Dear City Council members, I'm living on the border of GH in Vista Verde complex and I'm expressing my thoughts how important is to hold these compliance reviews for GH as we see constantly a practice of breaking or ignoring them, bending the rules here and there and hurting neighboring properties. We had recently GH staff cleaning and painting the rail fence early morning, outside of the permitted hours and they were~ very, very loud, you can hear them through closed door and windows. This isiike "nothing happened", and not a "big deal" but it is a violation of the CUP!

I wonder why we see the same practice with allowing GH to develop the open areas and the rest of the cemetery the way they want, without following the rules set in CUP or the Master plan. And, this is a serious issue!

You are the people, which have the power to control the development and make sure that GH follows the rules, but it seems to me that no one cares about the people in the neighboring cities.

Attached is the screen-shot of the relevant portions of the June 28, 2016 letter limiting Green Hills' use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. This confirms that the permitted "uses" of the cemetery are not unlimited. They are discretionary. In this case, the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to inter human remains under the artificial grade installed on the roof. Something which was not contemplated in the Master Plan (unlike the Mausoleums which are slated for development in Area 6). See the docum~P-t from June f8, 2016 (copy of the first page provided here): {)9z,/P~~ ~k <b~ cf.j) tu-1-~ ~ cYreen Hills is acknowledging that "improvements" (i.e. development of one or more sub-areas of the cemetery) which are not consistent with the Master Plan have to be reviewed by the City. This means that "consistency" with the Master Plan is the criteria. Development of open space "sub-areas" which are not identified for development in the Master Plan therefore require a Master Plan Amendment. Note also the last clause of the last sentence, which specifically contemplates the need for a Master Plan Amendment where the objective and desire to develop "a future phase" of the Master Plan where "the Master Plan has not designated a development plan or uses". See the document from June 28, 2016, page 2 (also attached here)

Your people count on you and trust~ you to do the right thing!

Nadejda Georgieva (Vista Verde owner)

-,......., ~'

~.,

~

.~!"'\, """'

.....

"""'

""" .-

,;'<'·~

',.,

.1'

r"'} -

;:::: ~

~r;

f';. :.;

- = ,., wil -- '"1 :!:;

,~,

~~~

e~ - - ' 1-:r, ~ 'l

'""'

t ~ ,..

>

..il

f

~

;:C

i '-,..,.. - - ~ -... - \;;

!: ..

t~)

--~-

''"'~J

'..

.ti

ri

;=;

(';.

::::=

-'>

.,.,;•

'

p~

~'

1,-

. ,..

.,_,

"'-r,

~J

~"'

~

'"'"

:.,·

~-...

,....,

.._

i !

! ;l

"""''"'iJ,

_/;._

..,

J\.:fr. John Rcsich June 28. 2016 Page 2 ....

Green I HUs ackno,vledgcs that the Resolution mnended ()reen liills~ ~¥

0 f ' hich novv'

provides for an adrninistrativc substantial cotnpli::n1ce rcvicvv· so that, except f(lr irnprovcrncnts consistent v .. "ith the ]\;{aster Plan or those subject to the PlanniJ1g Conunission. all in1prove1nents nrust be rcvic\:ved by the [)1rcctor to dctc·r.rninc if they substantiaUy cornply \v·ith the -~~faster Plan (Condition 1.k.). Condition l.k. sr.1ccif1cally provides that rcvic\V of an application f(Jr rooftop burials can be pcrf(1tTncd by the Director. ·rhc l)ircctor can, at his or her discretion. refer a lnattcr dirccti:;.r to the Planning Cc1nnnission. Condition 2 provides that t.hc follo\ving rnattcrs arc d1rcctly revie\vablc bv the J>lannin~, Corntnission: (i) the construction or n1odi fication of a numsoleurn or

!<r' ""-'"' I, ··'

other signi11cant building, (ii) any significant change lo the grading, (iii) any dcvcloprnent of u future phase of Green J~IUls \vhcr(~ the !\"laster Plan has not designated a developn1cnt ptan or uses} or (iv) any arncndn1cnt to the [\;faster Plan.

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

CITY OF RI\NCHO PALOS VERDES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CITY CLERK

MARCH 5, 2019

ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA

Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting.

Item No.

E

M

7

Description of Material

Email from Kit Fox

Email from Madeline Ryan

Email exchange between City Manager Willmore and Sharon Yarber

**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, March 4, 2019**.

Respectfully submitted,

L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190305 additions revisions to agenda.docx

-----Original Message----­From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:20PM To: Nathan Zweizig <NathanZ@rpvca.gov> Subject: FW: Late Correspondence, March 5th, Item E, Rejection of Claim

-----Original Message-----From: Kit Fox <kitfox62@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:40PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Late Correspondence, March 5th, Item E, Rejection of Claim

Dear Mayor Duhovic & Members of the City Council:

Based upon past practice, I was not entirely surprised to see that our claim for damage to my husband's car at PVIC was denied on the basis that the City is unot responsible for the actions of other parties." His car was damaged while he was working a regular, daytime shift at PVIC. At the same time, vehicles belonging to park visitors, employees and volunteers were also damaged or broken into.

I believe that the City knew or should have known about the numerous and increasing instances of vehicle break-ins at PVIC, Abalone Cove, Del Cerro Park and other City-owned locations over the past year or so. However, the City has done virtually nothing to combat this problem. For this reason, we believe that the City is culpable for this and any future vehicle break-ins at this location.

Sincerely,

Kit Fox Former 22+ year RPV employee

Sent from my iPad

1

From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To:

Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:37 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli

Subject: FW: CC Meeting, March 5; Item M - Consideration and possible action to review and approve the revised draft Council Goals to update and replace the former 2014 Council Goals. (Yap) Recommendation: Approve the draft final Council Goals

From: Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:26 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov> Subject: CC Meeting, March 5; Item M -Consideration and possible action to review and approve the revised draft Council Goals to update and replace the former 2014 Council Goals. (Yap) Recommendation: Approve the draft final Council Goals

Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers -

Are 'infrastructure' projects and 'trail' projects separate under 'budget items' in the City? Perhaps they should be.

For me, it's very simple. 'Infrastructure' invokes a type of hardscape; i.e., roads, rails, concrete walks, walls, sewers, drainage; 'Trails', on the other hand, invoke 'off road', dirt paths, narrow paths, water crossings, serenity.

Under 'Infrastructure'; City Lands and Facilities:

#26 TRAILS NETWORK PLAN UPDATE: Present a comprehensive update to the City's Trails Network Plan that is relevant and userfriendly by providing improved trail descriptions with graphics and detailed maps that illustrate trail routes and uses in a clear and concise manner based on existing legal trails, community input, and feasible trails to the City Council for consideration.

This item receives a big, fat 'NO'.

Yet, under 'Quality of Life':

#28 BARKING DOGS: Assess the effectiveness and responsiveness of the County's amended Barking Noise Program to determine whether the City should implement its own in-house program for the City Council's consideration.

This item receives a big, fat 'YES'.

1

I am not saying that noise, in any form, does not diminish quality of life and enjoyment of leisure time. What I am saying is that quality of life and enjoyment of leisure time includes TRAILS.

Please consider the TNP a matter of Quality of Life, an important amenity in this City's vision for maintaining and promoting healthy lifestyles via the trails and open space this City boasts about and direct Staff to present a comprehensive update on the City's trails and maintain these documents supporting such.

Thank you,

Madeline Ryan RPV

"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline

2

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Teresa Takaoka Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11 :29 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda

From: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 6:15 PM To: Sharon Yarber <sharon@sharonyarber.com> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Ladera Linda

All good points, Sharon. Should the City Council want to move forward, really the only time spent right now is in meeting with PVPUSD and hearing from them what they want and what they value the property at. I have heard of no other plans or push for aggressive negotiations from anyone on the Council. Alii have heard is: "PVPUSD is interested in selling or leasing the property, so let's find out what they are thinking." That is all there is at this point.

From: Sharon Yarber [mailto:sharon@sharonyarber.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 4:11 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Ladera Linda

True enough but before negotiations transpire and many hours of staff time are spent it would be a good idea for the public to get a sense of whether the district wants to sell or lease and what the appaised value is and what the City would do with the land. If we add it to the Preserve or make it a park you have the same neighborhood impacts that A YSO has caused.

Also, has anyone checked title to see if there are any deed restrictions on the use of the property?

Sentfi-om my Verizon Motorola Droid On Mar 4, 2019 2:50PM, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> wrote: The normal closed session is listed at the beginning with multiple subjects and then one is listed at the end of the meeting with just the LL property as the lone subject item.

In short, Sharon, as you know, the council has provided no direction one way or the other regarding this property. As the property is available, the council should be aware of it and consider whether or not to move forward, and if so, how. I would be derelict in my duty to not inform the Council that it is available and for the Council to find out at what price.

From: Sharon Yarber [mailto:sharon@sharonyarber.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:47 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: Ladera Linda

So there are two closed sessions? I must have missed that.

Sentfi-om my Verizon Motorola Droid On Mar 4, 2019 11:26 AM, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> wrote:

1 7

Hi Sharon,

The item is listed in closed session at the end of the meeting, and as you note, at the beginning. It is only on the closed session agenda at 6pm in the abundance of caution if any Council member has a legal question regarding the process.

If the City Council approves moving forward with wanting to hear from PVPUSD regarding their value of the property, then they will designate a negotiator in closed session at the end of the meeting.

Doug

From: Sharon Yarber [mailto:sharon@sharonyarber.com] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 1:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda

Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the Council,

How is it that you can have a closed session item at 6:00PM where you will negotiate the Ladera Linda matter, when you are not holding the required prior PUBLIC hearing on identifying the parties who may negotiate and the property to be the subject of the negotiation until AFTER such closed session during the regular meeting?? I think you are putting the cart before the horse, no?

Further, an additional alternative action might be to not enter into any negotiations unless and until the public has had an opportunity to weigh in on whether it thinks the City should consider entering into a lease or purchase agreement.

I think you need to drop the closed session item until after the public hearing.

Sharon Yarber

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

2

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO:

FROM:

HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CITY CLERK

DATE: MARCH 4, 2019

SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA

Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 5, 2019 City Council meeting:

Item No. Description of Material

Closed Session Emails from: Bob Nelson; Jennifer Taggart

Correction to Agenda Report; Email from Kathy & AI Edgerton

M Emails from Sunshine

2 Email from Robert Cumby

3 Letter from Jim York; Email from Ken Delong and Bill Patton

7 Email exchanges between City Manager Willmore and: Ken Delong; Sharon Yarber; Emails from: Bob Nelson (See Closed Session email); Jennifer Taggart (See Closed Session email)

Respectfully submitted,

L:\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2019 Cover Sheets\20190305 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx

From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To:

Monday, March 4, 2019 8:32AM Nathan Zweizig

Subject: FW: CC 3/5: Clsd Session #4; Reg Bus #7 (Ladera Linda fields)

Late carr

From: Robert Nelson <robert.nelson@rpvca.gov> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 4:30PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>

Subject: CC 3/5: Clsd Session #4; Reg Bus #7 (Ladera Linda fields)

Mayor Duhovic, Mayor Pro-Tem Cruikshank and Council members Alegria, Brooks and Dyda

The view(s}, opinion(s) and content expressed/contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the view(s), opinion(s), official positions or policies of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or any of its employees, agents, contractors, Commissions or Committees (the "City"). It should be interpreted solely as the view(s), opinion(s) and/or work product of the individual author and should not be relied upon as the official position, direction or decision of the City.

Both items involve real property negotiations with our PVPUSD. I found your 3/5/19 Agenda is a bit confusing:

Closed Session Item #4 states" Under negotiation: Price and Terms of Agreement" whereas Reg. Bus. #7 states "Consideration and possible action to enter into real property negotiations ... " Close reading conclusion: either you are pregnant or you are not! Either we are in negotiations and don't need #7 or we are not and #4 is in error. Again, I'm probably the only reader who see it that way.

REGARDLESS, MY COMMENT IS THIS:

I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO ADD A COUNCIL MEMBER (SUGGEST EITHER MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO-TEM) TO ANY NEGOTIATION TEAM YOU AUTHORIZE (OR HAVE AUTHORIZED).

Based on the emails below, RPV's City Manager contacted PVPUSD, PVPUSD did not contact RPV. And this potential acquisition is in an area where we have many items currently working- potential new construction, parking, soccer, traffic to say nothing of leftover neighborhood ripples from the PVPUSD-AYSO asbestos saga. They've been through a lot.

Again, our residents living in this area, I believe, deserve to be involved in any negotiations through an elected official who can represent them, not left out.

1 respect our City Manager's desire to bring this idea forward -and I only suggest our citizens be also represented and that, if possible, our Mayor, a nearby resident, be made part of any negotiation team, assuming you either have (#4 Closed Session assumption) or will (Reg Bus #7) authorize negotiation. I do not remember seeing this authorization in any past Council action and would hope nothing happens until you have authorized what could be an expensive item in a year of many expensive items our citizens will have to bear (city hall, landslide, Ladera Linda construction, Preserve fuel modification efforts, etc.)

Here are the background emails on this item that got my attention.

Bob Nelson

-----Original Message-----From: Ken Delong <ken.dmgn_g@veri_~n.net> To: 'Alexander Chern iss' <chernissa@Qvpusd.net> Sent: Sat, Mar 2, 2019 10:32 am Subject: RE: Ladera Linda

1

Alex, a "heads up" for you as we will oppose a "deal" with RPV relative to the Ladera Linda property. Reason, no stated need by RPV. The RPV staff report states that "The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) is interested in entering into real property

negotiations with the City regarding the potential/ease or sale of PVPUSD's Ladera Linda fields." This leads to me that PVPUSD has initiated the discussion which is not true. Furthermore, we question RPV's purpose as the most likely purpose is ... Ken

From: Ken Delong <~n.delong@v~_t:lzon.rrg.t> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 4:32:56 PM To: Alexander Cherniss Cc: 'Linda Reid' Subject: Ladera Linda

Hi Alex, ...

Would like to clarify a point re Ladera Linda property. My understanding is that RPV approached you to "do a deal," not that you approached RPV. Am I correct? Thanks Ken

From: Alexander Cherniss [mailto:chernissa@pvpusd.net] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 5:52PM To: Ken Delong Cc: 'Linda Reid' Subject: Re: Ladera Linda

Yes. Correct.

Alex Cherniss, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District

310-378-9966 X404

2

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Teresa Takaoka Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:05 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: RPV City Council Meeting March 5, 2017 Closed Session Item No.4 & Regular Business Item No. 7 (Ladera Linda - Real Property Negotiations)

From: Jennifer T. Taggart <jtaggart@ddsffirm.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 2:03PM To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Lisa Padilla <lpadilla@ddsffirm.com>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov> Subject: RPV City Council Meeting March 5, 2017 Closed Session Item No.4 & Regular Business Item No.7 (Ladera Linda- Real Property Negotiations)

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members -

I represent the Palos Verdes A YSO ("PV A YSO") in connection with the Ladera Linda fields. This communication concerns Closed Session Item No.4 and Regular Business Item No.7 regarding the proposed real property negotiations regarding the potential lease or sale of the Ladera Linda fields.

As you know, A YSO is a non-profit organization. All ofPV AYSO's 60 plus Board members and its hundreds of coaches and referees are volunteers. Each year, the program provides recreational and competitive soccer programs for approximately 3,000 kids. As I'm sure you are aware, team sports provide our youth with not just an outlet for their recreation, but also an opportunity to develop lifelong skills such as working cooperatively in a team environment. Organized outdoor recreational opportunities are relatively limited on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, particularly those available for a modest cost. Yet, PV A YSO provides outdoor recreational opportunities at a modest cost (well below club spmi opportunities) for thousands of our youth every year.

The Ladera Linda soccer fields are PV A YSO's premier and most popular fields. PV A YSO's relationship with the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District ("PVPUSD") started in 1968. PV A YSO has used the Ladera Linda soccer fields for approximately the last 20 years. As the City Council, the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, and the City Attorney were all advised in 2016 and 201 7, PV A YSO current leases the Ladera Linda fields from PVPUSD pursuant to a License Agreement which gives PV AYSO exclusive use of the Ladera Linda fields. A copy of the License Agreement was previously provided to the City. The existing long term exclusive License Agreement runs through 2025, with two (2) automatic 5 year extensions, extending PV A YSO's lease of the Ladera Linda fields through 2035.

1

PV A YSO plans continued use of the Ladera Linda fields through its License Agreement. Over the past 12 years, PV A YSO has spent over $1 million dollars to improve the Ladera Linda fields. PV A YSO develops, maintains and pays for water and all operational expenses at Ladera Linda in the amount of approximately $150,000 per year. PV A YSO is uncertain to what use the City plans to put the t!elds after 2035 given the community resistance to any expansion of the recreational opportunities at the Ladera Linda community center.

This communication is to remind the City that PV A YSO has a contractual relationship with PVPUSD and an exclusive License to use the Ladera Linda fields. The City may not be aware that its proposal to enter into the real property negotiations would interfere with and disrupt PV A YSO's existing contractual relationship with PVPUSD, its soccer programs, and its standing in the community. Moreover, while the City is well aware ofPV AYSO's use and need for the Ladera Linda fields, no person at the City even approached PV A YSO to discuss the lease, use or acquisition of the Ladera Linda fields or what plans the City has for the Ladera Linda fields. This is particularly disappointing to PV A YSO in light of PV A YSO's most recent efforts to keep the City well informed of Ladera Linda activities. PV A YSO accordingly questions the City's motives. PV A YSO specifically inquires into the City's intentions with respect to the Ladera Linda fields and PV A YSO's use of the fields pursuant to its existing License.

PV A YSO looks forward to your response.

Jennifer T. Taggart Partner DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90017-3496 Phone(213)624-8407 Fax (213) 624-0174 Email: jtaggart@ddsffirm.com http://www.ddsffirm.com/

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

2

Correction to Fiscal Impact section of Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Night Hike Policy Agenda Item I on

pg.l

Please find the excerpt from the City's Fee Schedule below. This information is to correct a typo in the

Night Hike Staff Report. The cost for a non-profit organization-led night hike is $75/year. The staff

report incorrectly indicates $60/year. And for clarification, the cost for a private group requesting a hike

(i.e. Boy Scouts, neighborhood HOA), is $200 per hike. Costs were formulated to partially recover staff

costs coordinating night hiking activity, and were approved by City Council in 2010. Staff will correct the

language in the fee schedule to reflect the City Council approved revised night hike policy as part of the

Cost Fee Study anticipated to come before the City Council later this year.

MISCELLANEOUS· FLAT CHARGE I RANGER-LED PUBLIC NIGHT HIKE N/A $7/PERSON I RANGER-LED PRIVATE NIGHT HIKE N/A $200/GROUP j SELF-LED NI~HT HIKE (ANNUAL CHARGE)

, _____________ -~----------4

N/A .. $ 1s 1 .. . -------·-·~~~----··~-

I.

From: Sent: To:

Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 4, 2019 3:48PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli

Subject: FW: 3/5/2019 RPV City Council Meeting Agenda Item# I (PV Nature Preserve Night Hike Policy)

Lc

From: AI and Kathy Edgerton <alnkathye@msn.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:11 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: 3/5/2019 RPV City Council Meeting Agenda Item # I (PV Nature Preserve Night Hike Policy)

Dear Mayor Duhovic and Council Members,

We support the revised policy covering night hikes in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve that Staff has prepared for your review. We believe it is a reasonable compromise that accommodates limited night-time enjoyment of the preserve and the educational opportunities it offers while also minimizing any negative impacts that residents who live adjacent to the preserve may experience.

On behalf of all Del Cerro residents, we want to thank you for your continued attention to this matter as well as for your recent approval of multiple other actions to further mitigate the impacts on residents.

Sincerely,

Kathy & AI Edgerton Del Cerro Community

1 ~-

Subject: FW: March 5, 2019 Council Agenda Item M

From: SUNSHINE <sunshiner.QY_@QQI.com>

Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 2:04PM

To: CC <_g;:_@rpvca.gov>

Subject: March 5, 2019 Council Agenda Item M

MEMO

DATE: March 3, 2019

FROM: SUNSHINE

TO: RPV City Council

RE: March 5, 2019 CC Meeting Item M, Draft Council Goals

Can you now see that Staff has no intension of becoming "more pro-residents"? This whole draft has nothing to do with Staffs business as usual. Of particular interest is what has been deleted. The Approval of these not SMART "goals" will endorse Staffs continued separation of issues in order to preclude Council from discussing the "bigger picture" as in "putting the cart before the horse".

A few examples:

When did Council discuss changing trails from circulation infrastructure to improvements on City property?

When will Council get to discuss Staffs declaration that "lot lines don't move"?

When will Council get to discuss the impacts of the PVPLC 2019 Work Plan on the conceptual California Coastal Trail, Altamira Canyon improvement and the Landslide Remediation Project?

I strongly urge the Council to trash this whole exercise and give some thought to what should be high priority "tasks" under the Goals in each of the Elements of our now updated General Plan.

Either way, Staff is going to continue to implement their own "goals" which depend on the Council having as little influence as possible. After all, you have given them the authority to decide what is "reasonable" and what is "appropriate". This land is not the people's land. It has not been since Staff took the "ICLEI Pledge". You might want to ask Mr. Willmore for a copy of that. No City Council has endorsed it.

1 V\.

From: Teresa Takaoka Sent: To:

Monday, March 4, 201911:41 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli

Subject: FW: Trails Network Plan update Goal and Action Plan

LC

From: SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 11:40 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Elias Sassoon <esassoon@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <Coryl@rpvca.gov> Subject: Trails Network Plan update Goal and Action Plan

MEMO

DATE: March 4, 2019

FROM: SUNSHINE

TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties

RE: March 5, 2019 Consent Calendar Item M, Trails Network Plan Update Task

This Task is almost a SMART Goal. What it is lacking is a clear direction of what is to be included in the work and the involvement of the Public Works Department.

The bid to construct the improvements at Trail A29 is another case of putting the cart before the horse. Public Works has not followed the directions in the existing Trails Network Plan (TNP), existing Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) and existing Conceptual Bikeways Plan CBT) in their Scope of Work for the Engineering of this work. Even the name of the Project in most places is not per the TNP/CTP/CBT which is the Deadman's Curve Segment (of the Sol Vista Trail and the Palos Verdes Drive East Roadside Trail).

Other than the formatting, there is nothing required of the "update" which will change any of the specifications called for in the presently, Council Approved, Plan.

The real problem is that Staff does not consider trails to be infrastructure. The placement of this "task" in the draft Goals and Action Plan is quite disconcerting. The 2012 draft Council Goal #10 Maintain and Enhance RPV's portion of the Peninsula's network of off-road circulation had to be clarified that the TNP includes the whole City.

1

There is no point in having a TNP if Staff is not going to implement it. The NCCP is also set up to eliminate the Goal of having a trails network. Your decision.

2

From: Ara Mihranian Sent: To:

Monday, March 4, 2019 3:38 PM CityCierk

Cc: Emily Colborn; Elena Gerli; 'William Wynder'; Doug Willmore Subject: FW: City Council Meeting, March5, 2019- Public Hearing Agenda Item #2- Order to Abate 8

Roseapple Road Attachments: Zone-6 Comments.docx; A TT00001.htm; BC445457 Excerpt. pdf; A TT00002.htm;

B241 035Excerpt.pdf; A TT00003.htm

Late correspondence.

Ara Michael Mihranian Community Development Director

crrvoF f~~NCI·IO Pi\LOS VERDES

30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 31 0-544-5228 (telephone) 31 0-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpvca.gov www.rpvca.gov

Do you really need to print this e-mail?

!his c;-.mail rncssa(Jc contains information 1Jclonqi110 to tr1c City of Rancho Pillos Verdc~s. wliich mav be privileqcd, confidential and/or protected ITOITI disclosure. The i:·lfomkltion is intended only for usc of the individual or entity narnc:d. Unauthorizctl cliso;ernini!tion, dh:tribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibited. lf you rcceiv1:d lhis CPI<lil 111 I' I' cw, or arc not an intended rcupicnt, please notify tile sender immrcdiatcly. Thank you for your assistance and coopcl·ation.

From: Robert Cumby <robert.cumby@cox.net> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:11 PM To: Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Eric Alegria <Eric.Aiegria@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: City Council Meeting, MarchS, 2019 - Public Hearing Agenda Item #2 -Order to Abate 8 Roseapple Road

Please see attached Subject Comments

1

To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members, City Manager and Director, Community Development

Subject; City Council Meeting, March 5, 2019 Public Hearing Agenda Item #2 Order to Abate, 8 Roseapple Road

Dear council Members;

I am a resident/property owner in the zone-6 land movement area and close neighbor to both individuals involved in the subject agenda item. My comments are not related to the code violation but rather the City's current rigid position on legal property lines.

In my research, most case law and historical opinions that conclude "property lines do not move", involve circumstances limited to smaller areas of movement (i.e. unstable hillsides, etc.) surrounded by fixed properties. As you know, the Cullen Earthquake Act was enacted after the 1971 Sylmar earthquake and created an avenue to reestablish property lines, after a significant land shift, in lieu of requiring hundred of property owners to move established improvements back to their original survey locations.

The zone-6 active slide area is a 200+ acre "block glide" which became active in 1956 and continues today. The first section of the Cullen Earthquake Act states: 751.50. If the boundaries of land owned either by public or by private entities have been disturbed by earthmovements such as, but not limited to, slides, subsidence, lateral or vertical displacements or similar disasterscaused by man, or by earthquake or other acts of God, so that such lands are in a location different from that at which they were located prior to the disaster, an action in rem may be brought to equitably reestablish boundariesand

to quiet title to land within the boundaries so reestablished. (6439)

The zone-6 slide area fits nicely into this definition, except for the author's unfortunate use the term "disaster" in subsequent language ofthe document. As such, the California State Appellate Court found that the Portuguese Bend landslide did not fit the definition of a "disaster". They inferred however, that the authors likely did not intend to exclude a large block movement such as the Portuguese Bend slide.

Both the Los Angeles Superior Court and the California State Appellate Court stated that "Even if the Cullen Earthquake Act applied, it could not be used at this time because the land is still moving. Therefore, using this logic, it is not reasonable to suggest that the entire zone-6 community, including homes, roads, utilities, etc., should move back to their original property locations because "The land is still moving". (See attached excerpts from court opinions)

Surely the Council realized that any single quiet title action in zone-6 would start a catastrophic domino effect, which would destroy the lives of our entire east-side community. A community

that has lived peacefully, without worry, for over sixty years. I feel that we all should receive the same respect and protection that all other tax-paying residents of the city expect.

I believe that a solution exists if the City would consider an alternate course action. The Landslide Moratorium could be amended to temporarily recognize properties in their current location, relative to the infrastructure and other moving benchmarks, until the slide becomes stable. In the interim, doing so would allow the city's governing departments to interact with the physical property residents regarding building permits, code enforcement, etc., in the same manner as all other residents of the city.

I am aware that Community Development wants to maintain control of city-owned property lines to protected possible future relocation of Palos Verdes Drive South. An amendment to the Landslide Moratorium could easily include an exception to protect the city for this, or any other reasonable needs that may occur in the future.

I urge the Council to dismiss this action, create a solution that is more equitable with our peer property owners in the city. Please let us sleep at night without fear of losing our homes and property.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Respectfully;

Robert Cumby 9 Limetree Ln Robert.cumby@cox.net

,EXCER~T_ I-RDN) CALIFDRl\1\A APPELL/-\TE CDURI OPINION IN AaJDN AbAINSf THE DrY DF RP\1 REGAR DJNG ·mE Lf{) DIERRY/7 ILL PI?DPEI<I y

C/1 S E ~ B 2. LJ I D 3 5 ~< '1-: c-:nainty the present location ofland boundaries." (See Historical Note, 17A West's

A.11TI. Code Civ. Proc. (1980 ed.) foil.§ 751.50, p. 348.)

The Portugese Bend Slide has been in progress for 57 years and counting.

Nothing about it is "fixed." As a result, there is no way to comply with the Act's

re uirements or satisfy the Legislature's intent of establishing certainty over the new land

boundaries in a single conclusive action. We sympathize with appellants' plight and

share their concern that the absence of an effective remedy in cases like this may lead to

inequitable results. 10 We also agree that it is an issue the Cullen Act could have

addressed. However, the gradual movement of land in the Portugese Bend area is not a . - \ ~

disaster as that term is commonly understood or as intended by the C}ilfen Act. 11 , .. ..

DISPOSITION . -. \

The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. EPSTEIN, J: •

10 We note that appellants still have a quiet title cause of action against those homeowners claiming title to Lots 40 and 41, which was the original location of appellants' homes. We express no opinion on the merits of that claim.

11 Although we have borrowed from the Emergency Services Act to help defme the term "disaster," we do so only as to the temporal aspect of that concept- a sudden earth movement - and not as to the scope or extent of damage. Therefore, we do not hold that a disaster under the Cullen Act must also qualify as a disaster for purposes of the Emergency Services Act.

• Justice of the Court of Appeal, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

17

/

/

/ /

/

EXCERPT FROM LDS ANGELES .. 5UPERIOR

COURT DPINID1J IN ACTIOk.l AG/tll\\~f THE CITY DF RP\1 REGARDI~G THE LJD CHERRYit/LL PJ"<OPERTY C/-\SE :# BC 1./L/54 57

recorded in Book 306, pages 34~35 of Maps, in the records of the Los Angeles

2 County Recorder and any "'slope easement" appurtenant thereto. Exhibit 0, (Tract

3 Map for Tract No. 14118, recorded in Book 306, pages 34 and 35 ofMaps, in the

4 Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, on July 21, 194 7).

5 21. Neither defendant City of Rancho Palos Verdes nor defendant Rancho

6 Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency make any claim of title or interest in that

7 parcel of property whose legal description is Lot 41, Block 1, of Tract No. 14118, as

8 per map recorded in Book 306, pages 34 and 35 of maps, in the office of the County

9 Recorder of Los Angeles County, save and except that certain ten~ foot wide strip of ·:, .

l 0 land designated as "Future Street" shown on the Tract Map for Tract No. 14118,

z '"' 11 recorded in Book 306, pages 34-35 of Maps, in the records o~the Los Angeles og " ~ ~ 12 eli:: ..

County Recorder and any "slope easement" appurtenant ther~to\ Exhibit 0, (Tract

Map for Tract No. 14118, recorded in Book 306, pages 34 and 35 of Maps, in the

Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, on July 21, 1947). Exhibit P,

(Disclaimer of Interest- City); Exhibit Q (Disclaimer of Interest- Agency).

UJ 3 ~: 13 :z 2

~ E 14 1- 0 <~ 3 ~ 15 -31 CJ'l :5

~ ~ 16 < 1;:; :J:!

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the foregoing undisputed facts,

S-!~ eli:: <(

17 the defendants :~- motion for summary adjudication.ofissues is hereby GRANTED on

18 the ground that there is no triable issue as to any material fact as to the following

19 issues: - . i · -

LU Issue No. 1. Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief under the Cullen

21 Earthquake Act because the Portuguese Bend Land~lide, including the portion on

22 which plaintiffs' residential structures are currently situated, is still moving, and

23 plaintiffs' first cause of action is therefore barred as a matter of law.

DJ"" Issue No.2. To the extent plaintiffs are seeking to confirm their ownership

25 and entitlement to Lots 40 and 41 of Tract No. 14118, as per map recorded in Book

26 306, pages 34 and 35 of maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles

27 County, neither the City of Rancho Palos Verdes nor the Rancho Palos Verdes

28 Redevelopment Agency claims (or has ever claimed) any ownership or other adverse

Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment [Proposed]

l!t.ll7f.-lll?\11liMO~v? dnr.

To Doug Wilmore, City Manager and members of the city council

Re: March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting, Regular Business, Agenda item 3.

SCE presentation regarding wildfire mitigation program

Dear Mr Wilmore and Members of the City Council

Southern California Edison (SCE) is still not adequately maintaining its

equipment in the Portuguese Bend area. There is an extreme risk of another

major wildfire such as the area experienced in 2005 San Clemente fire and

2009 Portuguese Bend fire.

The attached map does not come close to showing all the fires that have

occurred during the last 10 years. The 2009 Portuguese Bend fire and fires

occurring on our property 7/31 /09, 3/28/12 and 5/26/12 are not listed. In the

last 15 years, SCE has paid us over $290,000 for damage to our property

caused by SCE fires

SCE has not adequately responded to the October 30, 2012 letter from Mayor

Misetich, a copy of which is attached

SCE obtained f rom us the necessary easements (copy attached) to

underground the equipment which caused 4 fires on our property. The new

district manager, Scot Snyder, decided not to do the work (letter attached)

Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue

QL£< ·~· ·---..... _· Jim York

Managing Member

York Point View Properties, LLC

6001 Palos Verdes Drive South

Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275

310-544-6177

3.

AriTHONY M. f"11SET!CH, MAYOf<

SUSAN BROOKS, COUNCILWO!"IJI.N JERRY V 0UHOVIC, COUNCILMAf'i Jt~~ !<NIGHT, COUNCILMAf~

October 30, 2012

MR. WALTER JOHNSTON

CITY OF

VICE PRESIDENT, POWER DELIVERY SERVICES SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON

P.O. Box800 ROSEMEAD,CA 91770

RANCHO PALOS VERDES

SUBJECT: SCE-RELATED F~RES 1 POWER OUTAGES AND EQUIPMENT INS'TAlLATION IN THE C~TY OF RANCHO PAlOS VERDfS

Dear Mr. Johnston: /

! am writing to you regarding the impact of power outages, electrical system failures, fires and equipment installation on residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV). I would like to thank SCE staff for meeting with representatives from RPV and neighboring Peninsula cities on February 29, 2012 about power outages as well as Public Affairs Manager Marvin Jackmon for appearing before Council on July 17, 2012. While we appreciate his courtesy and attentiveness, every member of Council as well as many members of the public in attendance strongly expressed displeasure regarding SCE's actions to date and their plans for future infrastructure upgrades moving forward. My colleagues on City Council and I share deep-seated concerns about SCE's communication with residents regarding planned and unplanned outages, the impact of outages on our senior population, the number and duration of outages, and the potential impact of fires on habitat, wildlife, structures, and most importantly human lives.

The RPV City Council authorized me to send a letter outlining the City Council's expectations for addressing the most significant issues threatening the safety and well-being of City residents through the implementation of maintenance and infrastructure measures. The centra! issues are fires, outages, and equipment installation.

Fires The equipment replacement schedule laid out by Mr. Jackmon showed that significant infrastructure upgrades in the Phase 3 area which included the Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve is at least five years away and contingent on funding availability. The current efforts including vegetation management, tree inspection and correction, clearance around power poles, line inspections, and installation of bird guards at selected locations are appreciated and undoubtedly useful. However, significant upgrades to electrical equipment, which SCE staff has conceded are aging and beyond their useful life expectancy, needs to be

3094 0 HAWTHORNE BOUI.E\1;\RO j Rf\J'ICHO [JALOS VEPDES, CA 902/5-5391/ (310) 544·5205 I FAX {310) 54 4·5291 f WWW'"LILOSVERDESCOH/F!PV

·.::'~· [JR\i'iTED ON I:ZECYCLED 1)\Pt:l<

SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OlJTAGES AND EQUIPMENT lNSTALJLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS Vl~RDES Octbober 30, 2012 Page2

impiemented comprehensively and expeditiously to minimize the threat of fires. The City is deeply concerned about the increasing frequency of wildfires in our open space areas caused by electrical failures and accidents that threaten the lives and property of our residents, not to mention the viability of our native habitat areas. While large fires such as the 2005 San Clemente fire and 2009 Portuguese Bend fires are better known due to their size and extensive media coverage, there are many more fires and incidents that draw less attention. Since I last wrote to SCE in February, City staff has researched the number of fires related to SCE equipment and incidents of downed power lines in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The results were frankly eye-opening. Research was based on information provided by the Los Angles County Fire Department (LACOFD) and focused on fires 1 acre or larger and also on reports that mentioned SCE or power equipment. Between 2005 and 2012 there were a totai of 50 reports mentioning SCE directly or referring to power lines or power equipment. Twenty-seven of the fifty incidents involved fires. Eight of the nine fires that burned at least one acre invoived SCE equipment.

. ~~ ;-

Reports

2006 4 1

2007 4 0 0

1 1

4

2010 6 1

8 4 1 0

2 5 3 3

These numbers are very troubling. The City and its residents are fortunate that there has been no loss of human life and relatively modest structural damage from these fires. Fire Department personnel have indicated that stronger wind conditions or the lack of availability of airborne fire-fighting equipment could have drastically increased the impact of some of these fires. While many of these fires are small in nature, any of them, given the right set of

SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUTAGES ANI!) EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30,2012 Page3

circumstances could blossom into a tragic inferno. The fact that most of the fires and incidents reflected in the chart above caused little property or habitat damage is due in no small pati to the professionalism and bravery of local firefighters along with sensible, pro-­active brush clearance policies. Rationalizing this number of incidents as acceptable is truly "playing with fire."

The ongoing threat to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is a central concern to the City, its residents and non-profit organizations. The Palos Verdes/South Bay Sierra Club chapter sent a letter to SCE on February '17, 2012 expressing its concerns about the "frequency of fires in which Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission tines are implicated in destroying coastal sage scrub habitat and undoubtedly the wfldlife that inhabits it." The letter references the January 9, 2012 Crest Fire, the 2009 Portuguese Bend Fire, the 2005 San Clemente Fire and an October 1997 fire that burned 25 acres in McCarrell Canyon. The letter identifies the history of birds and wildlife being electrocuted by SCE equipment and power lines and subsequently causing fires when they fell to Jh€Vground. The Sierra Club's letter identifies five remedies to reduce the possibility of fires and minimize threat to wildlife in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve:

J> fncrease the gap between conductors and grounds P Clearing vegetation below power lines > Insulating conductors }"- Undergrounding conductors where geologically feasible :'fJ.- Re-routing lines outside the Preserve

Representatives from the Sierra Club and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy members spoke at the July 17 meeting about the impact of fires on habitat and wildlife and the need for better safety remedies. City Councilmember Jim Knight has also raised a number of low-cost, low impact ideas that should be considered including insulation of the center ground wire with synthetic rubber (ethylene propylene diene monomer), expanded use of separator brackets, and increased fire safety training 'for SCE field service personnel and contractors working in the field. The cost of these modest measures compared to the size of SCE's budget and the potential impact of a massive fire is truly minimal and should be reviewed and implemented by SCE expeditiously. City staff and representatives from the PVPLC and other agencies are willing to meet with SCE personnel to discuss these and other possible measures.

Power Outages

Electrical power outages and system failures have been a regular occurrence in HPV and throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula in recent years. \J\/hiie outages in Palos Verdes Estates (PVE) in late 2011 received more attention due to their length and the number of homes affected, there has been an average of over twenty-six outages per year in RPV from 2008-2011. RPV outages and repair orders combined to average over fifty incidents a year during the same period. The chart below summarizes these outages and repairs over the last four years:

SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUT AGES AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RAI"l"CHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30, 2012 Page 4

Rancho Palos Verdes Outages and Repair Orders 2008-2011 . :=J

zoos L :23 19 4z 2009 34 29 63

1 zo1o 22 34 s6

Not all of these outages have been severe in terms of impact or duration and some have been the result of planned repairs or improvements, but a number have been significant, including an outage in December 2011 that lasted over ten hours. This particular unplanned outage primarily affected PVE residents, but also impacted adjacent RPV residences as well. The City has' received complaints about the inconvenience of outages, and their logistical and 'financial impacts, including spoiled food and damaged electr.omk:s. Staff has received a number of complaints about the efficacy of SCE's claims process for spoiled food and damaged equipment.

The City Council understands and appreciates that SCE has spent an estimated $10 million on Peninsula-wide improvements in recent years and that more improvement projects are planned for 2012 in future years. However, the reliability and safety of the area's electrical system is an issue of utmost importance to the RPV City Council and our 42,000 residents. SCE needs to be more pro-active and expeditious in updating aging infrastructure. Again, waiting five years for improvements whicll are contingent on the availability of funding is unacceptable and will likely lead to continued outages and a greater risk of fire .

. Equipment Installation

In addition to the issues of electrical failures and concurrent fires, the City would also like to register its concerns about the issue of transformer replacements and upgrades. A recent installation on West Toscanini Drive near Western Avenue was handled in a fashion that was upsetting to the nieghbor immediately adjacent to the transformer. A series of complaints, meetings and negotiations occurred before that issue was resolved and the pole was restored to its original height and the transformer activated. The Council understands that the necessity to upgrade electrical infrastructure and increase capacity from 4kv to 16kv will result in planned outages and inconvenience for our residents. We would like to see SCE work cooperatively with City staff and residents on this issue in the future, with an emphasis on rninlmizing neighborhood disruption and potential safety concerns.

Recommended Actions/Next Steps

In addition to sending this letter, the following is a summary of the recommended actions approved by the RPV City Council:

'*' Request that SCE provide progress reports on ongoing implementation of Peninsula Reliability Plan.

SO~-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUTAGES AND EQUIPMENT INST ALlLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30,2012 Page5

i> Request that SCE provide staff with transformer replacement schedule with patiicu!ar attention to those most likely to cause safety concerns for residents.

• Request that SCE provide a progress report on sa·fety measures proposed by Sierra Club (listed above).

+ Have City staff establish a system for residents to report overgrown vegetation in and around SCE facilities, to be reported to SCE and monitored by City for completion.

The City Council appreciates the complexity of SCE's Peninsula Reliability Project and the associated expense required to complete improvement projects such ·as the installation of fault indicators, fused switches and a $4 million circuit project The City appreciates that SCE is wiiHng to meet with the City and othet· interested parties to address these serious concerns in a timely tTJanner. Outages and fires will continue to be an all-too real part of life in Rancho Palos Verdes, if more pro-active approaches to fire prevention and infrastructure improvements are not adopted and implemented. ,,.

Sincerely~_..--/ ~~ .. ~ I"" _,

,._./"-- - \Ae). '

Anthony Misetich l Mayor t

cc: California Public Utilities Commission Ronald L. Utzinger, President, Southern California Edison Marvin Jackman, Region Manager, Public Affairs, Southern California Edison Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager

/4..~ WISON I.\Tt:JI.MHO'IIt4L' ea.-1

October 30, 2018

Mr. Jim York 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Mr. York:

We are writing to update you regarding upgrades to our infrastructure proximate to your property at 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South. As you know, SCE has been actively engaged in performing infrastructure upgrades to ensure the safe and reliable distribution of electricity to our customers and to facilitate panel upgrades for your home. Given the configuration of the property, SCE analyzed a number of options to perform the subject upgrades which included relocating infrastructure out of an adjacent wash and potentially undergrounding a section of utility lines on and proximate to your property.

SCE has continued to evaluate the need for and feasibility of undergrounding distribution lines. Since we last spoke, SCE notes that several property owners have refused to grant easements to accommodate underground related work. Given that SCE was not able to obtain these easements and the lack of an engineering need to perform the undergrounding, SCE has decided not to proceed with the underground option. Please feel free to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns.

1:tfr)/----Scot Snyder South Bay Office District Manager 505 Maple Avenue Torrance, CA 90503

RECORDING REQUESTED uf

SOUTHERN CALIFOI~NIA

EDISON An EDISON INTERNATIONAL Coropnny

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2 INNOVATION WAY, 2nd FLOOR POMONA, CA 91768

Attn: Title and Real Estate Setvices

SCEDoc. No.

GRANT OF EASEMENT

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX:!! NONE

VALUE AND COt:!SID!;RATION LESS THAN :I;100.00l

SCE Company

SlG. OF DECLARANT OR AGENT DETERMINING TAX FIRM NAME:

FIM

APN

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE

UI~IKI'-'1 ~OH "~0 UI<UOK ooKIAL Nu. h1A '~ILO

South Bay TD1190998

26-64A APPKOVtu: tlY UAit

7572-012-028 REAL PROPERTIES DEPARTMENT SLS/BT 06/12/2017

and 029

YORl( POINT VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), hereby grants to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"), a non-exclusive easement and right of way to consllllCt, U''>e, maintain, operate, alter, add to, repair, replace, reconstruct, inspect and remove at any time and from time to time underground electrical supply systems and communication systems (hereinafter referred to as "systems"), consisting of wires, underground conduits, cables, vaults, manholes, handholes, and including above-ground enclosures, markets and concrete pads and other appurtenant fixtures and equipment necessary or useful for distributing electrical energy and for transmitting intelligence, data and/or communications (eg. through fiber optic cable), in, on, over, under, across and along that certain real property in tl1e Com1ty of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows:

TWO STRIPS OF LAND LY1NG WITHIN PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTiv!ENT NO. SUB2003-00025, AS EVIDENCED BY A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. SUB2004-00004, RECORDED ON AUGUST 09, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 04-2035438, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

STRlP #1 (20.00 FEET WIDE)

TI-IE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTII 24°08'30" EAST 250.28 FEET; THENCE ALONG 11-JE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 53°37'30" EAST 227.57 FEET; THENCE NORTI-I 134.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°00'04" EAST 250.39 FEET; TI-IENCE NORTH 55°3l'l5"EAST 529.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28°03'36" EAST 138.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13°28'18" EAST 10.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15°42'18" WEST 4.62 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT OF ENDING IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL L

THE NORTHWESTERLY SIDELINE OF SAID STRIP IS TO BE PROLONGED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE SOUTHWESTERLY IN THE SOUTiiWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTHERLY IN TI-IE NORTHEAS1ERL Y LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, AND TO JOIN AT THE ANGLE POINTS.

STRIP #2 (30.00 FEET WIDE)

THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP IS BEING CONCENTRIC WITH AND DISTANT 30.00 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CURVE:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTI-fEASTERL Y TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN CURVE IN THE SOUTI{EASTERL Y LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SHOWN AS BEING CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 156°44'11", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 273.56 FEET ON SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, A RADIAL LINE PASSING THROUGH SAID TERMINUS BEARS SOUTH 50°46'23" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHERLY, AND NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 95°41 '02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167.00 FEET TO A POINT OF ENDING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN STRIP #1 DESCRIBED HEREINABOVE.

It is understood and agreed tl1at the above description is approximate only, it being the intention of the Grantor(s) to grant an easement for said systems as constmcted. The centerline of the easement shall be coincidental with the centerline of said systems as constructed in, on, over, under, across, and along the Grantor(s) property.

This legal description was prepared pursuant to Sec. 8730( c) of tl1e Business & Professions Code.

Grantor further grants, bargains, sells and conveys unto the Grantee the right of assignment, in whole or in part, to others, without limitation, and the right to apportion or divide in whatever manner Grantee deems desirable, any one or more, or all, of the easements and rights, including but not linlited to all rights of access and ingress and egress granted to the Grantee by this Grant of Easement

Grantor agrees for himself, his heirs and assigns, not to erect, place or maintain, nor to permit the erection, placement or maintenance of any building, planter boxes, earth fill or other structures except walls and fences on the above described real property. The Grantee, and its contractors, agents and employees, shall have the right to trim or cut tree roots as may endanger or interfere with said systems and shall have free access to said system<; and every part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of exercising the right'> herein granted; provided, however, that in making any excavation on said property of t11e Grantor, the Grantee shall make the same in such a llk11111er as will cause the least injury to the smface of the ground around such excavation, and shall replace the eat1h so removed by it and restore the surface of the ground to as near the same condition as it was prior to such excavation as is practicable.

EXECUTED this22N.;)day of __ P-'?_ri_Y _____ , 20f'6 .

2

GRANTOR

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company

~~ vi'I:J m~s Ynf2r<, Print Name

m ;() .rJ 19 r-1.-..1 r;-' Title

DSE801531777 TD1190998

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Late corr

Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 4, 2019 8:34 AM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: March 5th Agenda Item # 3 SCE York- SCE Caused Fires - 2019.pdf

From: Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 10:11 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: bill@pattonsite.com; Jim York <jyork@catalinaviewwines.com> Subject: March 5th Agenda Item # 3 SCE

To Mayor Duhovic, Mayor ProTem Cruikshank and RPV Council Members

Attached is the letter written to SBC by the RPV Council in October 2012. Also attached is letter sent to Jim York October 2018 by SCE. Included is other pertinent information that is likely included in your meeting packet.

Of particular note is the October 2018 letter to Mr. York from SCE. Specifically, wherein the letter SCE states SCE cannot continue the undergrounding of SCE facilities on Mr. York's property due to SCE being unable to obtain easements from undisclosed "others" thus allowing a fire hazard to remain on or adjacent to Mr. York's property. My understanding of the situation is that SCE is in error as the easement given to SCE by Mr. York is more than adequate to "underground" the SCE potential fission source on Mr. York's property.

There is sufficient reason to question the veracity of the SCE October letter to Mr. York concerning undergrounding SCE facilities on /adjacent properties. Is it not RPV's responsibility to initiates a legal action that directs SCE to underground the SCE facilities on I adjacent to Mr. York's property that is a potential catastrophe thus protecting lives and property in RPV? Ken Delong Bill Patton

3 1

ANTHONY M. MISETICH, MAYOR

BRIAN CAMPBELL, MAYOR PRO TEM

SUSAN BROOKS, COUNCILWQMto.N JERRY V. 0\J-IOVIC, COUNCILMAN JIM KNIGHT, COUNCILMAN

October 30, 2012

MR. WALTER JOHNSTON

CITY OF

VICE PRESIDENT, POWER DELIVERY SERVICES

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON P.O. Box800 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

RANCHO PALOS VERDES

SUBJECT: SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUTAGES AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDr S

Dear Mr. Johnston:

I am writing to you regarding the impact of power outages, electrical system failures, fires and equipment installation on residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV). I would like to thank SCE staff for meeting with representatives from RPV and neighboring Peninsula cities on February 29, 2012 about power outages as well as Public Affairs Manager Marvin Jackman for appearing before Council on July 17, 2012. While we appreciate his courtesy and attentiveness, every member of Council as well as many members of the public in attendance strongly expressed displeasure regarding SCE's actions to date and their plans for future infrastructure upgrades moving forward. My colleagues on City Council and I share deep-seated concerns about SCE's communication with residents regarding planned and unplanned outages, the impact of outages on our senior population, the number and duration of outages, and the potential impact of fires on habitat, wildlife, structures, and most importantly human lives.

The RPV City Council authorized me to send a letter outlining the City Council's expectations for addressing the most significant issues threatening the safety and well-being of City residents through the implementation of maintenance and infrastructure measures. The central issues are fires, outages, and equipment installation.

Fires The equipment replacement schedule laid out by Mr. Jackman showed that significant infrastructure upgrades in the Phase 3 area which included the Portuguese Bend Nature Reserve is at least five years away and contingent on funding availability. The current efforts including vegetation management, tree inspection and correction, clearance around power poles, line inspections, and installation of bird guards at selected locations are appreciated and undoubtedly useful. However, significant upgrades to electrical equipment, which SCE staff has conceded are aging and beyond their useful life expectancy, needs to be

30940 HAWTHORNE BoULEVARD I RAi'iCHO PAWS VERDES, CA 90275·5391 I (310) 544-5205/ FAX (310) 544-5291/ WWW.PALOSVERDES.COI'VRPV

{~· PRINTED ON RECYCLED r-APER

SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUTAGES AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30, 2012 Page2

implemented comprehensively and expeditiously to minimize the threat of fires. The City is deeply concerned about the increasing frequency of wildfires in our open space areas caused by electrical failures and accidents that threaten the lives and property of our residents, not to mention the viability of our native habitat areas. While large fires such as the 2005 San Clemente fire and 2009 Portuguese Bend fires are better known due to their size and extensive media coverage, there are many more fires and incidents that draw less attention. Since I last wrote to SCE in February, City staff has researched the number of fires related to SCE equipment and incidents of downed power lines in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The results were frankly eye-opening. Research was based on information provided by the Los Angles County Fire Department (LACOFD) and focused on fires 1 acre or larger and also on reports that mentioned SCE or power equipment Between 2005 and 2012 there were a total of 50 reports mentioning SCE directly or referring to power lines or power equipment. Twenty-seven of the fifty incidents involved fires. Eight of the nine fires that burned at least one acre involved SCE equipment.

Analysis of 2005-2012 LACOFD Incident Reports

2006 4 4 1 1

2007 8 4 0 0

2008 6 1 1 1

2009 5 4 1 1

2010 6 1 0 0

2011 8 4 1 0

2012 5 3 3 3

1:o~l' ~ .... 5_0 . ·:. ,¥ ·, ,:;y.:.~· ·.:· ~ . .... ~ '. " .8 ......... ": ~ ·,

These numbers are very troubling. The City and its residents are fortunate that there has been no loss of human life and relatively modest structural damage from these fires. Fire Department personnel have indicated that stronger wind conditions or the lack of availability of airborne fire-fighting equipment could have drastically increased the impact of some of these fires. While many of these fires are small in nature, any of them, given the right set of

SCE-RELA TED FIRES, POWER OUTAGES AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30, 2012 Page3

circumstances could blossom into a tragic inferno. The fact that most of the fires and incidents reflected in the chart above caused little property or habitat damage is due in no small part to the professionalism and bravery of local firefighters along with sensible, pro­active brush clearance policies. Rationalizing this number of incidents as acceptable is truly "playing with fire."

The ongoing threat to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve is a central concern to the City, its residents and non-profit organizations. The Palos Verdes/South Bay Sierra Club chapter sent a letter to SCE on February 17, 2012 expressing its concerns about the "frequency of fires in which Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission lines are implicated in destroying coastal sage scrub habitat and undoubtedly the wildlife that inhabits it." The letter references the January 9, 2012 Crest Fire, the 2009 Portuguese Bend Fire, the 2005 San Clemente Fire and an October 1997 fire that burned 25 acres in McCarrell Canyon. The letter identifies the history of birds and wildlife being electrocuted. by SCE equipment and power lines and subsequently causing fires when they fell to Jhe""ground. The Sierra Club's letter identifies five remedies to reduce the possibility of fires and minimize threat to wildlife in the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve:

);> Increase the gap between conductors and grounds ~ Clearing vegetation below power lines ~ Insulating conductors );> Undergrounding conductors where geologically feasible ~ Re-routing lines outside the Preserve

Representatives from the Sierra Club and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy members spoke at the July 17 meeting about the impact of fires on habitat and wildlife and the need for better safety remedies. City Councilmember Jim Knight has also raised a number of low-cost, low impact ideas that should be considered including insulation of the center ground wire with synthetic rubber (ethylene propylene diene monomer), expanded use of separator brackets, at:~d increased fire safety training for SCE field service personnel and contractors working in the field. The cost of these modest measures compared to the size of SCE's budget and the potential impact of a massive fire is truly minimal and should be reviewed and implemented by SCE expeditiously. City staff and representatives from the PVPLC and other agencies are willing to meet with SCE personnel to discuss these and other possible measures.

Power Outages

Electrical power outages and system failures have been a regular occurrence in RPV and throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula in recent years. While outages in Palos Verdes Estates {PVE) in late 2011 received more attention due to their length and the number of homes affected, there has been an average of over twenty-six outages per year in RPV from 2008-2011 . RPV outages and repair orders combined to average over fifty incidents a year during the same period. The chart below summarizes these outages and repairs over the last four years:

SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUT AGES AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30, 2012 Page 4

Rancho Palos Verdes Outages and Repair Orders 2008-2011

2008 23 19 42 2009 34 29 63

2010 22 34 56 2011 26 27 53

Not all of these outages have been severe in terms of impact or duration and some have been the result of planned repairs or improvements, but a number have been significant, including an outage in December 2011 that lasted over ten hours. This particular unplanned outage primarily affected PVE residents, but also impacted adjacent RPV residences as well. The City has' received complaints about the inconvenience of outag~s. and their logistical and financial impacts, including spoiled food and damaged electrp!i!teS. Staff has received a number of complaints about the efficacy of SCE's claims -process for spoiled food and damaged equipment.

The City Council understands and appreciates that SCE has spent an estimated $10 million on Peninsula-wide improvements in recent years and that more improvement projects are planned for 2012 in future years. However, the reliability and safety of the area's electrical system is an issue of utmost importance to the RPV City Council and our 42,000 residents. SCE needs to be more pro-active and expeditious in updating aging infrastructure. Again, waiting five years for improvements which are contingent on the availability of funding is unacceptable and will likely lead to continued outages and a greater risk of fire.

Equipment Installation

In addition to the issues of electrical failures and concurrent fires, the City would also like to register its concerns about the issue of transformer replacements and upgrades. A recent installation on West Toscanini Drive near Western Avenue was handled in a fashion that was upsetting to the nieghbor immediately adjacent to the transformer. A series of complaints, meetings and negotiations occurred before that issue was resolved and the pole was restored to its original height and the transformer activated. The Council understands that the necessity to upgrade electrical infrastructure and increase capacity from 4kv to 16kv will result in planned outages and inconvenience for our residents. We would like to see SCE work cooperatively with City staff and residents on this issue in the future, with an emphasis on minimizing neighborhood disruption and potential safety concerns.

Recommended Actions/Next Steps

I In addition to sending this letter, the following is a summary o the recommended actions approved by the RPV City Council:

• Request that SCE provide progress reports on ongoing i plementation of Peninsula Reliability Plan.

SCE-RELATED FIRES, POWER OUTAGES AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Octbober 30, 2012 Page5

• Request that SCE provide staff with transformer replacement schedule with particular attention to those most likely to cause safety concerns for residents.

• Request that SCE provide a progress report on safety measures proposed by Sierra Club (listed above).

• Have City staff establish a system for residents to report overgrown vegetation in and around SCE facilities, to be reported to SCE and monitored by City for completion.

The City Council appreciates the complexity of SCE's Peninsula Reliability Project and the associated expense required to complete improvement projects such ·as the installation of fault indicators, fused switches and a $4 million circuit project. The City appreciates that SCE is willing to meet with the City and other interested parties to address these serious concerns in a timely manner. Outages and fires will continue to be an all-too real part of life in Rancho Palos Verdes, if more pro-active approaches to fire P.revention and infrastructure improvements are not adopted and implemented. .,.

Anthony Misetich Mayor

cc: California Public Utilities Commission Ronald L. Litzinger, President, Southern California Edison Marvin Jackman, Region Manager, Public Affairs, Southern California Edison Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager

October 30, 2018

Mr. Jim York 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

Mr. York:

We are writing to update you regarding upgrades to our infrastructure proximate to your property at 6001 Palos Verdes Drive South. As you know, SCE has been actively engaged in performing infrastructure upgrades to ensure the safe and reliable distribution of electricity to our customers and to facilitate panel upgrades for your home. Given the configuration of the property, SCE analyzed a number of options to perform the subject upgrades which included relocating infrastructure out of an adjacent wash and potentially undergrounding a section of utility lines on and proximate to your property.

SCE has continued to evaluate the need for and feasibility of undergrounding distribution lines. Since we last spoke, SCE notes that several property owners have refused to grant easements to accommodate underground related work. Given that SCE was not able to obtain these easements and the lack of an engineering need to perform the undergrounding, SCE has decided not to proceed with the underground option. Please feel free to contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns.

l:rf,r-;>~ Scot Snyder South Bay Office District Manager 505 Maple Avenue Torrance, CA 90503

RECORDING REQUESTED u(

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

EDISON An EDISON I NTERNATIONAL Com an

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

SOUTHERNCAUWO~ED~ONCOMWANY

2 INNOVATION WAY, 2nd FLOOR POMONA, CA 91768

Attn: Title and Real Estate Services

SCEDoc. No.

GRANT OF EASEMENT

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX~ NONE

VALUE AND COf::!SIQ~MTlON q;ss THAN ~100 .00)

see company SIG. OF DECLAAANT OR AGENT DETERMINING TAX FIRM NAME

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE

Ul~ll<ll-'1 :.ti<VI\Ot UKUtK " t KIAL NU. MA~ "ILt

South Bay ID1190998 FIM 26-64A """KUVtD: o· UAit

APN 7572-012-028 REAL PRO PERTIES DEPARTMENT SLS/BT 06/1212017

and 029

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor''), hereby grants to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a corporation, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"), a non-exclusive easement and right of way to construct, use, maintain, operate, alter, add to, repair, replace, reconstruct, inspect and remove at any time and from time to time underground electrical supply systems and communication systems (hereinafter referred to as "systems"), consisting of wires, underground conduits, cables, vaults, manholes, handholes, and including above-ground enclosures, markers and concrete pads and other appurtenant fixtures and equipment necessary or useful for distributing electrical energy and for transmitting intelligence, data and/or communications (eg. through fiber optic cable), in, on. over, under, across and along that certain real property in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows:

TWO STRIPS OF LAND LYING WITillN PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. SUB2003-00025, AS EVIDENCED BY A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. SUB2004-00004, RECORDED ON AUGUST 09, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 04-2035438, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

STRIP #1 (20.00 FEET WIDE)

THE SOUTIIEASTERL Y LINE OF SAID STRIP IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; TIIENCE ALONG TilE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 24°08'30" EAST 250.28 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 53°37'30" EAST 227.57 FEET; TIIENCE NORTH 134.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°00'04" EAST 250.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55°31' 15" EAST 529.48 FEET; TIIENCE NORTH 28°03'36" EAST 138.87 FEET; THENCE NORTII 13°28' 18" EAST 10.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15°42' 18" WEST 4.62 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT OF ENDING IN TilE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1.

THE NORTHWESTERLY SIDELINE OF SAID STRIP IS TO BE PROLONGED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE SOUTHWESTERLY IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTIIERL Y IN TilE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, AND TO JOIN AT TilE ANGLE POINTS.

STRJP #2 (30.00 FEET WIDE)

THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SlRIP IS BEING CONCENTRIC WITH AND DISTANT 30.00 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CURVE:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN CURVE IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SHOWN AS BEING CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 156°44' 11", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 273.56 FEET ON SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, A RADIAL LINE PASSING THROUGH SAID TERMINUS BEARS SOUTH 50°46'23" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, NORTHERLY, AND NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 95°41 '02" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167.00 FEET TO A POINT OF ENDING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN STRIP #1 DESCRIBED HEREINABOVE.

It is understood and agreed that the above description is approximate only, it being the intention of the Grantor(s) to grant an easement for said systems as constructed. The centerline of the easement shall be coincidental with the centerline of said systems as constructed in, on, over, under, across, and along the Grantor(s) property.

This legal description was prepared pursuant to Sec. 8730( c) of the Business & Professions Code.

Grantor further grants, bargains, sells and conveys unto the Grantee the right of assignment, in whole or in part, to others, without limitation, and the right to apportion or divide in whatever manner Grantee deems desirable, any one or more, or all, of the easements and rights, including but not limited to all rights of access and ingress and egress granted to the Grantee by this Grant of Easement

Grantor agrees for himself, his heirs and assigns, not to erect, place or maintain, nor to permit the erection, placement or maintenance of any building, planter boxes, earth fill or other structures except walls and fences on the above described real property. The Grantee, and its contractors, agents and employees, shall have the right to trim or cut tree roots as may endanger or interfere with said systems and shall have free access to said systems and every part thereof, at all times, for the purpose of exercising the rights herein granted; provided, however, that in making any excavation on said property of the Grantor, the Grantee shall make the same in such a manner as will cause the least injury to the surface of the ground around such excavation, and shall replace the earth so removed by it and restore the surface of the ground to as near the same condition as it was prior to such excavation as is practicable.

EXECUTED this22,J;>ctay of __ P?_ A_Y ____ ..J 20&_.

2

GRANTOR

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited liability company

~~ Print Name

m /OAJt9ri-J ~ Title

DS£801531777 TD1 190998

From: Sent: To: Subject:

LC

Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 4, 2019 12:21 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Memoli FW: March 5 Council Agenda - Item 7

From: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 12:07 PM To: Ken Delong <ken.delong@verizon.net>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: bill@pattonsite.com; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; 'Sharon Yarber' <momofyago@gmail.com>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; 'David Koch' <davidkoch89@gmail.com>; 'Kit Ruona' <cjruona@cox.net> Subject: RE: March 5 Council Agenda - Item 7

Ken,

What part of my email is "dodging"? I don't get it. "Caught" with what? I did initiate a speculative discussion with Don Austin almost 18 months ago. The discussion probably lasted all of one minute. I said I asked him about it in my email. I don't recall ever bringing it up with Alex Chern iss (who is still very new), but rather being contacted by Alex or Keith regarding my brief earlier discussion with Don Austin. I guess I don't even understand why it matters. Regardless, there is nothing to hide and I certainly have nothing to hide.

Doug

From: Ken Delong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 11:52 AM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: bill@pattonsite.com; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; 'Sharon Yarber' <momofyago@gmail.com>; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com> <nelsongang@aol.com>; 'David Koch' <davidkoch89@gmail.com>; 'Kit Ruona' <cjruona@cox.net> Subject: RE: March 5 Council Agenda - Item 7

Is he dodging because he caught? Chern iss claims that OW initiated the discussion. We can discuss further on Wednesday. Ken

From: Doug Willmore [mailto:DWillmore@rpvca.gov] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 11:23 AM To: Ken Delong; CC Cc: bill@pattonsite.com; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Sharon Yarber; Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com>; William Wynder; Elena Gerli (egerli@awattorneys.com) Subject: RE: March 5 Council Agenda -Item 7

Ken,

Thanks very much for your email.

In response to your questions below. I don't know of any direction from the Council that would have RPV seeking to "do a deal" with PVPUSD for the purchase or lease of the Ladera Linda soccer fields. In addition, there has not been any push or direction from staff seeking to "do a deal" with PVPUSD for the subject property.

1 7

This issue arose at a group lunch meeting close to two years ago, where I asked Don Austin if PVPUSD would ever be interested in selling the property. I simply asked out of curiosity and out of continuing to try and find ways to mitigate negative traffic impacts on the neighborhood Don said they might be but that he was very busy with other issues and would get back to me at some time. Nothing happened and there was no pushing from the City to "do a deal". Don Austin left PVPUSD some time later and Keith Butler and then Alex Cherniss apparently picked up unfinished business from Don's list and contacted me asking if the City might be interested in talking about it. I said I think the Council would want to look at it. They said they would get an appraisal and then go from there.

At this point, identifying a negotiator for the City (and for PVPUSD) is a legal requirement for PVPUSD to be able to share their appraisal of the value of the property. The City and PVPUSD are not legally allowed to talk about specifics unless it is publicly agendized in this way. From my point of view, there will be no "negotiation" at this point. It will simply be the City Manager being able to see the appraisal and take it back to the City Council for their review and direction. The Council will decide if they want to take any action and what that is.

Regarding your further questions below. I believe the City should continue to look at ways to mitigate negative traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. I have no problem stating that in public. Willi follow it with stating that I believe "it is prudent for RPV to pursue a purchase/lease negotiation"? No, I will not state that. I don't even know what PVPUSD values the property at. I do think it is prudent to see what PVPUSD values the property at and report back to the City Council. That is the full extent of any activity at this point.

Regardless, it really doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what the Council thinks should be done. This matter is before them so that they can legally look at PVPUSD's value of the property.

Please let me know if you have any other questions that I may be able to answer.

Doug

From: Ken Delong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 11:28 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Cc: bill@pattonsite.com; Mickey Radich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com> <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; ken.delong@verizon.net Subject: March 5 Council Agenda- Item 7

To: Mayor Duhovic, Mayor ProTem Cruikshank, RPV Council Members

This is to question why RPV seeks to "do a deal" with the PVPUSD for a proposed RPV purchase I lease of the PVPUSD Ladera Linda property known as the Ladera Linda Soccer fields? What purpose does RPV have in spending public funds for the Ladera Linda soccer fields? Is the purchase I lease of this property in the Councils 2019 Goals & Objectives?

Will the proposed transaction be funded by existing RPV funds or is a Grant anticipated? What are the options of a Grant if indeed a Grant is anticipated? We believe the City Manager needs to explain in Open Session why he belies that it is prudent for RPV to pursue a purchase I lease negotiation with PVPUSD for the Ladera Linda property and that the Council approve the purpose before the Staff pursues an "Exercise in Futility.

Ken Delong PVP Watch

2

From: Sent: To: Subject:

LC

Teresa Takaoka Monday, March 4, 2019 4:46 PM Nathan Zweizig; Enyssa Momoli FW: Ladera Linda

From: Sharon Yarber <sharon@sharonyarber.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 4:11 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: ladera Linda

True enough but before negotiations transpire and many hours of staff time are spent it would be a good idea for the public to get a sense of whether the district wants to sell or lease and what the appaised value is and what the City would do with the land. If we add it to the Preserve or make it a park you have the same neighborhood impacts that A YSO has caused.

Also, has anyone checked title to see if there are any deed restrictions on the use ofthe property?

Sentfi·om my Verizon ,\;fotorola Droid On Mar 4, 2019 2:50PM, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> wrote: The normal closed session is listed at the beginning with multiple subjects and then one is listed at the end of the meeting with just the LL property as the lone subject item.

In shore Sharon, as you know, the council has provided no direction one way or the other regarding this property. As the property is available, the council should be aware of it and consider whether or not to move forward, and if so, how. I would be derelict in my duty to not inform the Council that it is available and for the Council to find out at what price.

From: Sharon Yarber [mailto:sharon@sharonyarber.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:47 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: RE: ladera Linda

So there are two closed sessions? I must have missed that.

Sentfi·om my Verizon Motorola Droid On Mar 4, 2019 11:26 AM, Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi Sharon,

The item is listed in closed session at the end of the meeting, and as you note, at the beginning. It is only on the closed session agenda at 6pm in the abundance of caution if any Council member has a legal question regarding the process.

If the City Council approves moving forward with wanting to hear from PVPUSD regarding their value of the property, then they will designate a negotiator in closed session at the end of the meeting.

Doug

1 7

From: Sharon Yarber [mailto:sharon@sharonyarber.com] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 1:15 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: Ladera Linda

Dear Mayor Duhovic and Members of the Council,

How is it that you can have a closed session item at 6:00PM where you will negotiate the Ladera Linda matter, when you are not holding the required prior PUBLIC hearing on identifying the parties who may negotiate and the property to be the subject of the negotiation until AFTER such closed session during the regular meeting?? I think you are putting the cart before the horse, no?

Further, an additional alternative action might be to not enter into any negotiations unless and until the public has had an opportunity to weigh in on whether it thinks the City should consider entering into a lease or purchase agreement.

I think you need to drop the closed session item until after the public hearing.

Sharon Yarber

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

2