or permits from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required under applicable law, regulation, statute or ordinance. Said property is depicted as "Parcel C" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. 980911 99999-99999 sj 1491361.1 l 1002 (1/94) I: -----· ........ ----···--·-----·-4·5··- (fl qj I ,.... .f:. I ~ ,_. -J .. (5) {,.! tn x ::r.:: ..... ,..... tt:I ~ > I - ':S ~ I) 0 !\J Scale: 1 '= 30' 30 0 JO 60 90 Feet --r Pafford Associates Surveyors l3RRHRI ! I I 34 70 Wilshire Boulevord Los Angeles. Co 90010 Tel. (213) 487-5900 fAX (213) 361-3037 .... 1-l 0 b 0 10.r..1.' '"d :t:< !;d n ti:! t"' ti:! I I 1 l ft ~I r-1 -< ,L -lN z 0 r'i \6' • 6"\ 9 l. ::o I ~l .:. I 0\ ~l 01 CXl l "' :;i,, !l:l n trj t" n 21i;,.oo· 26 JUNE 1998 SURVEY NO. 95.018 LOT 92 LAC.A. MAP NO. 51 BOOK 1/1 G,150' ~ Q LOT 111 TRACT NO. 2905 7 M.B. 739/23-27 N 0 b 0 . l. 7_(JY{i-t- -0 ~ pQ\NI Of Bt. G\t-1\~\NG r¢i"l t nl 0\ 0 01 ;;i::> ~ \ < m I rn c; 1 ~l Vl 46 / ,/ / f /. Date: 14 September 1998 Pafford Survey No.98.018.01 Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes LEGAL DESCRIPTION . \ PROPOSED ORTOLANO PARCEL {DOES NOT INCLUDE LOT 111) Pafford A.asoeJates Surveyors 34 70 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles CA 90010-3909 T.213.487.5900 F.213.381.3037 THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOtJTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 218.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61" oa· 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LANO DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97~1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUN1Y, SAID LINE DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT AS HA VlNG A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET: THENCE 4. NORTH 09° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24'' WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 81.50 FEET; THENCE 7. SOUTH 61" 08' 59~ EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS WRITTEN BY LLOYD PILCHEN, LAND SURVEYOR. AND IS APPROVED FOR USE IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW AND LOCAL ORDINANCE. LLOYD PJLCHEN. L.S.6976 LICENSE EXP. 9/30/01 /4Ssp9B DATE SEP-14-1998 17:04 2133813037 97% P.03 -------··-·--" ------· 47 Dale: 14 September 1998 Pafford Survey No.98.018.01 Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes '···--·-~-.. --... --;....,.::..:, ..... ~ t .L LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF ORTOLANO PARCEL WITHIN CITY PARCEL Pafford Associates Surveyors 3470Wilshira Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles CA90010-3909 T.213.487.5900 f.213.301.3037 THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POJNT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED JN SOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT: THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE·SOUTH 28° 51' 01· WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 281> 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO THAT LINE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET HEREINBELOW. BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE 4. NORTH 89" 39' 10'" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24n WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT SOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL UNE NORTH 28° 51' 01ff EAST 61.50 FEET: THENCE 7. SOUTH 61° 08' 59~ EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28° 51' 01H EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01· EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 92 OF LAC.A. MAP No. 51, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT No. 29057, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS; THENCE SOUTH 28° 50' 45" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID T~CT No. 29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55• 09' 15" WEST, 200.00 FEE:T; THENCE NORTH oo• 50' 45-EAST, 280.0D FEET; THENCE NORTH 49° 20' 45" EAST 180.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 44• 44' 35· EAST 278.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ~62·~- LLOYD PILCHEN, L.S.6976 LICENSE EXP. 9/30/01 SEP-14-1998 17:05 2133813037 /4SeP9S DATE 97% P.05 48 WIIEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 Attention: City Clerk DOCUMENTARYTRANSFERTAXS_;;:..O~~~~~~ . .X .. Computed on the consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of s.ale. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax -Firm Name GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic hereby GRANT(S) to Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr., an individual the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Dated---'------' 1998 ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA }ss COUNTY OF~~~~~~~~~~----'~ On ________________ before me, personally appeared ------------- ' personally known to me (or proved to me on th_e.basls-of City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic satis~ factory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) Its:----------------- is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their Attest: authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(1;) or the entity By: --------------- upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. City Clerk WITNESS my hand and official seal. (fhis area for official notarial seal) 980911 99999.99999 .•j 1491361.2 I 49 Exhibit A (portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit E in that certain settlement agreement between the parties and certain other parties) That certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK I PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59" WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01 11 EAST 70.62 FEET TO THAT LINE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A LENGTH OF 200.00 FEET HEREINBELOW, BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 9809!1 99999-99999 sj 1491361.2 I 1002 (1/94) 50 ,/ / 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 61.50 FEET; THENCE 7. SOUTH 61 ° 08' 59" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE 8. NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 7.00 FEET; THENCE 9. NORTH 73° 51' 01" EAST 14.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP NO. 51, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING D&~CRIBED BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 110 OF TRACT NO. 29057, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739, PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS; THENCE SOUTH 28° 50' 45" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 29057, 358.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55° 09' 15" WEST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 50' 45" EAST, 280.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49° 20' 45" EAST 180.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 44° 44' 35" EAST 278.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Subject to the express exclusions and qualifications set forth in that certain Settlement Agreement between the parties and certain other parties dated as of September, 1998, the Property is further subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions which shall run with the land and be binding on successors in interest: Neither Grantee nor Grantee's agents, employees, heirs, successors, assigns, grantees or devisees shall construct upon, improve or otherwise develop, or attempt to construct upon improve or otherwise develop the Property. For purposes of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions, "construct," "improve" and "develop" shall refer to and mean any construction, paving, grading, excavation, improvement or development, including without limitation any addition to any structure, improvement or development for which a permit or permits from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be required under applicable law, regulation, statute or ordinance. Said property is depicted as "Parcel E" on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. 98091 I 99999.99999 •i 1491361.'2 l !002 (1194) 51 Hi \) I ..... "" I ..... i:8 Ul ,..... -J (S) VJ tTl >< :I: ....... t:>J ~ > ' ..... ~ x "O (SI rv .. ,., I-> 0 30 b 0 10.G..2' 0 '"Cl :l>' ~ n t;j t-< t;j Scale: 1 '= 30' I I I \ ri ~I ,-I -< r L z lb rt 6\ -16' 9( :o I ~l ..'... I 0\ ~l 0\ co l 'U ~ !:() n l'1 t-< n 21<D.OO' LOT 92 LA.C.A. MAP NO. 51 BOOK 1/1 G\.50' t_,J 0 Pafford Associates Surveyors 34 70 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Co 90010 T~-(213) 487-5900 FAX (213) 351-3037 26 JUNE 1998 SURVEY NO. 98.018 N 0 0 0 . l 7_@{!-; . .... 0 ~ pO\\'H Of B(G\t-H--l\NG ----r-- r+71 \ nl 01 LOT 111 TRACT NO. 29057 M.8. 739/23-27 0 0 \ ;;Q s: \ < rn \ m Cl' ~\ vi ! ,, 52 Date: 26 June 1998 Pafford Survey No.98.018 Client: Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr. LEGAL DESCRIPTION C1TY TRAIL EASEMENT -. ---.... -' -~·..,. -..... Pafford ~oclates Surveyofs 34 70 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles CA 90010·3909 l.213.487,S900 f.21 :l .381.3037 THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF LA.C.A. MAP No. 51, INTHE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, COUN1Y OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CAUFORN!A, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WlTH!N THE FOLLOWlNG DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057. PER MAP RECORDE=D IN SOOK 730 PAGES 23 TO 27, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNIY, DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY THERE.ON 6.83 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. NORTH 81° 08' 59" WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAlD TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES. SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 2. NORTH 81° 08' 59" WEST 10.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WlTH SA!O TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE 3. ALONG lAST SAID PARALLEL. LINE SOUTH ~6° 51' 01~ WEST 61 . .50 FEET; THENCE 4. SOUTH 13° 25' 24~ EAST 14.87 FEET TO FIRST SAID PARALLEL LINE; THENCE 5. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 281.l 51' 01" EAST 72.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POlNT OF 8EGINNJNG. -~ ·U~·9B...;__ __ LLOYD PJLCHEN. L.S.6976 LICENSE EXP. 9/30101 JUL-29-19'38 17:50 7147'380511 DATE 97% P.07 53 Date: 26 August 1998 Pafford Survey No.98.018.01 Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Pafford Asaooiates Surveyors '.)4 70 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles CA 90010-3909 LEGAL DESCRIPTION T.213.487 .5900 F.213.381.3037 CITY TRAIL EASEMENT OVER PROPOSED PARCEL OF DIAMOND BROTHERS THREE (PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51} THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP t{ECORDED IN SOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, lN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON 10. 17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01· WEST 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61" 08' 59• WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 26° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1065908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 4. NORTH 89" 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE ANO 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE . 5. NORTH 13°·25• 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WlTH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL. LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 5.13 FEET TO A LINE ~ARALLEL WITH SAID COURSE HAVING A LENGTH OF 114.55 FEET ANO 10.00 FEET NORTHERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 7. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°39'10" WEST 122.ea FEET TO LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE 8. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 17.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. LLOYD PILCHEN, l.S.6976 LICENSE EXP. 9/30/01 AUG-28-1998 12:06 2133813037 DATE 97% P.06 .. 54. " .. ·.:::::;r, ,.,~ .,__,. ,. , WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 Attention: City Clerk DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX s._,,,o ______ _ . .X .. Computed on th.: consideration or value of property conveyed; OR ..... Computed on the consideration or value less liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax · Firm Name GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is herehy acknowledged, So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, Husband and Wife and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife hereby GRANT(S) to The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic, the real property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Dated ~·---"""" ____ , 1998 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF--------- }ss } On __________________ before me, personally appeared ------ personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satis- factory evidence) to be the person(s) whose namc(s) is/arc subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/hcr/lhcir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/hcrflhcir signaturc(s) on the instrument the pcrson(s) or the entity upon behalf of which lhe person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature--------------- 980911 9999'1·99999 sj 1491361.3 0 So Quoc Ly Mum T. Ly Arthur P. Tseng Yu-Chen Tseng (This area for official notarial seal) 55 Exhibit A (portion of lot 92 described as Exhibit G in that certain settlement agreement between the parties and certain other parties) An easement for ingress, egress, hiking, trail and mountain bikfog and other recreational purposes over that certain real property located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: THAT PORTION OF LOT 92 OF L.A.C.A. MAP No. 51, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE I OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES: COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT No. 29057, PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 739 PAGES 23 THROUGH 27 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY THEREON l 0.17 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 111 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE 1. ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" W&<;T 216.00 FEET; THENCE 2. NORTH 61° 08' 59'WEST 120.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 120.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES: THENCE 3. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 28° 51' 01" EAST 70.62 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHW&<iTERL Y LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 18, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT No. 97-1085908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 4. NORTH 89° 39' 10" EAST 114.55 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT .ANGLES; THENCE 5. NORTH 13° 25' 24" WEST 14.87 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID TRACT BOUNDARY LINE AND 30.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY THEREFROM, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES; THENCE 980911 99999.99999 •i 1491361.3 0 1002 (1/94) 56 6. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 28° 51' 01" WEST 5.13 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID COURSE HA VINO A LENGTH OF 114.55 FEET AND 10.00 FEET NORTHERLY THEREFROM. MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, THENCE 7. ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89° 39' 10" WEST 122.86 FEET TO LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE; THENCE 8. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 17.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement is depicted on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. 98091 l 99999-99999 'j 1491361.3 0 1002 (1/94) " Certificate of Acceptance This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed from So Quoc Ly and Muoi T. Ly, husband and wife, and Arthur F. Tseng (a.k.a. Fan Fu Tseng ) and Yu-Chen Tseng, husband and wife, to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pursuant to the authority duly conferred by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: 9809! l 99999.99999 •i 1491361.J 0 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a public body, corporate and politic By:~~~-~~-~ Title: --------- 1002 (l/94) __...-~-"·~··-58 _ __::.:.::====::=.:::=:=.:..;::;;;_ _____ ;;__....;..__:;.:~...:..·...:..··_;·-::......:.:. .... :;.. .. ·;......___;~:.:__ ~-····, ··-·==..:;;..,;;;;;;_ _______ ....,.,,.w-- ]) s I .... (..J I .... ~ .... ,... \' w V1 i j I l \ ~ ::c R '{ ) ) ' -~ > I ..... Scnle: 11 = 30' :JO o 30 60 90 feet BRR SHI I I I ""t) -;'\ "\ -t. !."' "' .. }f .)- ~\\·. I .. I \ ~ :E \ ~\ cL z IN rri 9 -\~ . C' '. ~__..:_._ (. ~('"' ~ .• ~ ""1:i<"' ""t..-• "" ~"' ., V: ' (S. c< '\ LOT 92 LAC.A. MAP NO. 51 BOOK 1/1 Pafford Associates Surveyors 3470 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, Ca 90010 Tel. (213) 487-5900 FAX (213) 381-3037 26 JUNE !998 SURVEY NO. 98.018 ~ C\ -N t (<..AtL. '~ .... ...... ..... w ' ..... lO ...0 (l) ..... ..... .. N O"\ N ..... w w CD .,... 'W Ci) w -.J Eij I> l} ?6 -i ffl ;u (.I) ~ 1· . I ~I ~\ ~~f'SR 'O HV O(lJG.lf\/AL-~ 1. po1N1 ot lanAL 7.~G\NN\NG ~ ~' ~l g\ \ LOT 111 TRACT NO. 29057 M.B. 739/23-27 I nl 01 0 0\ :::'O t:;: I <ml rn g \ ui ,, ! lS -1; 59 From: So Kim Sent: To: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:42 AM CityClerk Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: From: Ara Mihranian late corr Follow up Flagged Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:27 PM To: 'Kathy' <ksnell0001@aol.com>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; sherihastings@yahoo.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; 'Katherine Pilot' <katherine.pilot@gmail.com>; Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; pbvilla@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com; dennisgardner@me.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; pdownjac@hotmail.com; leetwid@yahoo.com; sunshinerpv@aol.com; Katrina Vanderlip <katrinavanderlip@yahoo.com>; narcissavf@sbcglobal.net; Kelvin Vanderlip <kelvin@vanderlip.org> Subject: RE: Additional comments: Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa stripe changing to Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Kathy, The City acquired the former-Hon property using funds provided by the State and Federal agencies, as well as other funding sources (County and private donations to the PVPLC), so that it can be enrolled in the Preserve and its natural resources protected in perpetuity. At that time, the City was fully aware that the lot included a portion of Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa Drive, which are private streets. The terms of the NCCP/HCP requires the land in its entirety be designated as Open Space Preserve to be consistent with the primary use of the property. The funding sources used to acquire the property restrict the City from transferring any portion of the property to a private entity or individual. That said, such a land use designation does not automatically imply that the private streets are accessible to the public, or that the private street are in violation of the NCCP/HCP. Furthermore, the General Plan Land Use designation is intended to generally reflect the use, the implementing document that establishes the regulatory authority is the Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code) and the Zoning Map. Procedurally, once the General Plan Update is approved, the City will begin the process to amend the Zoning Code and Zoning Map for consistency, and these documents will specify what uses are allowed in the Open Space Preserve zoning district. Public access within the Preserve is conditional pursuant to the NCCP/HCP. That essential means the public does not have unrestricted access throughout the property (including the private streets or private gated communities). The public must remain on designated trails. Those who veer off-trail are in violation of the Council-adopted Preserve Trails Plan and the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, and subject to possible citations. The City has no intention to provide trail access to Vanderlip Drive nor to remove the fencing that delineates the private street from the open space portion of the Preserve. For these reasons, I do not see the proposed land use change as creating a conflict with the current and future use of the I private street. '" 1 Lastly, putting the General Plan aside, your questions regarding maintenance of the road by the property owners and private street easement holders can be discussed as a separate matter. I hope this answers your questions. If not, please give me a call at 310-544-5227 in advance of tomorrow's Council meeting. Thank you, Ara Mihranian Director of Community Development From: Kathy [mailto:ksnellOOOl@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:04 PM To: Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> Cc: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; ksnellOOOl@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com Subject: Additional comments: Vanderlip Drive and Narcissa stripe changing to Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Mayor Brooks, Changing Vanderlip Driveway and the northern strip on Narcissa will be a violation of the Grant Deed for the parcel in question. In addition, I reviewed the General Plan and proposed maps a few months ago. Vanderlip and the Narcissa strip were not noted nor were the legals and addresses shown. All the other properties being changed showed maps and legals. In my opinion, the Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa strip changes to the General Plan did not get a fair hearing and comment for changes. The Grant Deed needs to be reviewed. The description of the parcel needs to be confirmed for the weird configuration. Those homes where they will have to drive over Preserve property need to be noticed. When did the City Staff figure out that Vanderlip & the N arcissa strip was owned by the City as I have several documents showing that Staff was confused. An overlay residential district needs to include historically planted northern and eastern side to the fence. 35' Road plus 20' for landscaping. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Respectfully, Kathy Snell On Apr 24, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> wrote: Thanks for catching that, Kathy. I've already heard from all the residents, and Ara is looking into an overlay residential district. Susan Brooks Mayor 2018 Rancho Palos Verdes 2 (Home) 310/ 541-2971 (City Hall) 310/544-5207 mrpvca.gov Ge.· The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be interpreted as the individual work product of the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other entities. Sent from my iPhone ~ On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:16 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your comments. Your email will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. So Sent from my T~Mobile 4G LTE Device --------Original message -------- From: Kathy <ksnellOOOl@aol.com> Date: 4/21/18 8:14 PM (GMT-06:00) To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>, Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>, Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>, pbvilla@aol.com, sherihastings@yahoo.com, dennisgardner@me.com, gardner4@earthlink.net, pdownjac@hotmail.com, ksnellOOO l@aol.com, leetwid@yahoo.com, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>, CityManager <City Manager@rpvca.gov>, sunshinerpv@aol.com, kpilot l@aol.com Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map hearing April 26, 2018. This is to request the removal of Vanderlip Driveway from the Draft General Plan map designating the driveway as Open Space Preserve. Including Vanderlip Driveway on the map as open space will encourage more unwelcome trespassers onto the drive and into Portuguese Bend Association neighborhood inviting crime and trash. Vanderlip Driveway has been the only access to multiple private homes beginning in the 1900's and needs to remain as such. What restrictions are placed on the "Open Space Preserve" mapping change in the General Plan for Vanderlip Driveway? How does the City intend to manage the roadway maintenance and the trail access? What fire abatement can be performed on the drive? Has RPV notified the owners of properties having easements to the driveway? If not, please don't approve this designation on the map as Open Space Preserve until the owners of the easements are notified and have an opportunity to comment on the change. RPV City Council needs to protect their residents and property rights. Should the driveway have been deeded to the residences on Vanderlip Driveway pre-NCCP due to 3 liability issues but was overlooked by staff? Respectfully, Kathy Snell 8 Vanderlip Driveway Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 310 541 1266 http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ 11698 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK APRIL 25, 2018 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Wednesday afternoon for the Thursday, April 26, 2018 City Council meeting: Item No. 1 Description of Material Letter from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department; Letter from the State of California Native American Heritage Commission; Emails from: Gary Randall; Eva Cicoria; Katherine Pilot; June Treherne; Donna Mclaughlin; Email exchange between Mayor Brooks and Kathy Snell Respectfully submitted, W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180426 additions revisions to agenda thru Wednesday.doc DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN April 17, 2018 So Kim, Planning Manager COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (323) 881-2401 www.flre.lacounty.gov "Proud Protectors of Life, Property, and the Environment" City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Kim: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HILDA L. SOLIS FIRST DISTRICT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS SECOND DISTRICT SHEILA KUEHL THIRD DISTRICT JANICE HAHN FOURTH DISTRICT KATHRYN BARGER FIFTH DISTRICT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, "RPV GENERAL PLAN UPDATE," UPDATES OF THE EXISTING 1975 GENERAL PLAN THAT REFLECTS THE CURRENT STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, CURRENT ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA, AND IN CORPORA TES PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL LAND USE DECISIONS, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, FFER 201800041 The Final Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed by the Plannin~ Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: We have no comments. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: 1. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 2. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. All applicable fire code and AGOURA HILLS ARTESIA AZUSA BALDWIN PARK BELL BELL GARDENS BELLFLOWER BRADBURY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: CALABASAS CARSON CERRITOS CLAREMONT COMMERCE COVINA CUDAHY DIAMOND BAR DUARTE EL MONTE GARDENA GLENDORA HAWAIIAN GARDENS HAWTHORNE HERMOSA BEACH HIDDEN HILLS HUNTINGTON PARK INDUSTRY INGLEWOOD IRWINDALE LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGE LA HABRA LA MIRADA LA PUENTE LAKEWOOD LANCASTER LAWNDALE LOMITA LYNWOOD MALIBU MAYWOOD NORWALK PALMDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES PARAMOUNT PICO RIVERA POMONA RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ROSEMEAD SAN DIMAS SANTA CLARITA SIGNAL Hill SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE TEMPLE CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYWOOD WESTLAKE VILLAGE! WHITIIER ~ So Kim, Planning Manager April 17, 2018 Page2 ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans must be met. 3. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 4. Access roads shall be maintained with a minimum of 1 O feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear-to- sky with the exception of protected tree species. Protected tree species overhanging fire access roads shall be maintained to provide a vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 5. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15% except where topography makes it impractical to keep within such grade. In such cases, an absolute maximum of 20% will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade, including topographical difficulties, shall be no more than 17%. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10% in ten feet. 6. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 7. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department Land Development Unit's comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There may be additional requirements during this time. 8. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit are the review of, and comment on, all projects within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and local/regional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are responsible for the review of all projects within contract cities (cities that contract with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We are responsible for all County facilities located within non-contract cities. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit may also comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division which may create a potentially significant impact to the environment. This project does not propose construction of structures or any other improvements at this time. Therefore, until actual construction is proposed the project will not have a significant impact to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. So Kim, Planning Manager April 17, 2018 Page 3 Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Land Development Unit's Inspector Nancy Rodeheffer at (323) 890-4243. FORESTRY DIVISION -OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has no further comments regarding this project. HEAL TH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has no comments or requirements for the project at this time. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, MICHAEL Y. TAKESHITA, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU MYT:ac NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Environmental and Cultural Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone (916) 373-3710 Fax (916) 373-5471 So Kim, Deputy Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Also sent via e-mail: sok@rpvca.gov April 20, 2018 Re: SCH# 2018031073, General Plan Update Project, City of Rancho Palos Verdes; Los Angeles County, California Dear Mr. Kim: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project referenced above. The review included the Introduction and Project Description; and the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts section, subsection 5, Cultural Resources prepared by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. We have the following concerns: 1. There is no Tribal Cultural Resources section or subsection in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts as per California Natural Resources Agency (2016) "Final Text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form," b.l!P.://resources.ca.qov[i:&ga/docs/ab52/Clean-final-AB-52-AQ.Q.:.G-text-Submitted.pdf 2. There is no documentation of government-to-government consultation by the lead agency under AB-52 or SB-18 with Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area as required by statute, or that mitigation measures were developed in consultation with the tribes. Discussions under AB-52 may include the type of document prepared; avoidance, minimization of damage to resources; and proposed mitigation. Contact by consultants during the Cultural Resources Assessments is not formal consultation. 3. Tribal Cultural Resources assessments are not well documented. These should adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The lack of documented resources does not preclude inadvertent finds, which should be addressed in the mitigation measures. Please contact me at gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov or call (916) 373-3714 if you have any questions. Sincerely, cJCZ-# fe 7it&J.n- tead'Totton, B.S., M.A., Ph.D Associate Governmental Project Analyst Attachment cc: State Clearinghouse /. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1, specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 2 If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared. 3 In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). CEQA was amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52. (AB 52).4 AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 created a separate category for "tribal cultural resources"5 , that now includes "a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 6 Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. 7 Your project may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), Government Code 65352.3, if it also involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space. Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. Additionally, if your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 19668 may also apply. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws. Agencies should be aware that AB 52 does not preclude agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Consultation Lists and Sacred Lands File searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. Additional information regarding AB 52 can be found online at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/1 O/AB52Triba1Consultation CalEPAPDF.pdf, entitled "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices". The NAHC recommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. A brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments is also attached. Pertinent Statutory Information: Under AB 52: AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. 9 and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18).10 The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects.1 1 1. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. 1 Pub. Resources Code§ 21000 et seq. 2 Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b) 3 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 subd.(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (a)(1) 4 Government Code 65352.3 5 Pub. Resources Code § 2107 4 6 Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.2 7 Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.3 (a) 8 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. § 800 et seq. 9 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e) 10 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.1 (b) 11 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.2 (a) 2 c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. 12 With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.1 O. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.13 If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource.14 Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.15 Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable.16 If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b).17 An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days.18 This process should be documented in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. Under SB 18: Government Code§ 65352.3 (a) (1) requires consultation with Native Americans on general plan proposals for the purposes of "preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described§ 5097.9 and§ 5091.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Government Code§ 65560 (a), (b), and (c) provides for consultation with Native American tribes on the open-space element of a county or city general plan for the purposes of protecting places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code. SB 18 applies to local governments and requires them to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: https:l/www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf • Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. 19 • There is no Statutory Time Limit on Tribal Consultation under the law. 12 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.2 (a) 13 Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (c)(1) 14 Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (b) 15 Pub. Resources Code§ 21080.3.2 (b) 16 Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (a) 17 Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (e) 18 Pub. Resources Code§ 21082.3 (d) 19 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a)(2)). 3 • Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research,20 the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction.21 • Conclusion Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: o The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or o Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation.22 NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments: • Contact the NAHC for: o A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. o A Native American Tribal Contact List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/. • Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: o If part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. o If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. o If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. o If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. • If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. o The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. o The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. Examples of Mitigation Measures That May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: o Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. o Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: • Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource. • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. o Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. o Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed.23 o Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. 24 The lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources.25 In areas of identified 20 pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, 21 (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)). 22 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). 23 (Civ. Code§ 815.3 (c)). 24 (Pub. Resources Code§ 5097.991). 25 per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(1) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(1)). 4 archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. o Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: grapecon@cox.net Monday, April 23, 2018 6:00 PM CC; CityManager CityClerk Letter Letter 2018_04_23.pdf Follow up Flagged Dear Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern, Councilmembers, and Staff: Please see attached letter. If the City Clerk could acknowledge receipt of this letter and attachment (so I know it did not get "spam filtered") I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you Gary Randall 1 I Dear Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern, City Councilmembers, and City Staff: After a very frustrating and stressful weekend as a longtime (lifetime!) resident of RPV, I composed the following letter from my point of view. This viewpoint is admittedly narrow, as it relates to recent experiences I have either personally had, or heard through close neighbors. I have no doubt that many other residents, both here along the PVDS corridor, as well as throughout other areas of the City (like Del Cerro Park, as an example), have their own experiences and frustrations, which I hope they are writing to you about. I'll apologize in advance for the length of this letter, but sincerely hope you will take the time to read through it. 11:00 p.m., Friday, April 20, 2018. About time for most residents to go to bed in the traditionally quiet Ladera Linda HOA. But wait... where are those loud voices and slamming car doors coming from? Did someone up the street have some guests for the evening that are leaving? Guess again. A group of 8 to 10 cars has just shown up for a "night hike" into the Forrestal preserve. Well prepared and armed with water and flashlights, the group heads out. A resident immediately contacts Lomita Sherriff and asks if they can send a car out to check on the late night activity. While waiting for Sheriffs to arrive, the resident drifts off to sleep, only to be awakened at 1:30 a.m. by more loud voices and slamming car doors. This goes on for 10 or 15 minutes, and the resident finally decides to call Lomita Sherriff again to learn out what the officers found out... .. only to be told that no patrol car had been sent yet. The resident tells the Sheriffs not to bother at this point, since the hiking group had all gone. The resident returns to sleep. Fast forward a mere 4 hours later ... more slamming of doors and loud voices as the weekend hikers and mountain bikers start arriving, some in individuals or pairs, others in groups of 15-20. Not long after, AYSO soccer families begin to arrive for a day filled with 20 "Spring Select league" games on the upper and lower PVPUSD owned fields. Before long, there are 150 to 200 cars parked "behind the Forrestal gates," continuously being rotated throughout the day as the games start and finish. Well, at least this is serving the youth of Palos Verdes, right? Think again. While it is true that there are a few PV based teams, the majority of the teams come from other cities, including San Pedro, all areas of Torrance, North Redondo, and yes, even as far away as Santa Monica! Don't believe it? Go to http://ayso10.com/, look for the 2018 Spring Select tab, and browse thru their schedules by division. If that were not enough, the City of RPV also has scheduled not one, but two concurrent city events at Ladera Linda Park (Butterfly Garden Restoration project from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and a Family Fun Day from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m.). The City has been promising residents they would coordinate and not schedule city events at Ladera Linda Park during AYSO soccer times, but this has not proven to be the case. Additionally, both City events were publicized via their official Facebook page and Nextdoor. In the midst of all this chaos, another class of visitor also joins in .... the criminal. Around 12:30 p.m., a white car with no plates is observed pulling up alongside a parked car next to the PVPUSD Ladera Linda Lower Field (behind the unlocked and wide open Forrestal gate). An occupant gets out, smashes the window of the parked car, pops the trunk, and makes off with the owner's purse in a rapid retreat backing down the hill. A glass drug pipe is found on the ground next to the damaged vehicle. After all of this activity on Saturday, one could only hope Sunday would turn out more peacefully. Think again. Once again, residents are awakened by the sound of voices and car doors. What's going on now? Turns out a Meetup.com group has picked Sunday, April 22 to organize a "Tide Pool Hike from Forrestal." In their post online, they encourage visitors to "park on Forrestal Drive before or after the gate, you can also park on Pirate or Sea Raven." At about 8:40 a.m., the group of 40+ hikers heads out in mass for their scheduled 3.5 hour hike going up Forrestal Drive, about the time that yet another full day (17 games) of Spring Select AYSO soccer is getting ready to begin. Well, at least the hikers are off for a few hours and, other than the "normal" crowd of hikers, mountain bikers, and 150-200 cars of AYSO families turning over every couple of hours, it should be relatively peaceful down in the Ladera Linda neighborhood. Oops, we almost forgot about the group of 20-25 adult men who come every Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. and take over the entire Ladera Linda Park field to setup their own "mini soccer field." In the past, the City has told residents that large group organized activities like this are not allowed at the park, but apparently have done nothing to curtail it as it continues, despite complaints. Sounds of 4 letter curses drift thru the air over the next three hours as this group of older men take out their aggressions on a soccer ball and each other. After yet another day full of chaos, the weekend finally concludes. Some who don't live so close may say "This was just one weekend, it's not always like this on weekends." Think again. Rather than this past weekend being the "exception," it is starting to become the norm. AYSO Spring Select league runs this year from February 24 to May 13, almost exclusively utilizing the 6 available soccer fields at Ladera Linda (a few games are held at other sites). Last weekend (April 14), the City helped publicize (again on Facebook) a hike sponsored by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. Another Meetup group organized a hike at that same time ... combined, the two groups had 100 to 120 hikers. Well, one might argue that the City only publicizes a few events at Ladera Linda, it's just a coincidence that they publicized 3 events on two consecutive weekends. Once again ... think again! Here are some of the recent weekend events at Ladera Linda that the City either sponsored, or directly worked with Los Serenos and/or PV Land conservancy to promote on social media (keeping in mind that AYSO soccer was occurring on most of these weekends): 3/17 /2018: Forrestal Nature Preserve "Photo Blitz" 3/24/2018: Docent Led Preserve Hike 3/31/2018: Egg Hunt Eggstravaganza 4/14/2018 : PV Land Conservancy Hike 4/21/2018: Butterfly Garden Volunteer Day AND Family Fun Day That's 6 events promoted by the City of RPV in the past 6 weekends at this small, community park, which by the way is not located on a major street . In the midst of all the above, the City continues to have discussions about a total makeover of Ladera Linda Park, wanting to demolish the current buildings and replace them with modern facilities. The majority of local residents agree that the old buildings should go and be replaced with a modest new building. However, in addition to the new building, the City continues to emphasize a need to remove existing foliage on the property and open up expansive 180 degree views of the coast, ocean, offshore islands, and yes, even some residents backyards. Why? So the City can encourage even more out of town visitors to come, clog up the streets and parking areas, and hang out while watching the sunset? Even simple suggestions from residents, such as moving more active park usage, like basketball courts, to the back of the property have been ignored by the City's consultant. As a longtime resident, it is extremely frustrating to watch the City of RPV turn from a "paradise" into a commercial enterprise for the purposes of generating more tax revenue. In the past, in public meetings, the City Council has lamented the negative impact social media has in attracting "all of Los Angeles to our paradise ." And yet, City staff routinely publicizes events, not just on "local" social media (a.k.a. Nextdoor), but on general social media such as Facebook . Case in point: this past weekend's "Meet the Goats" at PVIC. When this first started a few years ago, it was a low key event attended mostly by local families with young children. This past weekend, a neighbor of mine (RPV resident) went at 11:30 a.m . and had to wait over 30 minutes to find parking, was greeted by massive crowds, and of the dozen or so people he spoke to, only 1 was a resident of Palos Verdes (that's about 8% resident attendance by his informal small sample). To be fair, other groups unrelated to the City use social media and the internet to spread the word about RPV. Doing a google search, I easily found the following specific articles on the first page of results, specifically in regards just to Ladera Linda: • Best sunset hikes in So Cal: http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/southern-california/sunset-hikes-so- cal/ • Mountain biking (note location where visitors encouraged to park and resons): https://www.mtbproject.com/trail/7013986/portuguese-bend-reserve-loop • Best night hikes in LA (CBS News!): http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/top-lists/best-night-hikes-in-los- angeles/ I realize there is little the City of RPV can do regarding what others post on the internet and social media . What they city can, and should, be doing is setting strict rules/laws and then aggressively enforcing those rules/laws, like the City of Palos Verdes currently does. And certainly not promote events via Facebook or other social media! Instead, in a recent March 8, 2018 RPV official Facebook post, the City boasted about "rapidly approaching 3,000 page likes" and asked the readers to share the RPV Facebook page with family, friends, and neighbors. In the City Manager report dated April 18, 2018, the City boasts about having over 10,000 subscribers to the City's official Nextdoor page. While Nextdoor presumably is more targeted to local residents, there is no rule that prohibits viewers to "re-post" information to other social media sites, or extending the information to further and further neighborhoods outside of Palos Verdes. It is my strong opinion that it is time for the City of RPV to take a big step back and evaluate their goals. Do the residents really need and want all the visitors? Does the City need to keep expanding parking opportunities so even more people can come in and fill them, only to then increase parking further (like it has done over the years at Abalone Cove)? Do we really need the additional tax revenue? For what purpose? An argument that has been made about the preserve is that there are so many access points, it is difficult for the city to "control." Well, how about coming up with a comprehensive plan (not addressing one neighborhood at a time) that provides limited public parking for visitors ... once it is full, it's full. Then have law enforcement aggressively ticket and impound illegally parked cars, double parked cars, cars waiting in red zones for spots to open, etc. How about working on such a comprehensive plan now, before actually spending millions of dollars on a new park? It is worth pointing out that the original City General Plan contained the following goal: "It shall be the goal of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community." It seems in recent years this goal has been fading. I have attached a number of pictures from just the past two weekends to this letter, mostly taken at Ladera Linda (although a few taken at PVIC) along with some screenshots of social media postings. I respectfully ask our City leaders look at these pictures, and then ask themselves if these picture align with the above mentioned goal. I think you would agree that the conditions in these pictures is not the type of atmosphere the founders of the City of RPV had in mind when they came up with the above goal. I would urge City leaders to take steps in earnest to actively embrace and return to that goal. Thank you for you consideration and for your service to our city. Gary Randall 45 year City of RPV resident (20+ years in Ladera Linda) April 14, 9:00 a.m. (Forrestal below Pirate) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- April 14, 9:00 a.m. (Forrestal below Pirate) April 14, 9:00 a.m . (Forrestal Upper) April 14, 9 :00 a.m . (Forrestal Upper -Illegal Parking) April 14, 9:00 a.m. {Two organized large group hikes -directions) April 14, 9 :15 a.m. {100+ hikers head out "en masse" to bombard the trails) ---- April 21, 11:00 a.m . (AYSO On site Parking Lot) April 21, 11 :00 a.m . (AYSO On Site Parking) ~-----~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....... April 21, 11:00 a.m . (AYSO Street Parking) RPV Facebook Page -event reminder facebook City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 1tyotFi Veta Homt Abool Reviews Posts Nol•• events Pholos '""""' Comrt111mry Q ComrJMnl Ctty Of Rancho f.JIOt; Verdes, CA :;Mreo tne.ir f'\tefll Al11'120al 1 100.'lm ~ REMI NDER The bUltr1ny ga.de11 VOkJO!Uf!f C-'ICO! ~I l'dOcla Un0-1 P•K Is tomorrov;at 11:00 AM cny of Rancho P.J los, varan, CA Mw·eo ln8 no1~ ...... 101i7 \\ REM DER W'Y Dog P'dfk (Ffo11d10".. Caoloos Dog Paik) vl• ~closed untt 11:30 AM tomo<row aue 10 tne Cl!)"S document shre<ltJDJ event Caty of R•"fJ'lr, P•lvt V~ \, CA Aptl:>tC1 1449tft ti' . .. --~ o ~ ~ 11 u "' 0 1 • • ~ e Meetup posting ;..OOJ ~ 0 -t~•D'"' .1171 li1205f'M 0 i >s .//www.meetup.com f.I] x Get the Meetup app for Android Sunday, April 22. 2018 '.!.%''' Log in Sign up Palos Verdes Tide Pool Hike from Forrestal f1 Share Tweet 0 Sunday, April 22 , 2018 8:20 AM to 12:00 PM Add to calendar • _J 0 L I ' What to bring & wear: hat, sunscreen, hiking shoes , hiking poles, snacks .... Please follow US Hiking Day Hike Equipment List Directions: Take Harbor Freeway South unti l it ends at Gaffey. Head south on Gaffey and then turn right onto 1st Street. Go about a mile on 1st and then turn left onto Western . Go about 1.7 miles on Western and then turn right onto 25th street. 25th Street turns into Palos Verdes Dr S. Continue on PV drive to Forrestal Drive and turn right. Forrestal Drive is ust across from Trump Nat10 Golf Course. Drive to gate and park on Our Mission : _J 0 L I ' April 22, 11 :30 a.m . (Meet the Goats, PVIC) April 18 RPV Face book reminder to meet the Goats -note the interest level! !X + ry CAS We:l lsf;:,rgo B of A (I Fod<loty TO Amer NHC ~ RPV Q ~,M00< • I facebook City of Rancho Palos Verdes , CA v rll Homa Reviews Posts Notes Events Pnotos VICICOS Con vnu mly •• Ukti .+ Shato ri:Jub CJ Com1oont Qty R ti lils Eo;t;;i es. I e 1hls C1ry or R.>ncho P•lo• Vtrdu, CA snared""'" e vent Apr\I 18 OI II 000m t/I ~""""' REMINDER Come out to in Point VK.e l\lt IO!tJtpre . ~ Ceote• to meet the goats thlS Sunday Apnl 22nd! City Facebook Encouragement, March 8, 2018 City of Rancho Palos Verdes , CA 0 Home Al'.X>U1 Review Posts Notes •' like naro Whale oh Day 2018 ·RAIN DATE 14 Sal 10 00 AM PO l P01111 Vicente lnterpreit e Cen e1 andlo Pa l I. rtJ Like 0 Comment AMlla Vale ncta Ami r Reza Jam, Fred Meseguor and 10 oth ers ke lhts rfJ Like CJ Comment Manami I vamlITTI '1.ary Gould Wend Ora\•es and 4 o he rs ~ke this Pt City Spring Activity Guide Linked on Facebook on March 21 (8 full color pages of City promoted events thru June -see http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11677 for the actual guide) CITY 14' Lil<e ,. narc ••• I Homo Pe About Reviews Posts Notes Pa Even ls Photos v1oeos CommunllY CJ Comm•nt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms. Cicoriae, So Kim Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:14 AM Eva Cicoria CC; CityClerk Re: General Plan Update Follow up Flagged Thank you for your comments. Your email will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. So Sent from my 'f-Mobile 4G LTE Device --------Original message -------- From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> Date: 4/24/18 10:10 AM (GMT-06:00) To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: General Plan Update Hi So, I have but one request regarding the updated General Plan: Can we please do a better job of distinguishing between active and passive recreation? Our lack of attention to the plain meaning of these words has resulted in the current situation in which we find us where children playing on a jungle gym is considered active recreation, but mountain bikers charging down trails putting other people at grave risk is considered passive recreation. Page 30 of the Staff Report refers to "unchanged Active and Passive Recreation .... In the end, it was agreed to keep the existing definitions." This appears to be not quite true. The updated General Plan dropped a significant part of the definition of active vs. passive recreation by deleting the definitions included in the glossary. The updated General Plan includes the following definition of "active recreation": Active Recreation: Active recreational facilities are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. 1 /. This is not a definition of "active recreation"; it is a definition of active recreational facilities. The glossary definition, which got at the activity itself was dropped. The update General Plan includes the following definition of "passive recreation". Passive Recreation: Passive recreational areas remain unstructured in order to allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. The 1975 General Plan included these definitions relating to facilities in the text of the Plan, but also included definitions of active and passive activities in the glossary. When the general public sees a park designation is "passive", they generally think of a more quiet space lacking big buildings and lots of noise and commotion, while a park designation of "active" is associated with structure(s) and/or a higher level of activity, more noise and commotion. When we think of passive activity in an area, we do not think that our lives are put at risk by the activity of others around us in that area. I concede that there was some lack of clarity in the 1975 General Plan on this issue. Unfortunately, in order to "solve" what was deemed an inconsistency between the textual and glossary definitions of active and passive recreation, apparently the glossary definition was simply dropped. In my view, this exacerbates the problem. The definitions in the updated General Plan should merge the textual and glossary definitions to provide greater clarity as well as add elements of the plain meaning of the terms. I suggest the following: Active Recreation: Active recreation is leisure activity which involves a high level of physical exertion, often requiring equipment specific to the activity, and generally impeding the passive recreation or quiet enjoyment of others in the space. Park sites designated for active recreation generally include facilities that are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. Passive Recreation: Passive recreation is leisure activity which allows natural ecosystems as well as the public in the area to function with minimal disturbance and without exposure to harm from others' activity in the area. Passive recreational areas remain mostly unstructured. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. Thank you for your consideration. Eva Cicoria 2 From: Sent: To: Emily Colborn Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:48 AM CityClerk Subject: FW: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive & Narcissa Drive from Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flagged Flag Status: Late Correspondence for General Plan Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-5208 Please consider the environment before printing this e-maiL From: Katherine Pilot [mailto:katherine.pilot@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:45 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>; pbvilla@aol.com; sherihastings@yahoo.com; dennisgardner@me.com; gardner4@earthlink.net; pdownjac@hotmail.com; ksnell0001@aol.com; leetwid@yahoo.com; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; sunshinerpv@aol.com Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive & Narcissa Drive from Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map hearing April 26, 2018. This is to request the removal of Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive from the "Draft General Plan" map designating these drives as "Open Space Preserve". Including Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive on the map as open space will encourage more unwelcome trespassers onto the drives and into Portuguese Bend Association neighborhood inviting excess traffic in this small gated community, crime and trash. Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive have been the only access to multiple private residences beginning in the 1900' s and needs to remain as such. -What restrictions are placed on the "Open Space Preserve" mapping change in the "General Plan" for Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa Drive? -How does the City intend to manage the roadway maintenance and the trail access? -What fire abatement can be performed on and adjacent to each drive? Has RPV notified the owners of properties having easements to these drives? If not, please do not approve this designation on the map as "Open Space Preserve" until the owners of the easements are notified and have an opportunity to comment on the change. RPV City Council needs to protect their residents and property rights. 1 (_ Should the driveway have been deeded to the residences on each drive, pre-NCCP, due to liability issues but was overlooked by staff? Respectfully, Katie Pilot Daughter of Kathy Snell - 8 Vanderlip Driveway, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11698 Sent while I'm on the go ... Katherine Pilot Executive District Manager, Independent Consultant ID# 22562816 It. 310.809.3661 KatherinePilot.arbonne.com Arbonne International USA • UK• Canada• Australia• New Zealand • Poland• Taiwan SWISS FORMULATED• BOTANICALLY BASED• VEGAN• GREEN• GLUTEN FREE ANTI-AGING I SKIN CARE I COSMETICS I NUTRITION I WEIGHT LOSS I DETOX 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms. Treherne, So Kim Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:24 AM June Treherne CC; CityClerk Re: Passive versus active recreation Follow up Flagged Thank you for your comments. Your email will be forwarded to the City Council as late correspondence. So Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device --------Original message -------- From: June Treherne <junetreheme@hotmail.com> Date: 4/24/18 1:21 PM (GMT-06:00) To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Passive versus active recreation > > Good Morning So, > > I am an RPV homeowner and a trail watch volunteer with the Land Conservancy. I have hiked in the Preserve for many years, mainly hiking in the Portuguese Bend landslide area long before it became part of the Preserve. Back in the early nineties I was gathering names for a petition to keep the space from being developed. Even back then the mountain bikers were very aggressive especially on Burma Road. Today, many mountain bikers speed recklessly as they have always done. Years ago, there were very few bikers and hikers on the trails, not like today. Many families with small children are up and down those trails, especially on the weekends. I understand on page 30 of the staff report for the General Plan mountain bikers are listed at being passive recreation this is not the case, in most instances they are very active recreation and aggressive. When I am hiking there I am always waiting for an accident to happen, especially the bends where you cannot see whom might be coming up the trail. > Sincerely, June Treherne > Sent from my iPad 1 /. From: Sent: To: Cc: Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:23 PM Nathan Zweizig So Kim Subject: FW: General Plan Update Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Late Corr Follow up Flagged From: Donna Mclaughlin [mailto:ddmclaughlin@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:44 PM To: sok@repvca.gov Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Fwd: General Plan Update Hello I agree with Eva. Thank you. There are so many speeding bikers on the trails lately (Portuguese Bend and Filorium) More monitoring by the sheriff needs to take place on these Preserves. Active Recreation needs to be looked at very closely. Donna McLaughlin Hi So, I have but one request regarding the updated General Plan: Can we please do a better job of distinguishing between active and passive recreation? Our lack of attention to the plain meaning of these words has resulted in the current situation in which we find us where children playing on a jungle gym is considered active recreation, but mountain bikers charging down trails putting other people at grave risk is considered passive recreation. Page 30 of the Staff Report refers to "unchanged Active and Passive Recreation .... In the end, it was agreed to keep the existing definitions." This appears to be not quite true. The updated General Plan dropped a significant part of the definition of active vs. passive recreation by deleting the definitions included in the glossary. The updated General Plan includes the following definition of "active recreation": 1 Active Recreation: Active recreational facilities are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. This is not a definition of "active recreation"; it is a definition of active recreational facilities. The glossary definition, which got at the activity itself was dropped. The update General Plan includes the following definition of "passive recreation". Passive Recreation: Passive recreational areas remain unstructured in order to allow natural ecosystems to function with the least amount of human disturbance. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. The 1975 General Plan included these definitions relating to facilities in the text of the Plan, but also included definitions of active and passive activities in the glossary. When the general public sees a park designation is "passive", they generally think of a more quiet space lacking big buildings and lots of noise and commotion, while a park designation of "active" is associated with structure(s) and/or a higher level of activity, more noise and commotion. When we think of passive activity in an area, we do not think that our lives are put at risk by the activity of others around us in that area. I concede that there was some lack of clarity in the 1975 General Plan on this issue. Unfortunately, in order to "solve" what was deemed an inconsistency between the textual and glossary definitions of active and passive recreation, apparently the glossary definition was simply dropped. In my view, this exacerbates the problem. The definitions in the updated General Plan should merge the textual and glossary definitions to provide greater clarity as well as add elements of the plain meaning of the terms. suggest the following: Active Recreation: Active recreation is leisure activity which involves a high level of physical exertion, often requiring equipment specific to the activity, and generally impeding the passive recreation or quiet enjoyment of others in the space. Park sites designated for active recreation generally include facilities that are highly structured and designed with specific activity areas, such as recreational buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, children's play apparatus, etc. Passive Recreation: Passive recreation is leisure activity which allows natural ecosystems as well as the public in the area to function with minimal disturbance and without exposure to 2 harm from others' activity in the area. Passive recreational areas remain mostly unstructured. Passive sites are usually used for nature studies, hiking trails, limited picnicking areas, etc. Thank you for your consideration. Eva Cicoria 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Ms. Snell, So Kim Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:29 AM Kathy Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap; Susan Brooks; sherihastings@yahoo.com; Ara Mihranian; CityClerk RE: Correction to comments: Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa strip changing to Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Follow up Flagged Thank you for your comments. Your email will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: Kathy [mailto:ksnellOOOl@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:11 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; sherihastings@yahoo.com; ksnellOOOl@aol.com Subject: Correction to comments: Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa strip changing to Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Ara& So, I stand corrected about the width needed for Vanderlip Driveway Residential Overlay. I measured the width of Vanderlip from survey markers and confirmed that the 35' width includes all of the historical planting and reaches to the fence. The additional 20' is not required except where the driveway entrance flairs from Narcissa up to 48 degrees 1 O' 20" E and requires the residential overlay. The Narcissa strip requiring a residential overlay as shown on the assessor's map 51 appears to be 30' wide on the east and 15' wide on the west. Thank you, Kathy Snell On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Kathy <ksnellOOOl@aol.com> wrote: Mayor Brooks, Changing Vanderlip Driveway and the northern strip on Narcissa will be a violation of the Grant Deed for the parcel in question. 1 In addition, I reviewed the General Plan and proposed maps a few months ago. Vanderlip and the Narcissa strip were not noted nor were the legals and addresses shown. All the other properties being changed showed maps and legals. In my opinion, the Vanderlip Driveway and Narcissa strip changes to the General Plan did not get a fair hearing and comment for changes. The Grant Deed needs to be reviewed. The description of the parcel needs to be confirmed for the weird configuration. Those homes where they will have to drive over Preserve property need to be noticed. When did the City Staff figure out that Vanderlip & the Narcissa strip was owned by the City as I have several documents showing that Staff was confused. An overlay residential district needs to include historically planted northern and eastern side to the fence. 35' Road plus 20' for landscaping. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Respectfully, Kathy Snell On Apr 24, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov> wrote: Thanks for catching that, Kathy. I've already heard from all the residents, and Ara is looking into an overlay residential district. Susan Brooks Mayor 2018 Rancho Palos Verdes (Home) 310/ 541-2971 (City Hall) 310/544-5207 mrpvca.gov The views or opinions expressed in this email are intended to be interpreted as the individual work product of the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff or other entities. Sent from my iPhone ~ CJ!: On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:16 AM, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote: Dear Kathy, Thank you for your comments. Your email will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence. So Sent from my T-Mobi!e 40 LTE Device --------Original message -------- From: Kathy <ksnellOOOl@aol.com> 2 Date: 4/21/18 8:14 PM (GMT-06:00) To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>, Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov>, Emily Colborn <ecolborn@rpvca.gov>, pbvilla@aol.com, sherihastings@yahoo.com, dennisgardner@me.com, gardner4@earthlink.net, pdownjac@hotmail.com, ksnellOOO l@aol.com, leetwid@yahoo.com, So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>, CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>, sunshinerpv@aol.com, kpilot l@aol.com Subject: Request to remove Vanderlip Drive from Open Space Preserve Land Use Map General Plan hearing April 26 Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Land Use Map hearing April 26, 2018. This is to request the removal of Vanderlip Driveway from the Draft General Plan map designating the driveway as Open Space Preserve. Including Vanderlip Driveway on the map as open space will encourage more unwelcome trespassers onto the drive and into Portuguese Bend Association neighborhood inviting crime and trash. Vanderlip Driveway has been the only access to multiple private homes beginning in the 1900's and needs to remain as such. What restrictions are placed on the "Open Space Preserve" mapping change in the General Plan for Vanderlip Driveway? How does the City intend to manage the roadway maintenance and the trail access? What fire abatement can be performed on the drive? Has RPV notified the owners of properties having easements to the driveway? If not, please don't approve this designation on the map as Open Space Preserve until the owners of the easements are notified and have an opportunity to comment on the change. RPV City Council needs to protect their residents and property rights. Should the driveway have been deeded to the residences on Vanderlip Driveway pre- NCCP due to liability issues but was overlooked by staff? Respectfully, Kathy Snell 8 Vanderlip Driveway Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 310 541 1266 http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11698 3 DRAFT CITY OF RPV GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP LEGEND -OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION RESIDENTIAL <=1 DUIS ACRE RESIDENTIAL<= 1 DU/ACRE RESIDENTIAL 4,; DU/ACRE -RESIDENTIAL 6-12 DU/ACRE -RESIDENTIAL 12-22 DU/ACRE -CEMETERY -COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL -COMMERCIAL RETAIL -COMMERCIAL OFFICE r-INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY -INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL -INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC -INSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS -RECREATIONALACTIVE 0 0.25 0.5 ~~ ~~}{ 1.5 2 -RECREATIONAL PASSIVE l""'-lliiiw---I Miles MARCH 3. 2018