none, Plans - erosion control, solar, CorrespondenceT.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY
Geotechnical • Structural • Environmental
17834 Bailey Drive • Torrance. CA 90504
Tel: (310) 383-6702 Fax: (310) 371-5856 tinsoilsbeepCgmail.com
Mr. and Mrs. Takashi and Toshiko Nakamura
#18 Poppy Trail
Rolling Hills, California 90274
File No.: 190053
rtp29
SEP 2'l 201°
Clary of Rolling Hills
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Erosion control in Northern Descending Slope Area at 18
Poppy Trail, Rolling Hills, California
REFERENCE: Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and
Vicinity, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles
County, California, 1999.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nakamura:
In accordance with your authorization, we have completed this limited geo report in order to
provide the recommendations for erosion control in the northern descending slope area of the
subject site. It is our understanding that the northern descending slope is approximately 45, feet
high and located on the north side of the subject site. The existing residential building is located
approximately at or near the top of the northern descending slope. An existing elevated deck,
approximately 4 feet wide is located on the north side of the existing residential building and
over the northern descending slope. In review of the pre -grading topographic map which was
supplied by you at the site, the northern descending slope is a graded fill slope. The depth of the
fill is approximately up to 20 feet deep. An existing trench, approximately 4 feet wide, 5 to 7
feet deep, and approximately 70 to 80 feet long, was excavated at the location of approximately
15 feet northerly of the top of the northern descending slope. The intention of this long
excavated trench was to be utilized for a new retaining wall foundation for the support of a new
retaining wall.
On September 16, 2019, we visited the subject site and observed the existing excavated footing
trench. It was our finding that fill was encountered in the entire trench and all the way down to
the depth of the trench excavated. Neither natural soil nor bedrock was encountered in the
trench. The encountered fill consisted of a medium brown, moist, moderately soft to moderately
stiff, silty clay with bedrock fragments. The loose fill was encountered in the upper 2 to 3 feet of
the trench.
Based upon our evaluation of the northern slope conditions and the soil material encountered in
the excavated trench, we have herein provided the following recommendations ' for erosion
control in the northern descending slope area:
Mr. and Mrs. Nakamura - 2 - September 21, 2019
1. Due to bedrock not encountered in the excavated trench, we recommend that the excavated
trench should be backfilled with 2,000 psi concrete up to at least 1 foot below the finished
grade. The upper 1 foot of the trench should be backfilled with 90% compacted fill.
2. Geo mesh should be installed on the northern descending slope from the top to the bottom of
the slope. The geo mesh should be extent at least 10 feet beyond the both ends of the
excavated trench.
3. The northern descending slope should be planted with deep root system as soon as possible
after the installation of geo mesh.
Neither soil/ geologic investigation nor soil testing was performed on the northern . descending
slope of the subject site. The above described findings, conclusions, and recommendations are
provided based upon the site observation made by us on September 16, 2019 and review the
available geologic map by Dibblee, and the pre -grading map supplied by, you. The above
described findings and statements of professional opinions do not constitute a guarantee or
warranty, expressed or implied.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding this opinion
letter, please contact the undersigned at the letterhead location.
Very truly yours,
T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY
TSCL:ir
Distribution: Client (1, by Email)
Tony S..C. Lee, M.S., P.E.
Project Engineer
T.I.N. ENGINEERING COMPANY GEOTECHNICAL • STRUCTURAL • ENVIRONMENTAL
• •
FINDINGS AFTER HEAVY STORMS IN JAN 2017
Property owners at 11, 14 and 18 Poppy Trail claimed that damage
was caused on their property due to work being done at 37 Chuckwagon.
#37 Chuckwagon removed vegetation and created pathways (which require
PC approval — See ZC NO. 920)
A visit to all properties was made by staff and LA County drainage engineer
and this is what he found:
"It did not appear that any drainage coming off of 37 Chuckwagon was
more than would have naturally traveled off the hillside. With this unusual
rain event we had in late January there would have been more than normal
run-off. However, there were no areas that appeared to channelize the
water from 37 Chuckwagon. There was evidence on the side of the pop out
that water was naturally seeping into the ground. There is a gap in the curb
of the driveway at 18 Poppy and a tree stump a little ways below where
water could have infiltrated the hillside. The Drainage and Grading Engineer
did not see a direct contributory flow toward down slope properties. We
suggest that all property owner review their drainage devices and
conveyances and provide maintenance where needed."
Yoshiya Morisaku
Regional Drainage and Grading Engineer
Building and Safety Division
Los Angeles County Public Works
Southwest Office / Lomita Office / South Whittier Office
Email: ymorisaku@dpw.lacounty.gov
In addition, owners of 18 Poppy Trail claimed that the drainage from a pool and
dissipator approved at 33 Chuckwagon is faulty and causes much of the run off
onto their property.
In the field, Yosh stated that he will check if the drainage/grading was finaled on
33 Chuckwagon, and if it has, It would indicate that they constructed it per
approved plans and it was properly designed.
Per Lisa Naslund and the building permits — 33 Chuckwagon was finaled.
A note in the Planning File (address file) for 33 Chuckwagon shows that following
Nakamuras concerns, Wayne and Lisa visited the property, flow tested the rip
rap and finaled the project including the drainage. See Email from Lisa, July 30,
2009.
Oft
Friday, April 14, 2017 :45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 33 Chuckwagon Permits
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:36:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Lisa Naslund <LNASLUND@dpw.lacounty.gov>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: Yoshiya Morisaku <YMORISAKU@dpw.lacounty.gov>
All permits finaled.
Lisa Naslund, PE
Drainage & Grading Section Head
Los Angeles County Public Works
Office: 626-458-6334
Page 1 of 1
ALL PERMITS ON 33 CHUCKWAGON
%> 3270 Display - 1PB03546
File Edit View Communication Actions Help
Cyr El -F_ 12 tr.- %CICi o L u I:3 U
DAPTS PROPERTY ACTION INQUIRY/SELECT
BSUPD
END OF DATA
LEGAL TYPE/NBR: TA 100000025218
SITUS ADDR: 33 CHUCKWAGON RD RHLL 902745278
OWNER NAME: HAZELRIGG,PETER AND MARY OWNER: _
SEL IDENTIFIER
BL
BL
BL
CP
EL
GR
PL
BP
GP
DPC905
MAI a
1006070029
0602230026
0504210030
0504070001
1009300005
0506300006
1009300001
0504070001
0506300006
DESCRIPTION
TRELLIS AND OUTDOOR FIREPLACE
UNDERPIN EXISTING STRUCTURE
CONSTRUCT 2 RETAINING WALLS ON 1 F
1,550 SQFT POOL (STD PLNU 26077)
OUTLETS FOR TRELLIS & OUTDOOR FIRE
BURY EXISTING SWIMMING POOL / GRAD
GASLINE FOR OUTDOOR FIREPLACE
IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVEMENT
NEXT TRANSACTION:
HOLD:
04/13/17
11:34:37
PAGE 1
SITUS: _
ISSUED FINALED
09/30/10 10/15/10
02/23/06 06/14/06
12/01/05 06/16/06
06/16/06 10/15/10
09/30/10 10/15/10
12/01/05 10/15/10
09/30/10 10/15/10
07/28/05 / /
07/28/05 / /
DISPO
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
PF1=HELP
05/057
Mon, Aug 3, 2009 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: 33 Chuckwagon
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:00 PM
From: Eckert, Lisa <LECKERT@dpw.lacounty.gov>
To: Yolanta Schwartz < n _' ofrh.net>
Cc: "Chatman, Wa - -' <WChat •an@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "Bagnell, Kit"
<KBAGNELL@d ► ,'..county.gov>, Rosemary Lackow <rlackow@cityofrh.net>
Conversation 33 Chuckwagon
Hello,
Yolanta, about a month ago Wayne 'and I verified that the rip rap was there
in the correct location (not toward 18 Poppy Trail) per the as -built plan. We
flow tested the area drains to verify that they went out the rip rap and they
did.
Mitzi Nakamura (of 18 Poppy Trail) was very concerned about this and so I
called her today and let her now that everything had been constructed per
plan. She was thankful and satisfied.
Lisa Eckert, PE
L.A. County Department of Public Works
Building and Safety Division
Southwest Office (323) 820-6500
Lomita Office (310) 534-3760
East Los Angeles (323) 881-7030
Counter Hours:
Southwest 7:30-11:30am on Tuesday
East LA 8-11:30 on Wednesday
Lomita 8-11:30 on Thursday
From: Yolanta Schwartz [mailto:ys@cityofrh.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Eckert, Lisa
Subject: Re: 33 Chuckwagon
Thank you,
He also needs to show as built trellis, barbecue, fire place etc. The plan we have has
Page 1 of 3
•
•
R Pv
3,1
06
Mr. T. L. Belanger, City IAanager
2 Portuguese Bend Road CITY ur RCLLI.' G HILLS
Rolling Hills Ca. 90274 Ay
June 2, 1994
Dear Mr. Belanger:
No or three weeks ago I mailed. to Mr. Sidney H. Croft, a report: which
I had been preparing for several months. It was returned to me by the Post
Office. possibly because Mr. Croft has changed his address. I wanted ,the
.report to go to the lawyer for the Rolling dills Community Association
and I understand that Mr. Croft is the man. If so will you kindly deliver
the report to him when he comes to the City Hall.
The subject of the report also concerns you as' well, so I hope you will
read- it before giving it to Mr. Croft. Earlier, I was well-acquainted with
Rolling Hills but I moved from Torrance to Fallbt•ook and then to Oregon..
That is why I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you. You did,however,
send me the questionnaire regarding wastewater,. and you sent me a drawing
of Poppy Trail.
At one time or another I owned all three of the lots served by the
common easement at the bend of Poppy Trail. It has been said that when I
bought the lot from Mr. ?acCabe, I also bought -Parcel 4 (of Title Insurance
and Trust Co. Policy # 0835330), and'when I sold the lot to Dr. Wolinsky,
he became owner of Parcel 4. The truth is, when Mr. 1`IacCabe bought his lot
the property line was straight 'across the 92.54-foot line. just as you
showed in the drawing you sent to.me. Parcel 4 was nearly all Road Easement;
as recorded in Title Insurance Policy # 0835330. The section of the Policy,
is copied completely in my report to Mr. Croft.
In this report I stated that. I bought and sold the ?McCabe lot while
this 1963 policy was in effect. I didn't need to write "bought and sold".
I only needed to say "bought" because'if I hadn't bought Parcel 4, I
couldn't have sold it. When I sold the house lot to Wolinsky, he received
the 50-ft easement along with the road easement, but he didn't receive .
any 'of 'Parcel 4.-If the MacCabe deed says anything else, it was inaccuratel-
written by an escrow person who mistook the Parcel 4 line and angles for
a property line. The mistake was made when I bought the lot and was copied
9 years later when I sold it.
All this has no reflection on the City Manager.. I am aware that you
only transmittet data that was passed. on to you.
RTspectfully 'ours
:John W. Whittington
1994 Manorview Cir. NW
Salem, Or. 97304
;,;ay 19, 1994
1 r. Sidney F. Croft
210 Avenue I Suite D.
Redondo Beach, Ca. 90277-5622-
Dear Mr. Croft:
After nearly 5 months of work, I am enclosing a review of what
has transpired in and around Poppy Trail in Rolling Hills. Why such
an effort has been necessary, you are better informed than I.
I agreed to help George Morris; from a distance of 1000 miles,
this has been dificult.
I sincerely hope that what I have written can solve the problems
for all of us.
Very truly ,yours-,,
i4J
1994 Manorview Cir.
Salem, Or. 97304
• •
THE POPPY TRAIL AREA
This paper deals with a particular part of the City of Bolling Hills, Ca.
It could be called the Poppy rrail district:. The paper.is written. by a
person who purchased property in Rolling '?il;ls and becoe a member of the
Community Association in 1948, soon after the Association was organized.
He was a member through ownership of oneproperty or another until 1990,
a period of 42 years. Interest in the Poppy Trail area commenced in A961.
The County of Los Angeles'had earlier divided parts of the peninsula
into tracts, and the Palos Verdes Corporation divided some.tracts..into-lots.
;Minimum lot sizes depended on the area and the terrain. Title'Insurance com-
panies guaranteed ownership, dimentions,easements etc..The Title Insurance
and Trust Company was prominent among the insurers.
In Rolling Hills, the tops of the hills were the first locations to be
purchased and occupied; the sloping lots lower down were next to be occupied.
The Poppy Trail section under discussion, is such a sloping area. Minimum
lot area here was set at 4 acres. One plot of twelve acres. was divided into
three lots, but because of the slope, access was a problem. The solution was
to create one easement road or driveway to serve the three lots. The end of
this road was, of course, to reach Poppy Trail, .the public street.
The terrain of the land here, with a deep drainage ditch to cross, required
that Poppy Trail make a turn to the east. Drainage water in the ditch goes thy'
a large iron pipe. Fill dirt was dumped over the pipe and the deep ditch was
completely filled so as to form a "bridge" across the ditch. The fill extends
only across Poppy Trail. A ,wooden railing was erected across the south side
of the "bridge".
It was a natural decision to end the easement at this northern boundary
of Lot 9, where it would be on Poppy Trail when the Trail was completed.
Tills spot was destined to 'become a busy area. In 1955 and 1956, the Palos
Verdes Corp. granted deeds to the Community Association which then granted
easements to utility companies to build pole lines, gas lines, under -ground
conduits, telephone wires,sewers, bridle trails,and easements for private
land owners. In studying the easements granted in this small area, I counted
17. I!?"any- of them exist today.
dhen the Title Insurance and Trust. Co prepared. policy 0835330 in 1963,
all of the easements then in effect,were included. These were all taken from
the County records.applving to what we can call Parcel 4, A copy of this
wording is given below:
PARCEL 4:
AN EASEMENT FOR FOR ROAD PURPOSES OVER AND ALONG I HAI PORTION OF LOT 34
OF L.A.C.A NO. 51, IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, IN THE COUNTY OF LO S Av: ELES.
STATE CALIFORNIA, AS PEP :?AP RECORDED IN BOOt 1 PAGE 1 OF ASSESSOR'S MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF T?'E COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POIIvT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE DEED TO ROLLING
HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 215 ON FEBRUARY 29,
1D56 _I a BOOK 50448 PAGE 29 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT , t__
NORs 1L ASTERY 98.40 FEET r .ln� �'4,, nos T SOUTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; 1 T1.:J1\ C E S0 J
79° 14' 00" EAST 86.33 TO A POINT IN L-.3 NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TH3 LAD
DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 IN DEED TO JOSEPH FERDERBER AND WIFE, RECORDED A3
DOCUMENT NO. 1434 ON JUNE 5, 1957 IN BOOS 54690 PAGE 282, OFFICIAL RECORDS,
DISTANT THEREON NORTHEASTERLY 106.06 FEET F3OM THE MOST WESTERLY CORN 3 R
THEREOF; THE. C-� SOUTH
O 1 ' 1 "EST FEET
9-0
;! f ! T� +-ir
1:i,y,J�J��1 j � ..J:�'VJ wiOV I.L� 35 21 30 �1::.�s 10 •2c v SAID ��_UJ�i �.a.s•� � J-li,Y.
• -2-
•
CO2N 3R i 2EREOF; THENCE SOUTt1 35° 21' 30° WEST 106.26 FL ;T TO SAID MOST WESTERLY
CORNER AND AN ANGLE POINT IN THE NORT:-� ERLY ?BOUNDARY OP LOT 9, TRACT N0.
19040, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOO 592 PAGES 28 TO 30 OF .;MARS. RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NO T H :RLY BOUT. DARY, NORTH 72'04'40" i7".iST 50.00
PT; THENCE NORTH15'"22'00" BAST 90.52 ,F:J:s1' t'O THE POINT Ol' .NdGINNING.
The enclosed illustration will show what the above description says.
The explanation starts at point A, a landmark of the Community Association.
The line goes north to point B, then east to point C,then south to point. D,
then west to point,, then north to points. This completes the road -easement
enclosure BCDEB. The distance from the 50 ft. line to the most northern line,
is about 100 feet.
• Note: the difference between 106.26 ft. and,106.06; about 2 inches,
results from two separate surveys.
The line AD in the drawing is important in this discussion because it is
the junction of the easement for the three lots, with the puo.iic road.
Point a at the end of line AD is the southernmost corner or land. deeded to
Rolling Hills Community Association"in 1956. It is also important because ittf
a northern boundary of lot 9 as laid out by Rancho Palos Verdes Corporation,
this point being a reference terminal for many of the granted easements.
For convenience,let us name the three lots sharing the road easement,
the house lot, the MacCabe lot and the Reeves lot. When I sold the House lo+
to Wolinsky, his deed followed the Title Insurance policy. Wolinsky had
access to Poppy Trail and he used it. In the Parcel 4 location, he had 'two
easements, the 50 ft. one,and the one just described, if he needed it.
The Reeves lot, while not touching Parcel 4 was dependent on the easements.
The Reeves lot was the first one that I had bought, so, of course, I had an
interest in all of the easements.
Mr. MacCabe bought his lot about.196'4. In 1966 I bought the lot from him.
I knew that' we all shared the easements and I also knew that Parcel 4 was.
covered with easements, one on top of another, and all recorded. Mr.:1acCabe .
does not now recall that his deed was any different from the Title Insurance
policy then in effect, and. neither did I. But I do now. The deeds that are
being used to substantiate the present clairn,use the same points and angles
on the land to create property owned, as the Title Insurance police 0835330.
dated 1963, used to define an easement. 'The mistake has been compounded by
later docurnents,even the next eoat:ion of the Title Insurance policy has
been affected. However, the MacCabe lot was bought and sold before this
edition was issued on September 17,1975.
If the mistake is not corrected now, the precedent could lead to unneces-
sary problems.for all concerned, including, it seems to me, the Community
Association.
Numerous grants of easements in property, not made by, the owner.
and not, favored by the owner, will lead to continual `strife.
The present controversy is an example.
The possession of additional property changes the taxes
Violation of road easements will lead to legal problems.
Refusal by the owner to permit passage over private land could
require expensive changes.
-3-
Violation of Bridle Trail easements are likely.
The owner would be responsible for granting new easements
where public welfare is involved.
In short,the mixture of public property with private property is sure to
introduce unnecessary conflict.
In the following study I wish to show that the' 50-ft road easement
reaches Poppy Trail, and that therefor it is a true easement. In this I have
employed one of many airplane views made for Rolling Sills in their drainage
study. The enclosed contour map shows the land in terms of elevation.
The elevation change between one contour line and the one next to it, is five
feet. The second white line is 5 feet higher or 5 ft lower than the one next
to it. This means that on steep hillsides, the lines would be close together.
and in areas that are nearly flat, the lines are far apart. •
I a,n indebted to the City for the map, and to the engineer who drew in,
with ink, the border line of the NacCebe lot. In order to understand the steps
taken in this'explanation'it is necessary to have at hand the aircraft view,
a tracing that I made from the aircraft picture,and the enclosed drawing of
Parcel 4. There were a number of facts that I knew about the road
easement. I knew that the 50-ft length is part of a straight line 92.54 feet
in length. I knew that the point A at the end of this line is an angle point
'in the boundary of property deeded tb Rolling Hills Community Association.
I knew that the MacCabe lot dimention shown in ink, is 483.68 feet long..
From this I calculated the drawing length for 92.54 feet. I adjusted my
compass for this length and placed the compass point at point A. I then
drew an arc of this radius. Somewhere on the arc was the eastern end of the
92.54 ft. line (shown on the Parcel 4 drawing). The next step was to'draw
the north -south arrow.-cncv,Ting that the 483 ft. line has an angle of
S 7'46' 53 "W, it was possible for. me to draw inthe north -south arrow.
With this arrow, ' I could 'use the angle N 72v04' 40' ' .'W to fix the 92.54 line.
I colored this line red on'the tracing.
By this method it has become evident that the 50-ft. easement: is on Poppy
Trail with many feet to spare. .
Please place the tracing on the contour map and adjust it to see that I have
drawn the tracing accurately. I can see so clearly, from the maps,the details
of Parcel 4 as I remember them. The space between the number 779. and the
drainage ditch is black because the bridge is flat.4t is the only large flat
area in the whole picture. I remember the draina,a;e�o be about 30 feet. deep.
Now I count 6 contour lines from the bottom to the top of the ditch. Six
times five shows tti,3t my recolation is correct..I remember that the asphalt
paving of Poppy rrail comes to a sharp corner at its southern border,and
that this is the same distance south.,as the southern side of Poppy Trail.
I show this angle on the tracing as a dashed blue line. The railing of the
bridge would be at about the location of the number 779.
There is no other p?ace for Poppy Trail to rho eastabut between the number,
and the drainage ditch.on the north side. I remember the corner'of the
asphalt of Poppy Trail because, after storms and complaints of neighbors,
I cleaned mud off of the asphalt, exposing the corner. This accurate descrip-
tion is so different from the Poppy Trail diagrams shown in the "claims".
;•Luestion might be raised about the white stripe to the east of the bridge.
On one picture's. similar stripe was labeled "Poppy Trail I don't know what
caused the clouded areas, but I do know that Poppy frail doesn't take a dive
into the drainage ditch.•
The contour map. also shows the relatively "lat easement road as it rises
to the
The claim that; the Reeves lot was not approved as a building site was
based entirely on personal intention, and. not on any factual justification.
It was the first of the three lots I purchased. Like the :louse lot, it; deoen
on the joint easements for access. The lots and their easements were scru-
tinized by the Community Association Board of Directors when they met on the
'properties with their lawyer, to consider the Wolinsky"s request to build a
barn on the adjoining properit:y. The Community Assn. has a requirement that
no building shall be erect d. on a lot; prior to the building of a home.
The purpose, of course, isrevent non -approved buildings from being turned
into homes.
The :7olinskys wished to keep several horses, which 'would require a larger
barn than their house lot could accomodate, and would require access to
Poppy Trail.for delivery of supplies.
The Community Association's lawyer and. members of the Board met and
studied the land, its boundaries and its easments. I knew of their study
because I was there, and in the end,as owner of the property, signed the
legal agreements. There was no question whatever that. the three lots were
approved building sites.
When Mr. NacCabe and his wife were trying to decide where they would
put their house, they would have been surprised to hear that they had an
extra four -acre' back yard. Similarly, Mr Reeves would have .been surprised to
hear that his lot was not approved because he had succeeded in Betting his
County taxes reduced. Mr. Reeves paid County and Association taxes on his
lot for 5 or 6 years, and I paid them for 29 years, until I sold the lot.
The passing of 20 years does not change an approved lot into one that is
not approved.
There are three or four groups of people involved in the controversy covered
by this paper. During a long period of years, conditions remained unchanged
and each group became accustomed and satisfied with the Poppy Trail easements
and agreements. But conditions finally changed when new members entered and
when it became evident that 'the rules and easements would go into effect. Then
each group pondered how that would affect their special interests, and what
could be done to safeguard that special interest. I don't find it necessary to
review all. those activities, but one should be understood and repeated.
A mistake was made in 1966 when I purchased the lot from Mr. MacCabe.
I did not detect a change in the deed that was given tb me, and Mr. MacCabe sa-;
he doesn't recall that there was any change between the Title Insurance policy
and the deed which Was prepared by the escrow company. The change which was made
could have been a natural mistake by someone not proficient in 'metes and bounds1
terminology. The truth is that the Title Insurance and Trust Company Policy No.
0835330, dated 1963 included a recorded road easement that was copied earlier
in this Paper.
When the deed of Mr. MacCabe's property was delivered to me, the property's
borders were described in metes and bounds, and when it came to Parcel L, the
angles and lengths of the road easement of policy # 0835330 were used in out-
lining the MacCabe property.It bears repetition because it is the basis of"C1aim.
Uhen I bought the lot firom Mr. Reeves, and when I sold the house lot to Dr.
Wolinsky, there was no such Parcel 4 property included.
Several years ago, when I expressed to Dr. Wolinsky, my surprise that a
square of property was to be granted to him without cost, his. responce was "The
want to raise my taxes;' At that time,he meant it.
-5-
These last para, phs concern the actual to ation of Poppy Trail, the
resident's road. In 1D55 and 1956, when so many easements were being
assigned and recorded in "Parcel 4", the location where Poppy Trail falls
in elevation and makes a right angle turn to the east, the road.V�a�,�I, not
have been paved but its location was very positive. I know that'a`com-
pleted and paved in 1960.
The City Hall has copied Denn Engineers'. neaps made in une seventies
and eighties, and using them in an attempt to show that the 3-lot
easement does -not reach Poppy Trail. I have some of these maps myself.
None of them shows Poppy Trail definitely, in Parcel 4. Some maps show
dashed lines, and some by very light lines, where tne-limits or the 7Jrail
might be. The dasned line that the City Hall nuts copie..,belongs to a
Bridle trail easement. How could the engineer do anything else when there
are 17 over -lapping easements in Parcel 4?
The best way to learn the precice location of Poppy Trail is to go to
Poppy Trail, rather than to study easements. When Palos Verdes Properties
located the 50-ft. easement on the north border of their Lot 9, they •
knew where the private road was, or would be. The aircraft view has been
a great help. there else in the entire peninsula can these visual facts
be found?
The stream from the west, fed by a spring. I have information
regarding' this bp'ring which goes back to 1903.
The recorded easement for "maintaining and repair of the existing
water tunnel" adjacent to the 92.54 line, the northern border of
Lot 9.
The flat area -depicting the "bridge".
The 30-foot deep drainage ditch on the opposite' side of the Trail.
The rising terrain to the west.
My own knowledge of the square corner of asphalt of Poppy Trail
shown dashed in blue on the tracing.
Attached. as . page 9, is one of the - contour maps 'bearing• a white stripe.
The stripe is labeled "Poppy Trail As can be seen•, the stripe plunges
into the 30-foot deep drainage ditch, Evidently it isn't Poppy Trail.
'flay i e , 1994
4ii,44Ra,VCLE ABCQA N
�' 15 PA R G 5 1- .4-. -
off% i1
a
x`
MO/?rNckN ecEA A:YYOFr:;-q�"
&95EMeyr FOR ROAP PaAreo.s. s
77 rX,E f/Y, (RANG .E Pa 610 Y 08,33.3.30
S ; 96
86,a3
h
Qb' ' 9
\ a.v rE'RDL-R ER.
soFT:iNN
/SfifTHE:1;PerrNa
3-1 i V c r; V ". 'OV
IS9�`I,SE%�'7'
OAC
T Y.5o ET _E3srteNr
-! I
•
reie
0..? .••'
J rf
. •
•
•
'f--
.,•,
4'4. • •
• • V
•
a
:r:7-* • •
•
• LIZ... • •
ter.4 A • 4 •
•
"ImPlea..., •
r*et,„
▪ is • . •••.
• 1 `4,41.4
...°5514347, tatxr•-•
. •
• 4,;•
4•
•%;',.it
"64 ilitia° .73
:t• :411-`k+if ktt.:34?."•••• f7t-,
1' ‘14...
. :
. ,
f • •!.
*.rwp••••• ,
411*
•44twa-„r.,,.,rina
'%,•?;
• 1 4k.I•lkii‘g
t. • • g,;?;,t. **t''' -407) 43.•2•1%.
▪ • .4'4 f
!it. • • • t • • • • t•4 ik •
7 7, • • %1
14 e•.'1144`• t •
A • ,
• I • .,1•-•
• 11,41
•
•••••• # • • •••"
••• °
ft ..
.ra
vi.
4.,!... 4;•:::e •••..1..1.0.f...1"..,.."-:•.f.,;:i10....
oeit
e. 1:•••••42}, •;-'
, J.,. •ai.... tt!..•%;(f',
• e4=. • '•.,.. . g..
V. .
STREAM Nag E/IT
2--Ft IRON PIPE
FAstMEIV7 ROAD '/ PRA/PcAGE DITCH
$RID(- = TPAI
wooP N R6�luIVG
_ME50F1715A54-tieENT PROM THE AiRcgAFT Plc rc'RE
evorre:31., f
IN ,
,:i111, ' . I. •,v,,,...
.;-
„.444faT:
',11.40,,._'et 'it • "sv':.,,-..iiit77....!" ' v'i.". . " f,e,- i •
1,*-11-".:7: ‘•It'..t.‘-: ,...-..A•Fat",e1.E.ff - A
.:
,.•.- .t , ..
974.3kti
,
Aiit-.1100
7
443
• ho • .
....monuita4;:e.5.07airs t.
: z*
Avignivir„,," 43r14;`,4,; -.1t" `kit:0K 0;
Is4;41'1441.6.--k4P1".."".3":643711 :21ttigi,,zi • 0)7.3tile'
zyit7,
.41:siZetillIrnlp., .„
vo.
.110,