Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20150120 Late Correspondence GH SET 1
CITY OF!RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material Letters from: Ellen Berkowitz; Michael N. Friedman Respectfu ly submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, January 19, 2015**. W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150120 additions revisions to agenda.doc LATE CORRESPONDENCE 1 From: Ellen Berkowitz < Ellen. Berkowitz@G resha mSavage.com > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:37 PM To: 'Michael N. Friedman'; CC Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carla Morreale; Carolynn Petru; 'Brian Carter'; 'Matt Martin'; 'Julie Keye' Subject: RE: Green Hills' Appeal - Case No. ZON2003-00086 - Hearing Date: January 20, 2015 Michael — The references to the September, 2006 application package relate to the map attached to my letter as Exhibit B, which show Pacific Terrace along the property line. It is the same depiction of Pacific Terrace as contained in your August 8, 2014. Hope that at least partially answers your question. Thank you. Ellen From: Michael N. Friedman [mailto:mnfesq@hfllp.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:12 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: clynch@rwglaw.com; 'Carla Morreale'; Carolynn@rpv.com; Ellen Berkowitz; 'Brian Carter'; 'Matt Martin'; 'Julie Keye' Subject: Green Hills' Appeal - Case No. ZON2003-00086 - Hearing Date: January 20, 2015 Dear Council Members: I apologize for sending you an email regarding the above -referenced appeal, set for hearing at this evening's meeting. Unfortunately, Green Hills' attorney has the habit of sending lengthy correspondence at the very last minute in an effort to avoid having anyone respond to her. The use of the "11th hour" tactic is, perhaps, one of the reasons we are in this situation in the first place. If the applicant would give others a reasonable opportunity to review and respond to the information they supply, it would not now be complaining about the City's mistakes in its erroneous approval of Green Hills' amended master plan. At this point, I do not know how much of what I write will be properly "digested" by the council members and am, more likely, contributing to the administrative record that is being compiled for the likely Superior Court review of this matter. Nonetheless, it is important that the record be complete. Ms. Berkowitz made several references to the application package submitted by Green Hills in September 2006. She did not attach a copy of that package to her letter although it contains several other exhibits. According to her, all of the information regarding the "true" nature of the project is contained in this application package. Vista Verde resident, Matthew Martin, however, made request of the City Manager to provide copies of Green Hills' application for its revised master plan and was provided with an initial application filed with the City in 2003 and a revised application filed with the City in 2005. The erroneous and misleading information regarding the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is contained in these two applications. I have attached them hereto for inclusion in the record of this proceeding. The exact words which I complained about in my letter to you dated January 12, 2015, are found in these applications. It appears, however, that Green Hills' application was deemed complete on November 22, 2006. Despite Mr. Martin's request, he was not provided with any revised application filed in September 2006. It appears, then, that the investigation of this LATE CORRESPONDENCE 2 matter remains incomplete and, before a decision is reached, Vista Verde urges the City to make a complete investigation of the facts underlying its approval of Green Hills' revised master plan. Thank you for considering this so near in time to tonight's meeting. Michael Friedman Michael N. Friedman HIRSCHBERG & FRIED AN, LLP 5023 N. Parkway Calabasas Calabasas, California 91302-1421 Tel/Fax (818) 225-9593 Cell (818) 642-0822 Ernail mnfesq@hfilp.com Website www.hfllp.com Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Gresharn Savage Nolan &I"ilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office main: (213) 213-7249 Fax: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavage.com R. Privileged and Confidential Communication, The information contained in this email and any atlachninoW may be confidential or subject to the attorney dient privilege or attorney work product doctrine. IF You are, not the interacted recipient of this cornMUnica; [ion, you may not use, disclose, print, copy or dissernin ate the s at) ie- If you have received this in error, please notify the, sender and destroy rail cc) pies, of this message 2, IRS Circular 230 Notice, In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service, we inforin you that any tax advice contained in this ernail, including <iny attachnients, is riot intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a.) avoiding penalfies that nlay otherwise be Imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing. or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication. and any attached documents or files. are believed to be free of any virus or other defect. it is the rr-.,,sponsibjlity of the recipient to ensure that it is virus (f0e, and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damoge arising in anyway froni its use, 4. Security of Email, Electronic, Triail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure. Thus, we cannot guarantee the privacy of confidentiality of such ii)`OrrnaVon. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com LATE CORRESPONDENCE 3 From: Christie Bowman < Christie.Bowman@GreshamSavage.com > on behalf of Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:20 PM To: CC Cc: 'mnfesq@hfllp.com'; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Green Hills' Appeal - Case No. ZON2003-00086 Attachments: City Council -02 Letter re Staff Report Response with Exhibits.PDF Please see attached correspondence regarding Green Hills' Appeal (Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003- 00086). Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Office: (213) 213-7249 Cxt.1802 Fax: (213) 213-7391 www.GreshamSavage.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information r..onlained in this email and any F ttar;hments may be confidential car subtect to thte zattaemey client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the "intended recipient of this communication you may not use, disclose, print, copy or disseminate the same it you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message. 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice, In accordance with Circular 230 of the internal revenue Service, we inform YOU that any tax advice contained in this ernail, including any attachrrients, is not intended or written to be used, and c innot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3. Trans -mission of viruses. Although this communication, and any att.acheci documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus tree, and the: sender does not accept any reslowisibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. 4. Security of Email. Electronic; mail is sant over the public internet and may not be :secure. Thus, we cannot guarantee the; privacy or confidentiality of sr.rch inforY3Eation This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit littp://www.n,iniecast.com 1 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 4 GRESHAM SAVAGE January 20, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Ellen.BerkowitzCu`GreshamSavage.com • Los Angeles (213) 213-7249 • fax (213) 213-7391 Re: Green Hills Memorial Park's ("Green Hills") Appeal of the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014 Decision, issued in connection with the Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086 (Green Hills Master Plan) Dear Honorable City Councilmembers: According to the Staff Report prepared in connection with the upcoming January 20, 2015 City Council hearing (the "Staff Report"), the mountains of letters, documents, plans, testimony, minutes, notices, and everything else comprising the lengthy history of this appeal can be summed up into a single question: Did Green Hills mislead the City when it applied for amendments to its 2007 Master Plan Revision? Since Staff and certain current and former Planning Commissioners now seek to distance themselves from any involvement in the approval of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum"), approved as part of the 2007 Master Plan Revision, they have, quite obviously, a compelling interest in obtaining an affirmative answer to this question. For self-preservation purposes, it is in their interest to point the finger elsewhere and say "we must have been deceived," rather than to assume responsibility for a decision they now, in -hindsight, apparently regret. And, thus, they are today attempting to recast their own self-proclaimed judgment errors as the product of some fictitious grand scheme foisted upon them by Green Hills. But the City was not deceived. Green Hills advised the City of the location of the Mausoleum in the application packages submitted to the City long before the proposed Master Plan Revision came before the Planning Commission for approval. Perhaps no one at the City reviewed those application packages. Perhaps they didn't care where the Mausoleum would be located. Perhaps they were too busy paying attention to other issues, or too distracted to focus on this topic. We don't and can't know the answer at this point, because too many individuals involved with the 2007 S\\ 131�RIIN A; 550 East Hospitality Lane. Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92405 6145�,er kIV't R.SIM-, 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 • Riveiside. California 92501 / SAN 1)ILU() 550 West C Sweet. Suite 1810 • San Diem California 92101 LOS AN611:L1;5 333 South Hope Street, 35"' Moor • Los Angeles, California 90071 LATE cbRRESPONDEN(Q_E__15235245 Honorable City Councilmembers January 20, 2015 Page 2 Master Plan Revision approval are now endeavoring to skew the facts and re -write history to protect their own interests. Given Staff's participation in the preparation of this Staff Report (and for that matter, their participation in the allegedly "independent investigations" of the Lilley Planning Group and the mysterious "internal" review), it is impossible to overcome the multiple conflicts of interest to obtain a clear view of the facts from the Staff Report and related materials. Nevertheless, we will attempt to respond to the allegations raised in the Staff Report. Unfortunately, most of the alleged "misleading" activities turn out to be the product of Staff oversights and are not the result of anyone's misdeeds or wrongdoing. As a preliminary matter, we should point out that we take no joy in highlighting these oversights. Green Hills and City Staff have maintained a pleasant working relationship over the years, and we recognize that mistakes can be made by both private parties and public entities when dealing with complex planning matters. Engaging in this type of adversarial combat with the City is at odds with Green Hills' mission and approach, and we have tried to avoid laying blame for any oversights committed during the Master Plan Revision approval process on any group or individual. Nevertheless, now that the Staff Report has chosen to portray Green Hills as deliberate liars, it appears that social niceties have gone out the window in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, traded for accusations, vilification and character assassination. Accordingly, we have no choice but to counter these unconscionable attacks as necessary. In addition to our response to the Staff Report, this letter also briefly discusses: (1) the City's inability to require Green Hills to apply for a variance at this point in the process; (2) the impropriety of the City's attempt to impose a moratorium on lawful burials; (3) the inaccurate conclusions contained in the Lilley Planning Group's latest report; and (4) a few overall thoughts on this annual review process. A. The Staff Report Does Not Identify a Single Misrepresentation. Based on the obvious conflicts of interests among individuals within the City, it is no surprise that the entire Staff Report is "spun" to paint Green Hills in a negative light. Nevertheless, after wading through the muckraking, it becomes clear that every alleged claim of "misleading" action on the part of Green Hills is, in reality, the result of an oversight on Staff's part or a misrepresentation of the underlying facts. A few examples: ➢ The Staff Report suggests that Green Hills originally proposed an 80 foot setback for the Mausoleum, but changed the setback to 8 feet just before the final Planning Commission hearing on the 2007 Master Plan Revision. This is blatantly false. Green Hills never proposed that the Mausoleum be set back 80 feet. As is evident from a review of Green Hills draft application package, LATE CORRESPONDENQ_E_ 152356 Honorable City Councilmembers January 20, 2015 Page 3 submitted in September, 2006 (five months before the February, 2007 Planning Commission hearing), the Mausoleum was always proposed to be immediately adjacent to the property line.' Green Hills never "changed" the setback, other than to correct the erroneous notation in the staff report prepared for the February, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. ➢ The Staff Report claims it lacked sufficient time to adequately review Green Hills' application for the 2007 Master Plan Revision, suggesting that Green Hills deliberately waited to submit its application until one month before the February, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. In truth, as noted above, the application was submitted in September, 2006, five months prior to the February, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. Between the time the application was submitted and the Planning Commission hearing, Staff worked with Green Hills to refine and finalize the application; Staff also actively participated with Green Hills in community meetings to familiarize interested individuals with the contents of Green Hills' plans.z Thus, Staff was fully aware of the contents of the Master Plan Revision, including the proposed size and location of the Mausoleum, long before the February, 2007 Planning Commission hearing. ➢ The Staff Report claims that the notice describing the location of the proposed Mausoleum was inadequate, and blames this on Green Hills. Green Hills, however, does not write, prepare, or issue City public hearing notices. They are City notices. Green Hills provided all requested information to the City to enable Staff to prepare whatever notice it deemed appropriate. Staff now appears to believe the notice contained a description of the proposed. Mausoleum that was too cryptic. If that was so, then Staff could have, and should have, prepared a more detailed description. Staff's decision in this regard can hardly be blamed on Green Hills. Rather than address every allegation in the body of this letter, we have prepared a detailed and comprehensive response to each purported claim of "misleading" actions or statements referenced in the Staff Report. (See Exhibit "A.") As the responses make clear, Green Hills made no misrepresentations during the course of obtaining approval for the Mausoleum. Rather, Green Hills: ' A copy of the first page of the September, 2006 Master Plan Revision submittal package, clearly depicting the proposed Mausoleum located along the property line, is attached as Exhibit "B." 2 A copy of the notice distributed by Green Hills to its neighbors inviting them to attend meetings to learn more about the proposed Master Plan Revision, together with the mailing list indicating to whom those notices were sent, is attached as Exhibit "C." LATE CORRESPONDENT 523;241 Honorable City Councilmembers January 20, 2015 Page 4 ➢ prepared an application for the 2007 Master Plan Revision; ➢ submitted the application package to the City sufficiently in advance of the Planning Commission hearing; ➢ clearly depicted the size and location of the Mausoleum in the application package; ➢ invited the community to learn more about its plans; ➢ met with interested community members to answer questions; ➢ appeared at two hearings of the Planning Commission at which the 2007 Master Plan Revision was approved; ➢ secured building permits from the Building Department; and ➢ constructed the Mausoleum in accordance with all requisite approvals issues by the City. Despite the cries of illicit conduct and wrong -doing, the Staff Report points to nothing that Green Hills did or didn't do that would evidence bad faith or an attempt to mislead the City in any way. Accordingly, Green Hills has a vested right to use the Mausoleum as approved and constructed. B. Because Green Hills Relied in Good Faith on the Permits Issued by the City, the City Cannot Now Require Green Hills to Seek a Variance nor can it Impose a Moratorium on Green Hills' Lawful Activities. 1. The City Has No Authority to Require a Variance where a Vested Right Exists. The Staff Report erroneously recommends that, if the City finds Green Hills has a vested right to use the Mausoleum as permitted, then the City should nevertheless require Green Hills to apply for a variance to permit the Mausoleum's 8 foot setback. This setback was already approved by the Planning Commission as part of the Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to the 2007 Master Plan Revision. Thus, not only is a variance unnecessary at this point, but the Staff Report's recommendation to seek a variance evidences a complete misunderstanding of the law regarding vested rights .3 Because Green Hills' rights have vested, the City may not revoke those rights; this in turn means that if Green Hills applied for a variance, the City would have no authority to deny the request. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to apply for a discretionary approval such as a variance, when the City lacks the discretion to deny it. That would be a pointless and futile exercise. 3 The legal standard(s) relating to vested rights protections were discussed in greater detail in Green Hills' October 24, 2014 letter correspondence to City Attorney Carol Lynch, and its August 6, 2014 letter correspondence to the Planning Commission. LATE CORRESPONDENG_F__,,,3i24$ Honorable City Councilmembers January 20, 2015 Page 5 If for some reason the City feels it must have a variance on file to accompany the approval of the Mausoleum, the City has the authority to issue an after -the -fact variance pursuant to City Municipal Code (the "Code") Section 17.64.050(B). The City Attorney advised that this Code section allows the City itself to initiate an after -the fact variance. Indeed, we assumed this was the type of variance the City was contemplating when it first suggested Green Hills obtain a variance for the Mausoleum last year, at one of the Planning Commission hearings. The Planning Commission, however, made it quite clear that it intended for Green Hills to apply for a variance anew, as though it had never obtained approval of any kind for the Mausoleum, and certain members of the Planning Commission implied they very well might deny the variance request as a way to impose further punitive measures on Green Hills. Obviously, Green Hills cannot put itself in that position, and the Staff Report's continued suggestion that Green Hills seek a variance is untenable. 2. The City Cannot Impose a Moratorium on a Lawfully Approved Use. In previous correspondence,4 we advised the City that it could not impose a moratorium on rooftop burials on the Mausoleum unless the City complied with the provisions of Government Code Section 65858, applicable to urgency zoning ordinances. The Staff Report scoffs at that suggestion, noting that the moratorium was not proposed as an urgency zoning ordinance, and implying that the moratorium was imposed pursuant to some other legal authority. However, there is no other legal authority that would justify the imposition of a moratorium on a lawfully approved ongoing activity, unless the activity constitutes a distinct and definable public nuisance. Here, the City has not, and cannot, find that the burial services conducted at Green Hills are a public nuisance .5 C. The Lilley Planning Group Supplemental Report. Although dated December 2, 2014, we received a copy of the "Third Party Peer Review — Revised" report (the "Peer Report") prepared by the Lilley Planning Group ("Lilley") only a few days ago, as part of the "Public Correspondence Received following the Release of the Staff Report since January 9, 2015." The Peer Report indicates a lack of familiarity with the approvals permitted pursuant to the 2007 Master Plan Revision, with City Code provisions, and with critical planning and building concepts. Either Lilley is ill-equipped to conduct a review of this nature, or 4 The legal standard(s) relating to moratoria were discussed in greater detail in Green Hills' November 25, 2014 appeal to the City Council, and its August 6, 2014 letter correspondence to the Planning Commission. s Any effort to do so would be contrary to State law which provides that "nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance." See California Civil Code Section 3482. LATE CORRESPONDEI-C - 23549 Honorable City Councilmembers January 20, 2015 Page 6 the desired conclusion — no doubt guided by Staff's effort to demonstrate, at whatever cost, that Green Hills is not in compliance with its conditions of approval — dictated the analysis. The Peer Report concludes, for example, that the Mausoleum exceeds the 30 foot height limit based on several erroneous assumptions. For one, the Peer Report adds four (4) feet to the building's height by measuring the building to the top of the guardrail and pilasters, notwithstanding the fact that the guardrail and pilasters are excluded from height calculations as indicated in both the project approvals and pursuant to the Code. (See Code Section 17.48.050(B), which allows the Planning Commission to approve architectural elements above height requirements.) As evidenced in the approved plans for the Mausoleum, the pilasters and guardrails were not calculated as part of the structure's height. Therefore, the Mausoleum does not exceed 30 feet in height. There are other problems with the Peer Report's conclusions, many of them more technical in nature. To address these issues, Green Hills will have a more detailed report prepared by a qualified individual familiar with the Code, engineering calculations and the approvals issued for the Mausoleum. Suffice it to say that the City's reliance on an allegedly impartial peer reviewer, clearly pre -determined to reach a conclusion maligning Green Hills, is disturbing. D. A Word on How we Got Here. The Staff Report notes that the Planning Commission conducted an annual review in November, 2008, and then did not conduct another one until this annual review, first begun almost one year ago. The reason for the 6 year delay was that no issues arose during that time that warranted a formal review; if minor issues were brought to Green Hills' attention, they were promptly addressed. Thus, as admitted by Staff, Green Hills was conducting its operations without incident. Last year, however, the City heard from residents of the adjacent Vista Verde condominiums, largely complaining that the Mausoleum impacted their views. They also complained about noise — exaggeratedly characterized as wild "parties" by drunken revelers on the Mausoleum roof—and other issues created by living in proximity to cemetery operations and services. As a result, this annual review was commenced. Green Hills met with representatives of the Vista Verde Homeowners' Association and their former legal counsel, in an effort to see if the parties could mutually work out some acceptable operational measures and conditions that would improve the residents' quality of life. Green Hills honestly and sincerely believed that it could come to some agreement that would, at least in part, address the concerns presented to LATE CORRESPONDENCS�a0 52'�aQ Honorable City Councilmembers January 20, 2015 Page 7 it. Unfortunately, those discussions were curtailed when the HOA advised that the only acceptable resolution would be for Green Hills to move, tear down, or partially demolish the Mausoleum to lower the building and eliminate all rooftop burials. The attorney for the HOA made clear that future offers to meet would not be fruitful unless Green Hills was willing to make physical alterations to the building and eliminate existing burials. This, of course, is not a realistic solution. Once negotiations came to a standstill, the City went from treating Green Hills as a valued community partner serving the needs of families throughout the region, to demonizing Green Hills as liars, cheats, "drug dealers," and worse — now accusing Green Hills of willfully deceiving the City through a host of nefarious and dishonest practices. Something is very wrong here. We have trouble understanding why and how certain City officials and representatives could and would allow this to happen. We cannot fathom that this City would encourage businesses to go through a planning process spanning years, advise them as to the appropriate submittals to obtain approval for their project, accept their applications as complete, conduct public hearings, grant approvals, issue building permits, conduct inspections on the building while it is undergoing construction, sign off on the construction..... only to deny, years later, that such approvals were ever granted. We do not see how a City can simply "erase" approvals it validly issued, or purport to impose a moratorium on lawful activity expressly authorized by the City's actions. In light of this, we believe a serious and meaningful impartial review of the City's practices is warranted. Green Hills hopes that the City Council will bring some needed sanity to this matter, and work with Green Hills to develop a pragmatic resolution that will avoid the expense and divisiveness that might be caused by protracted litigation or through other political measures — a situation we expect all parties will want to avoid. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to the upcoming City Council hearing. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:dff/crb Enclosures LATE CORRESPONDENCE, 00 1523141 EXHIBIT A LATE CORRESPONDENCE 12 Exhibit A Detailed Response to Staff Report Allegations Please note that this Exhibit was prepared to follow the order of the alleged "misleading" statements as set forth in the Staff Report. ➢ The Staff Report correctly notes that when Green Hills originally contemplated revisions to the Master Plan, back in 2003, Green Hills proposed to increase the size of the Mausoleum from the size originally approved in 1991 by a certain amount. The Staff Report also correctly explains that when Green Hills submitted its final application for the Master Plan Revision in 2007, Green Hills proposed to increase the size of the Mausoleum by an amount different from that contemplated in 2003. In the staff report prepared for the February 2007 Planning Commission hearing on the Master Plan Revision, Staff incorrectly listed the size proposed in the 2003 draft proposal, rather than from Green Hills' final application for the 2007 Master Plan Revision submitted in 2007. (Staff Report, page 1-5.) The implication is that Green Hills somehow played tricks with the numbers. On the contrary, all this story reveals is that Staff made an error. When it put together the staff report for the February 2007 hearing, it pulled the numbers for the proposed increase from a 2003 draft proposal, rather than take the numbers from the actual final submittal package from 2007. Why it did so is anyone's guess. But certainly, Staff's error is not Green Hills' fault. Green Hills correctly indicated the proposed size increase of the Mausoleum in its application package which was provided to all Planning Commissioners. Green Hills therefore did not mislead the City as to the amount of the increase, and it is not responsible for the City's error in the staff report. ➢ Staff suggests that somehow Green Hills is to blame for its error, because Green Hills submitted its final application package for the 2007 Master Plan Revision in January, 2007, which gave Staff only one month to review the final application before the February, 2007 hearing. (Staff Report, page 1-5.) There are several problems with this line of thinking. First, Green Hills actually submitted a draft application package in September, 2006. The size and location of the Mausoleum did not change from the September, 2006 draft application to the final January, 2007 version. Thus, Staff should not have been "surprised" by any new information relative to the Mausoleum when it received the final application package in January, 2007, as Staff had the information in its possession since September, 2006. Additionally, Staff should have been very familiar with the c583-OQO -- 1521525 1 LATE CORRESPONDENCE contents of the September, 2006 application as Staff attended community meetings held by Green Hills in November, 2006 describing its plans to interested neighbors.' Second, one month is generally ample time for a city's staff to review submittal packages of this nature. If, however, Staff felt one month was not adequate, then Staff could very well have suggested continuing the hearing until it did have adequate time to review the material and prepare its staff report for the 2007 Master Plan Revision. And in fact, the February hearing was continued to April, 2007 to provide all interested individuals more time to review and comment on the matter. Again, if Staff felt "rushed" and unable to perform its functions properly, then it should have taken steps to correct the situation. Green Hills is not responsible for Staff's decisions and errors. ➢ The Staff Report contains a number of excerpts from its February, 2007 staff report, and states that these excerpts indicate the proposed 2007 Master Plan Revision was not anticipated to modify any existing setbacks. (Staff Report, page 1-6.) The February, 2007 staff report was prepared by Staff, and any errors or inaccuracies in the report cannot be imputed to Green Hills. It is the City's responsibility, and the City's responsibility alone, to accurately draft its own resolutions and public notices. More importantly, however, Green Hills never suggested, implied, stated, or misled the City into thinking that the setback for the Mausoleum would be 80 feet. A simple look at bath the drr'ft 2006 application package and the final 2007 application package. that Green Hills sOnfitted to the City -clearly learly evidence that the Mausoleum was to be placed at the northern property line, with virtually no setback whatsoever. There is nothing confusing about the location of the Mausoleum as shown in the plan contained in the application package; one does not have to be an engineer or have any expertise in building and planning issues to see that the Mausoleum is not setback 80 feet, 40 feet, or even 20 feet. It appears literally on the property line, at approximately the same distance as the buildings located on the western side of the Park, which have a 5 foot setback. Again, why Staff claimed to be unaware of this setback — when they had those plans be'ore them since at least September, 2006 — is anyone's guess. But the proposed location of the building was certainly no secret. ➢ The Staff Report suggests that Green Hills only advised the City about the proposed location of the Mausoleum when it made revisions to the language contained in Condition No. 7 shortly before the April, 2007 continued Commission hearing. The implication is that Green Hills "changed" the setback for the Mausoleum from 80 feet to 8 feet. (Staff Report, page 1-7.) This is categorically false. The Mausoleum was never proposed to be 80 feet from the property line. Again, this claim is belied by a simple look at the plans (drawn to scale) Greefz Hills submitted in both its 2006 draft As previously noted, a copy of the notice distributed by Green Hills to its neighbors inviting them to attend meetings to learn more about the proposed Master Plan Revision, together with the mailing list indicating to whom those notices were sent, is attached as Exhibit "C." G'V-000 -- 1523525 1 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 14 application package and the 2007 final application package. The Mausoleum was never setback 80 feet. Green Hills' submitted the revision to Condition No. 7 (among others) to correct the error made by Staff in the February staff report. The correction was highlighted in the materials Staff prepared for the April, 2007 continued Planning Commission hearing; Staff expressly noted that the correction was "acceptable to Staff." ➢ Staff advises that the notice regarding the proposed 2007 Master Plan Revision was incorrect because it stated that there would be an addition to the Mausoleum previously approved in 1991 located "southeast of the Green Hills maintenance yard," when in fact the Mausoleum previously approved in 1991 was located "south" of the maintenance yard. (Staff Report, page 1-15.) Again, Staff faults Green Hills for this error because Green Hills allegedly provided this "inaccurate" project description. Once again, there are several problems with this "spin" on the facts. While Green Hills provided the City with a general description of the project, the City is responsible for the content of its public notices. If Staff disagreed with Green Hills' description about the location of the previously approved Mausoleum, believing that it was located "south," rather than "southeast" of the maintenance yard, then Staff should have made that correction before issuing the notice. In any event, whether the previously approved Mausoleum was "south" or "southeast" of the maintenance yard is of no consequence to the issues about where the proposed expansion of the Mausoleum would be located. The important point, and the one that we understand is of concern to the Vista Verde residents, is that they could not glean from the notice that the Mausoleum would be expanded to the west. In other words, the problem was not what the notice said; it is what the notice didn't say that is the cause of concern. We have repeatedly heard from Vista Verde residents that had they understood where the proposed expansion was to occur, they would have participated in the public process. That Staff chose to include a cryptic reference to the location of the Mausoleum's proposed expansion the notice is unfortunate, but once again, it is not the result of anything Green Hills did or didn't do. Green Hills' application package (both the September 2006 and the January 2007 version) contains a scaled drawing of the proposed expansion clearly showing the large Mausoleum building running along the northern side of the park, far to the west. Perhaps the City should have included this plan as an attachment to the public notice, which would have left no doubt as to the extent of the proposal. But again, the failure to provide more detail in the notice were not the result of inaccurate information provided by Green Hills, as the Staff Report insinuates. ➢ The Staff Report also claims the cross sections contained in Green Hills' submittal package were inaccurate. (Staff Report 1-15.) This is not true. For one, these cross sections are schematics — defined as a "preliminary sketch or basic layout representing a LATE CORRESPONDENCE 15z15255 concept, but not showing the fine details of the ultimate design"2; they are not construction drawings. They are a representation of how the Mausoleum would be conceptualized at three random points along the continuum of the proposed approximately 820 foot long Mausoleum. Because only 170 feet of the entire 820 foot long Mausoleum was ever constructed (only a portion of the western section, and none of the central and eastern sections), the schematics depict sections that have not yet been constructed. The City requested that the cross sections depict those points along the Mausoleum that would involve the most grading activities. In any event, had the Planning Commissioners had any questions about the cross- sections or evidenced any concern about what was or was not depicted, they certainly could have asked. A review of the tapes of those hearings indicates that the Commissioners asked only one question about the proposed Mausoleum at their February and April, 2007 hearings, choosing instead to focus on other areas of the proposed Master Plan Revision. That the Mausoleum was not a topic of interest to the Planning Commission at that time is, once again, not because of any failing on the part of Green Hills. ➢ The Staff Report discusses at length why a variance should have been required for the Mausoleum's 8 foot setback. (Staff Report, pages 1-17-19.) Although this Staff Report does not attempt to assign blame to Green Hills for failing to obtain a variance, Staff nevertheless attempts to suggest that Green Hills made a deliberate decision not to apply for one. In applying for the 2007 Master Plan Revision, however, Green Hills prepared forms and applications pursuant to the City's instructions. In November, 2006, Staff deemed the application complete. Staff never suggested that Green Hills needed to obtain a variance for its plans. After dissecting all of the alleged "misleading" actions surrounding the Mausoleum, it is clear that Staff cannot point to one single action on Green Hills' part that would constitute "bad faith." Green Hills never misrepresented the facts about the proposed Mausoleum's size, location or setback even remotely sufficient to overcome a claim of vested rights. Green Hills submitted its application, obtained its approvals, obtained its building permits and constructed the Mausoleum in good faith reliance on those permits. Accordingly, Green Hills has a vested right to maintain the Mausoleum, and the City is estopped from claiming otherwise. 2 See http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/schematics. 13,583-000-- 1121,1_1 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 16 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 17 A�A EXHIBIT C LATE CORRESPONDENCE 19 Letter to Neighbors within 504 ft. of GH111'IP November, 2006 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 20 November 21, 2006 Dear Neighbor: Green Hills Memorial Park is currently working with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to amend its Conditional Use Permit. We are providing two opportunities for you to review the design and provide your input as neighbors of Green Hills Memorial Park. You are invited to join us either 7.00 pm, on Monday, December 11 or 7.00 pm on Monday, December 18 Green Hills Memorial Park Chapel The administration of Green Hills Memorial Park and the Architect will present the proposed Master Plan and discuss our vision of the future of Green Hills Memorial Park. We hope to share our exciting design concepts that will enhance the beauty of Green Hills and the community at large when we meet in this informal setting. Join us as we welcome your input and look forward to meeting our neighbors. Please R.S.V.P. to the Green Hills Memorial Park Events line at (310) 521-4460. LATE CORRESPONDENCE 21 Mailing List of Neighbors within 500 ft. of GHMP W ) November, 2006 0 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 22 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK 1 JESSICA VLACO, CPO 27501 S WESTERN AVE RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 2 METROPOLITAN WATER DIST 1 GATEWAY PLAZA LOS ANGELES CA 90012 3 OCCUPANT 2300 PALOS VERDES DR ROLLING HLS EST CA 90274 4 OCCUPANT 2221 PALOS VERDES DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4219 5 OCCUPANT 2222 PALOS VERDES DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 9027411220 6 ROLLING HILLS COVENANT CHURCH INC 2222 PALOS VERDES DR N ROLLING HIS EST CA 902744.220 7 CHARLES J. O LONE LONE 8 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 8 WOOD FAMILY TRUST 10 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HLS EST CA 90274-4215 9 DIANA & AMY D. FORTUNE 12 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HLS EST CA 902744215 10 JAMES S. COHN 14 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 11 MARY JO KOMADA TRUST 16 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 12 JUNG FAMILY TRUST 18 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HLS EST CA 90274-4215 13 RICHARD J BOBERG TRUST 20 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 14 MARTIN L & KIM MINK TRUST 22 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 15 RICKEY A. MOTON & KLIER MOTON 24 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 16 GARY R. & SANDRA L. LLOYD 26 ENCANTO DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4215 17 OCCUPANT 2037 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 18 OCCUPANT 2039 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 19 OCCUPANT 2041 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 20 OCCUPANT 2043 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 21 OCCUPANT 2047 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 22 OCCUPANT 2055 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 23 OCCUPANT 2057 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 24 OCCUPANT 2059 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 25 OCCUPANT 2061 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 26 OCCUPANT 2063 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 27 OCCUPANT 2065 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 28 OCCUPANT 2075 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3724 29 SHIRLEY A MAAG TRUST 23717 HAWTHORNE BL STE 30I TORRANCE CA 90505-5999 30 JOHN R HARRIS JR TRUST 2127 PALOS VERDES DR N LOMITA CA 90717-3702 31 OCCUPANT 2121 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3702 32 MICHAEL IMANOEL GAS & CARWASH DETAIL IN 914 S HOLT AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90035-2008 33 OCCUPANT 2085 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3701 CHECKER BOARD PROPERTIES INC E PROPERTY 34 TAX DEPT 401 PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261-4900 35 BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLCBP PROPERTY TAX PO BOX 5015 BUENA PARK CA 90622-5015 36 OCCUPANT 2031 PALOS VERDES DR LOMITA CA 90717-3701 37 EMMANUEL N. OKONKWO PO BOX 3777 PLS VRDS, PNSL CA 90274-9528 38 OCCUPANT 8 CERRITO PL ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-4207 39 HENDRIK J ROUWENHORST TRUST 26862 VIA DESMONDE LOMITA CA 90717-3620 40 JOHN AUDREY & LILY CHAN 26856 VIA DESMONDE LOMITA CA 90717-3620 41 JAMES R. & CYNTHIA P. ATENCIO 26850 VIA DESMONDE LOMITA CA 90717-3620 42 PAUL N. FUNK 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 101 LOMITA CA 90717-3728 43 DEBORAI i K. LANDES 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 102 LOMITA CA 90717-3728 44 CARL J. & LINDA M. EICI1FRT 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 103 LOMfI'A CA 90717-3728 45 CURTIS D. WUESTENHAGEN 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 104 LOMITA CA 90717-3728 46 SI3ARON B. LOUIE 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 105 LOMTI"A CA 90717-3728 47 jULTE M. REYNOLDS 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N# 106 LOMTTA CA 90717-3728 48 VERONICA E. LAWLOR 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 107 LOMTTA CA 90717-3728 49 ASTBURY BARBARA K. & BARBARA K HUGH 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N #108 LOMITA CA 90717-3729 50 LANE MAYHEW 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 109 LOMITA CA 90717-3729 51 JOIIN N. SHADEED 2110 PALOS VRDS DR # 11 LOMITA CA 90717 52 CARLALOYCE SHAW 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 110 LOMITA CA 90717-3729 53 NEVADA E. PREWFIT 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 111 LOMNA CA 90717-3729 54 ANTHONY & ATTILIA'TERRALAVORO 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 11 LOMITA CA 90717-3729 55 LISA PIERSON 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N# 114. LOM `1'A CA 90717-3731 56 MATTHEW & CASEY GEIER 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 20 LOIvffTA CA 90717-3730 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 23 57 LINDA B SPEARS TRUST 2110 PALOS VRDS DR # 20 LOMITA CA 90717 58 LINDA B. SPEARS 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 202 LOMITA CA 90717-3730 59 JACK D. GRODZIENSKI 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 203 LOMITA CA 90717-3730 60 JAMES A. & NANCY R. ALPOUGH 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 204 LOMTTA CA 90717-3730 61 LORRAINE S. BROWN 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 205 LOMTFA CA 90717-3730 62 ELMER W. SCCHEEL 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 206 LOMITA CA 90717-3730 63 NADEJDA V. GUEORGUII:VA 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 207 LOMITA CA 90717-3730 64 WILLIAM K. & ALISON D. HOFFMAN 2110 PALS VRDS DR N # 208 LOM]TA CA 90717-3731 65 PAUL F. & JULIE KEYE 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 209 LOMTfA CA 90717-3731 66 RHYS WILLIAMS 2110 PALOS VRDS DR# 210 LOMTI'A CA 90717 67 LILY Y ODAKA TRUST 2152 STANFORD AVE APT 108 CLOVIS CA 93611-4059 68 OCCUPANT 2110 PALOS VERDES DR 211 LOMITA CA 90717-3731 69 GREG E. & ELENA DAVIS 2110 PALOS VRDS DR N # 212 LOMITA CA 90717-3731 70 JENNIFER TOOMEY 1982 ROLLING VISTA DR # 2 LOMITA CA 90717-3768 71 CHRISTOPHER W. CARLSON 1982 ROLLING VISTA DR # 3 LOMITA CA 90717-3768 72 KATHERINE J. GATELY 1982 ROLLING VISTA DR # 4 LOMITA CA 90717-3768 EUGENE J. & JANICE L. WRAY[ I 73 BANK OF THE WEST SC-MPK-03-M 4560 CHANTRY CT CYPRESS CA 90630-3501 74 OCCUPANT 1984 ROLLING VISTA DR 5 LOMITA CA 90717-3767 75 PAUL D. & CHERIE L RONDINELLI 1984 ROLLING VISTA DR # 6 LOMITA CA 90717-3767 76 WAYNEL ANGUTANO 1984 ROLLING VISTA DR # 7 LOMITA CA 90717-3767 77 EDITH C. ROBERTS 1984 ROLLING VISTA DR # 8 LOMITA CA 90717-3767 78 OCCUPANT 1984 ROLLING VISTA DR 9 LOMITA CA 90717-3767 79 JAMES & REBECCA SALZETTI PO BOX 3245 ROLLING HILLS CA 90274-9245 80 EINO A. & GLORIA G. JUSSI 1986 ROLLING VISTA DR # 10 LOMITA CA 90717-3766 81 OCCUPANT 1986 ROLLING VISTA DR 11 LOMITA CA 90717-3766 82 JOHN M & HILDA M ENGELMAN TRUST 2379 W 236TH ST TORRANCE CA 90501-5713 83 MICHELE T. ODONNELL 1986 ROLLING VISTA DR # 12 LOMITA CA 90717-3766 84 PATRICIA L. SCHWARTZ 1986 ROLLING VISTA DR # 13 LOMITA CA 90717-3766 85 GARY & KAREN PASCIAK 1992 ROLLING VISTA DR# 14 LOMITA CA 90717-3765 86 KAREN BINZ 1992 ROLLING VISTA DR #15 LOMITA CA 90717-3765 87 J. & MEREDITH HICKS 1992 ROLLING VISTA DR # 16 LOMITA CA 90717-3765 88 SCOTT D. GAVER 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 17 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 89 ANJAN MANNA 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR #18 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 90 STEVE S. BARBERIC 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 19 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 91 ERROL F. PLATA 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 20 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 92 JOSEPH M SARTORIS TRUST 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 21 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 93 LISE FILLION 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 22 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 94 DON G. & ROSEMARY BLAYLOCK 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 23 LOMITA CA 90717 95 PAUL & LOVILDA HAMANN TRUST 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR # 24 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 96 RENE M. OLVINA 1988 ROLLING VISTA DR #25 LOMITA CA 90717-3761 97 ROBERT K & MARIA T. GREEN 1978 ROLLING VISTA DR# 26 LOMITA CA 90717-3764 98 OCCUPANT 1978 ROLLING VISTA DR 27 LOMITA CA 90717-3764 99 ELEANOR H HUSNICK TRUST 11255 AFFINITY CT NO 43 SAN DIEGO CA 92131 100 LEONA P. SMITH 1978 ROLLING VISTA DR #28 LOMITA CA 90717-3764 101 OCCUPANT 1978 ROLLING VISTA DR 29 LOMITA CA 90717-3764 102 CHANDA ZAVERI 6740 LOS VERDES DR APT 8 RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-5563 103 LOUIS & CHARLENE A METZLER TRUST 1978 ROLLING VISTA DR # 30 LOMITA CA 90717-3764 104 OCCUPANT 1978 ROLLING VISTA DR 31 LOMITA CA 90717-3764 105 MOORE FAMILY TRUST 27808 CONESTOGA DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-5108 106 LAURA E. FABIAN 1958 ROLLING VISTA DR # 32 LOMITA CA 90717-3763 107 GERALD & VIRGINIA POSELL TRUST 1958 ROLLING VISTA DR # 33 LOMITA CA 90717-3763 108 OCCUPANT 1958 ROLLING VISTA DR 34 LOMITA CA 90717-3763 109 RICHARD O. & LINDA C. JOHNSON PO BOX 100-390 MAMMOTH LAKES CA 93546-0100 110 OCCUPANT 1958 ROLLING VISTA DR 35 LOMITA CA 90717-3763 111 SCOTT C. MOORE 23 BERESFORD CT SAN MATED CA 94403-4522 112 MCENTYRE FAMILY TRUST 1958 ROLLING VISTA DR # 36 LOMITA CA 90717-3763 113 KATHERINE A. SIPPEL 1958 ROLLING VISTA DR #37 LOMITA CA 90717-3763 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 24 114 PATRICK J. HEALY 115 MARK & MADELON MAININI 116 GLORIA F. VALENTI 117 DANIEL S. & BRIDGET K. FUNG 118 ROBERTS. RAMSAY 119 OCCUPANT 120 PAOLA V. HTRSCH 121 DAVID L. BRANSON 122 FAZLOLLAH ROWHANI 123 MICHAEL & RENA NELSON 124 LINDA S. MILLER 125 OCCUPANT 126 SHERRY L. JOHNSON 127 OCCUPANT 128 VERONICA M. FLYNN 129 ALAN & MAUREEN MELGAARD 130 JOSEPH JAKOS 131 OCCUPANT 132 OCCUPANT 133 JOANNA B. PERRY 134 MICHAEL RHEE 135 SUSAN F. JONES 136 PAULA LONG-ROBERTS 137 HAROLD H. JENSEN 138 ROBERT R. BROSS 139 LAURINE M DIPALMA TRUST 140 PETER RANCH 141 VINCENT WEYRICK 142 PATRICIA A. DIAZ 143 OCCUPANT 144 MITCHELL & CYNTHIA OTERA 145 REBECA R. & JOHN U. JOHNSON 146 OCCUPANT 147 L A COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 148 FRANK & MAGGIE M. HAN 149 FERDINAND & CONSUELO SANTOS 150 JULIO & FLORA IBARRA TRUST 151 OGAWA RETKO TRUST 152 FRANK L & TERUKO MATSUYAMA TRUST 153 NAM C. SHIN 154 JACK T. & HIDEKO AOKI 155 FARTS & KATHLEEN FARIS 156 DARRYL C. & GRIGCELIS BRANDON 157 VALERIE L. JOHNSON 158 ELIZABETH M. LACY 159 EDGAR F. & RITA M. DE PAZ 160 DANIEL R TARKINGTON TRUST 161 MOZEL J. SPRIGGS 162 OCCUPANT 163 ALBERT J CAMPBELL TRUST 164 JAMES Y & REIKO M HOJO TRUST 165 MARIO J & LINDA MARCHISIO TRUST 166 ROBERT C. & NANCY L. CRESSEY 167 PATRICIA M. STRATFORD 168 TREVOR & MONICA HOWARD 169 GERALD M & DEBRA L PAIZ TRUST 170 THOMAS & GLORIA CROWLEY TRUST 171 JEFFREY K. ACRES 1948 ROILING VISTA DR # 38 LOMITA CA 90717-3769 1948 ROLLING VISTA DR# 39 LOMITA CA 90717-3769 1948 ROLLING VISTA DR # 40 LOMITA CA 90717-3769 1948 ROLLING VISTA DR # 41 LOMITA CA 90717-3769 1951 ROLLING VISTA DR # 42 LOMITA CA 90717-3772 1951 ROLLING VISTA DR 43 LOMITA CA 90717-3772 304 PASEO DE GRACIA REDONDO BEACH CA 90277-6104 1951 ROLLING VISTA DR # 44 LOMITA CA 90717-3772 1951 ROLLING VISTA DR # 45 LOMITA CA 90717-3772 1951 ROLLING VISTA DR # 46 LOMITA CA 90717-3772 1969 ROLLING VISTA DR #47 LOMITA CA 90717-3770 1969 ROLLING VISTA DR 48 LOMITA CA 90717-3770 160 E REMINGTON DR NO C-12 SUNNYVALE CA 94087 1969 ROLLING VISTA DR 49 LOMITA CA 90717-3770 1960 ROLLING VISTA DR # 49 LOMITA CA 90717-3703 1969 ROLLING VISTA DR # 50 LOMITA CA 90717-3770 PO BOX 383 HARBOR CITY CA 90710-0383 1969 ROLLING VISTA DR 51 LOMITA CA 90717-3770 1985 ROLLING VISTA DR 52 LOMITA CA 90717-3762 30129 MIRALESM DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-6475 1985 ROLLING VISTA DR # 53 LOMITA CA 90717-3762 1985 ROLLING VISTA DR # 54 LOMITA CA 90717-3762 1985 ROLLING VISTA DR # 55 LOMITA CA 90717-3762 1%7 ROLLING VISTA DR # 56 LOMITA CA 90717-3753 1967 ROLLING VISTA DR # 57 LOMITA CA 90717-3753 1967 ROLLING VISTA DR # 58 LOMITA CA 90717-3753 1967 ROLLING VISTA DR # 59 LOMITA CA 90717-3753 1949 ROLLING VISTA DR # 60 LOMITA CA 90717-3771 1949 ROLLING VISTA DR # 61 LOMITA CA 90717-3771 1949 ROLLING VISTA DR 62 LOMITA CA 90717-3771 26314 REGENT AVE LOMITA CA 90717-3518 1949 ROLLING VISTA DR #63 LOMITA CA 90717-3771 26607 S WESTERN AVE LOMITA CA 90717 2 S CORAL CIR MONTEREY PARK CA 91755-7404 26903 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 26909 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 26915 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 26919 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 26925 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 26931 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 26935 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 1895 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1000 1909 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1054 1939 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1054 1945 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1054 1955 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1054 1958 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 8117 W MANCHESTER AV # 19 PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293 1954 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1948 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1942 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1936 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1932 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1928 W PENINSULA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 1926 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1922 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1918 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 1914 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 25 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 26 172 CLIFFORD B. & MICHIKO N. AGNEW 1910 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 173 RICHARD & BEVERLY & R. J. & B. S. B 1906 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 174 R. BOOTH & LOIS R. TARXI NGTON 1902 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1053 175 MICHAEL E. & FRANCEEN MCCLUNG 1896 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 176 EDWARD J. & DEBORAH GLENWRIGHT 1890 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 177 YASUKO OIKE 1884 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 178 BRIAN CHILDERS 1878 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 179 ANGELO P. NAPOLITANO 1872 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 180 OCCUPANT 1868 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 181 NAMHYUNG KIM 1858 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 182 GRADICH HELEN TRUST 1860 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 183 JAMES H ROBERTS TRUST 1856 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 184 JAMES L. & GWENDOLYN K. WEBB 1848 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 185 GULABI & NASIR H. SAMNAN 1842 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 186 ROBERT & GLORIA H GIEDT TRUST 1836 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 187 DAVOD & DAVID SEQUEIRA 1832 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 188 FRED A. & FLORENCE K. GREY 1826 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 189 SHIRLEY M. BLUSH 1820 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 190 WENDY R. KATAGI 1814 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 191 LEONARD M. MAZZA 1808 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 192 NORBERT R. & GLORIA STEPHENSON 1802 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1051 193 GERALD R & VIVIAN J HOLMES TRUST 26902 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 194 GARY L. NOFZIGER 26912 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 195 VINCENT S & KM REHER TRUST 26918 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 196 JAMES R & MARY J STRUBERG TRUST 26926 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 197 JOSE P. & DEBORRAH R. COMANDANTE 26934 CIRCLE VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1055 198 FRANK E & PATRCIA AKINS TRUST 26911 LUNADA CIRCLE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1050 199 PRIMO D. & ROSITA B. LIM 26905 LUNADA CIRCLE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1050 r" 200 EARL G. & EMIKO FUKUMOTO 26901 LUNADA CIRCLE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1050 201 BIEl'JWNIDO B. & NANCY D. BRAGAS 26900 LUNADA CIRCLE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1050 202 ANTHONY C. & EVELYN FAILLA 26904 LUNADA CIRCLE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1050 203 FRED & GLORIA M SABATH TRUST 26910 LUNADA CIRCLE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1050 204 JIRYLS & MANAL F. SAYEGH 1829 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1052 205 SANNI & MOHANA WEHBE 1819 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1052 206 REGINA & AUGUSTINE BONILL 1821 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1052 207 ARTEMIO & BARBAR A. LAGLEVA 1815 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1052 208 STEPHEN J. & HILDA G. FOX 1811 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1052 209 OCCUPANT 1805 PENINSULA VERDE DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 902754052 210 JOHN H. SIBBISON 4030 PALOS VRDS DR N STE 20: ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274-2562 211 US GOVT 1740 PALOS VERDES DR W PALOS VERDES ESTATE CA 90274-1849 212 OCCUPANT 1704 WESTERN AVE RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 213 OCCUPANT 1724 WESTERN AVE A RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 214 OCCUPANT 1724 WESTERN AVE B RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 215 OCCUPANT 1724 WESTERN AVE C RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 216 OCCUPANT 1740 WESTERN AVE RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 U S GOVT/ DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN 217 DEVELOPMENT- PROPERTY MNGT DIVISION 2500 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90057 218 DONALD E CASE TRUST 27642 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 219 DONALD A. IANNIITI 27636 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 220 KEITH L. JONES 27630 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 221 RAYMOND & LTDIA GALLARDO 27624 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 222 GIOVANNI & MARIA INCAVIGLIA 27618 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 223 ALFREDO & SHERRY & ELIZABETH HERMAN 26712 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 224 TRINIDAD C COOPER TRUST 27604 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 225 RICHARD M. & VERA SMIRNOFF 27600 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1011 226 JOEL ESPIRITU 1803 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1004 227 MUM & RITA CASTANIA 1807 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1004 228 JOHN L. FRENCH 1813 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1004 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 26 229 MARTHA E. ROBBERSTAD 1819 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1004 230 JOHN W & ANNA M SHANNON TRUST 1825 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1004 231 PATRICIA L. JENSEN 1831 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 232 LLOYD & BETTY WATSON TRUST 1837 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1004 233 RENO DIAS 1903 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 234 RICHARD & PATRICIA SHERMAN 1909 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 235 LA R. A. EDGAR 1915 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 236 ROGER A. & HELEN G. METZLER 1921 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 237 KENNETH & LEE BARBARA ODWONG 1929 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 238 STEVE C. & MARGIE CHENEY 1935 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 239 OCCUPANT 1941 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 240 ALLEN Y. & HELEN L. HAYASH PO BOX 22 TORRANCE CA 90507-0022 241 MARK L. HILL 1947 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 242 MICHAEL J LOCOCO TRUST 1953 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 243 JOSEPH R & DORIS L MILLER TRUST 1959 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 244 LISA M. & BO A. HANSEN 1965 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 245 MARY C. MATTINGLY 1971 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 246 OKSENKRUG FAMILY TRUST 1979 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 247 NORMA E. BAUER 1985 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 248 DJOKO & RUBY K. SOEJOTO 1991 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1006 249 CHARLES V. & BEVERLY O. GLENN 2003 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 250 GORDON L. GOLDBERG 2009 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 251 TIMOTHY J. & MONIQUE M. ESPOSITO 2017 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 252 MARLIN & EURA WILLIAMS TRUST 2021 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 253 JAMES M. & CRYSTAL L. QUARRY 2029 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 254 WILLIAM & JOJEAN MARKS TRUST 2035 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 255 DIVNA M. MUELLER 2041 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 256 ERIC C. & JANICE L. PEREZ 2049 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 257 ANTHONY J. & VICKIE A. MANCUSI 2055 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 258 JAMES J & MARIE FASTIGGI TRUST 2061 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 259 GERARD D. & CHRISTINE E. BECKER 2067 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 260 MANNAS FAMILY TRUST 2073 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 261 HAL S. CLAYSON 2081 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 262 M & K CORDOVA 2005 FAM TRUST 2087 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1008 263 L A CITY DEPT OF WATER & POWER PO BOX 51111 LOS ANGELES CA 90051-5700 264 SHELLY FLETCHER 2090 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1033 265 GO NOBORU & AKEMI SUNAGA TRUST 2086 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1033 266 LAURENCE J & JEAN E JONES TRUST 2080 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 267 DANIEL R. & LOIS A. TREGARTHEN 2074 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1033 268 LEWIS T. & KATHY J. BERTRAND 2068 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1033 269 CARL & LINDA ANTONOVICH 2062 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1033 270 ROBERT H & SHIRLEY J BRAUN TRUST 2056 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1033 271 GREGORY & DIANE T. SPURLOCK 27605 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 272 MICHAEL J. & CATHY E. OLSON 27611 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 273 WOLLEAT FAMILY TRUST 27617 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 274 DANIEL & CONNIE GREGORY TRUST 27625 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 275 CARL J & ILA I HOLZBAUER TRUST 27630 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 276 SIMONE M. KOTSM11H 27624 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 277 DENNY W. WARD 27620 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 278 TERRY S. TAMBLE 27612 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 279 SEKO TRUST 27606 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 280 HARRY G. & DOROTHY HARTMAN 27602 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 281 DAVID J. & BRENDA BAUNE 27603 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1022 282 BURGESS W. & JOYCE M. SLAGLE 27605 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1022 283 BETTY J. & A. STEFFES 27611 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1022 284 SANDRA J. SCHUCK 1816 VELEZ DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1422 285 OCCUPANT 27617 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1022 286 PETER V. FIAMENGO 27621 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1022 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 27 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 28 287 ERIC T. & MARY J. FUJLSAKI 27642 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 288 ROLAND S. & B. WEBER 27636 ELDENA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1023 289 SCOTT A & KARLA I GLOVER TRUST 27631 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 290 WILLIAM R & LOU HAGEMEIER TRUST 27637 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 291 SALVATORE & VIRGINIA DIBENNARDO 27643 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1002 292 CRUKWUEMEKA & ADAMMA AJUFOH 27648 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1003 293 JOHN & CATHERINE L. DULZO 27642 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1003 294 LOUIS HEIMFELD TRUST 27636 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1003 295 STEPHEN D & JANICE A TAUS TRUST 27628 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 296 IRVING & SANDRA M RZEPNICK 27620 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRI) CA 90275-1003 297 ROY E & C C HALE 2003 TRUST 27612 AVENIDA DELMESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 298 ROBERT & DONNA S. BRANDELLI 27604 AVENIDA DEL MESA RCH PALOS VRD CA 902754003 299 SIDNEY M & TERYL D CULVER TRUST 2022 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1009 300 JOSEPH & SHIRLEY FE 2016 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 301 BYRON W. BISCOE 2008 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1009 302 STEVE M. & JENNIFER D. APPELBAUM 2002 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1009 303 THEODORE R. & MARY C. ERLANDSON 1990 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 304 ROBERT D. & RAMONA A. R. MERRICK 1984 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 305 OCCUPANT 1978 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 306 JUAN C. & NEOME D. VELASQUEZ 2532 COLT RD RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-6504 307 MILAN & MARIJA DOMINIS 1970 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 308 JOSEPH J. & BEVERLY A. SVORIMCH 1964 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 309 YVONNE M CARR 1958 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 310 PHILLIP & LISA L CALIFANO 1952 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 311 NOLLS FAMILY TRUST 1946 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 312 MISETICH FAMILY TRUST 2015 REDONDELA DR SAN PEDRO CA 90732 313 JOSEPH A. & VICTORIA M. WHITMAN 2009 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1029 314 TIMOTHY P. & RIMA M. OLINGER 27607 BANDRA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1020 315 IRVING H & MARY C EHRLICH TRUST 27603 BANDRA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1020 316 JAMES P. O°DONNELL 276M BANDRA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1020 317 OCCUPANT 27600 BANDRA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1021 318 JOHN T. & MICHELLE S. BURWASSER 8614 CHEVIOT HTS SAN ANTONIO TX 78254-2302 319 MARY J FULLER TRUST 27606 BANDRA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1021 320 LEONID & ALIC IA SICHAN 1983 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 321 BEVERLY J. PICKETT 1977 REDONDELA DR RCH PALLS VRD CA 90275-1027 322 GERALD A. & PHYLLIS rACONA 1971 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 323 JOHN L. & CHERYL L. LUCERO 1965 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 324 PATRICK & BARBRO CHARTRAND 1957 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 325 R & I SAMUDIO LIVING TRUST 1951 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 326 MATTHEW & DOLORES OLSEN 1945 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 327 DAVID R. & NICOLA J. PALMER 1939 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 328 JOHN P. & ANTHONY M. KRUZIC 1933 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 329 PAULINE K. HOSPE 1927 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 330 GUY A. & SANDRA K. PUGLIESE 1921 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 331 JOHN F. & SHARON M. GOGGINS 1915 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 332 SALVATION ARMY 180 E OCEAN BLVD LONG BEACH CA 90802-4709 333 OCCUPANT 1909 REDONDELA DR RCH PALLS VRD CA 90275-1027 334 R E & J S RTTZKE LIVING TRUST 1903 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1027 335 EMERY L. & DIANA L. LARA 27605 ALVESTA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1018 336 HYMEN & DEENA M GOLDMAN TRUST 27601 ALVESTA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1018 337 MARTIN L. LONKY 27600 ALVESTA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1019 338 JUAN C & N D VELASQUEZ TRUST 2532 COLT RD RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-6504 339 OCCUPANT 1851 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1036 340 OCCUPANT 27604 ALVESTA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1019 341 DOUGLAS G. & LAURA A. ARZOUMANIAN 1843 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1036 342 AMERICAN PACIFIC SURETY SVCS I 2215 VIA ANACAPA PALOS VERDES ESTATE CA 90274-2674 343 OCCUPANT 1837 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1036 344 ARTURO A. & MONICA FUENTES 27645 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1010 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 28 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 29 345 ANASTASIOS GIONIS 27639 TARRASA DR PCH PADS VRD CA 90275-1010 346 TOMSON T. & INGER A. ONG 27633 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275 347 BILL J & NORMA A KOSTICH TRUST 27627 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1010 348 GEORGE P. & FLORENCE J. DILLON 27621 TARRAZAA DR SAN PEDRO CA 90732 349 FERRANDINO PEARL TRUST 27613 TARRASA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1010 350 DANIEL A. & ANNA GRAFF 1812 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1005 3511 C & M C VELASQUEZ FAM TRUST 27604 ALVESTA PL RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1019 352 OCCUPANT 1818 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1005 353 JOE M. DRAGICH 1824 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1005 354 SERGIO BANUELOS 1830 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1005 355 JAMES W NACE TRUST 1836 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1005 356 ROBERT S. & JOYCELIN C. LAWRENCE 1902 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 357 OCCUPANT 1908 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 358 PHILIP & PATRICIA ZALENSK 1056 W 13TH ST SAN PEDRO CA 90731-3908 359 ROBERT M JOYCE FAMILY TRUST 1914 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 360 BYUNG S. & YUNG N. KIM 1920 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 361 GIUSEPPE & ROSALIA ORLANDO 1928 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 362 ADRIAN & BETH A. GROVE 1934 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 363 JUAN C. & NEOME D. VELASQUEZ 1940 AVENIDA FELICIANO RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1007 364 VINT TRUST 1856 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1037 365 BORIS ANTOLOS 1904 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 366 DEBORAH A. & BRIAN R. MOSSBERG 1912 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 367 SLAVKO J. & PAULA M. ANTOLOS 1918 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 368 JOHN W. & ROSSI TA C. LA FOREST 1926 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 369 ANTHONY & MARTHA MUNOZ 1934 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 370 ROSE A. BATTU 1942 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 371 KERSTIN DE VIRGILIO 1950 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 372 DAVID R & JUDITH E SCOTT TRUST 1956 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 373 CRAIG B. & CAROLYN KELFORD 1964 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 374 DINO & ANNA M. ANDRIE 1972 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 375 DOROTHY H. SIKORA 1982 REDONDELA DR RCH PALOS VRD CA 90275-1028 376 WALTER J. & GLORIA G. POTRZUSKI 27616 SADDLE RD ROLLING HILLS CA 902745128 377 PHILOMENA M APARICIO TRUST 27608 SADDLE RD ROLLING HILLS CA 90274-5128 378 CLAUDIA R. GRIECO 27602 SADDLE RD ROLLING HLS EST CA 902745128 379 E & S MAGANA LIVING TRUST 2201 CARRIAGE DR ROLLING HLS EST CA 902745101 380 OCCUPANT 2209 CARRIAGE DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 9027451M 381 APARICIO FAMILY TRUST 27608 SADDLE RD ROLLING HIS EST CA 902745128 382 FRANKLIN A. WEISMAN 2211 CARRIAGE DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 902745101 383 SHELLEY NASH GOODIN FAMILY TRUST 418 MALAGA IN PALOS VERDES ESTATE CA 90274-1305 384 OCCUPANT 2219 CARRIAGE DR ROLLING HLS EST CA 902745101 385 BRIDGET IC CARMAN 2225 CARNAGE DR ROLLING HIS EST CA 90274 386 IRVING M ZIFF TRUST 27603 SADDLE RD ROLLING HLS EST CA 90274-5127 387 JPL ZONING SERVICES INC. #5512 6263 VAN NUYS BL VAN NUYS CA 91401 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 29 Neighbors that Attended Information Meeting December, 2006 LATE CORRESPONDENCE .3u From: Michael N. Friedman <mnfesq@hfllp.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:12 PM To: CC Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carla Morreale; Carolynn Petru; 'Ellen Berkowitz'; 'Brian Carter'; 'Matt Martin'; 'Julie Keye' Subject: Green Hills' Appeal - Case No. ZON2003-00086 - Hearing Date: January 20, 2015 Attachments: Green Hills 2005 Application.pdf; Green Hills 2003 Application.pdf Dear Council Members: I apologize for sending you an email regarding the above -referenced appeal, set for hearing at this evening's meeting. Unfortunately, Green Hills' attorney has the habit of sending lengthy correspondence at the very last minute in an effort to avoid having anyone respond to her. The use of the "11th hour" tactic is, perhaps, one of the reasons we are in this situation in the first place. If the applicant would give others a reasonable opportunity to review and respond to the information they supply, it would not now be complaining about the City's mistakes in its erroneous approval of Green Hills' amended master plan. At this point, I do not know how much of what I write will be properly "digested" by the council members and am, more likely, contributing to the administrative record that is being compiled for the likely Superior Court review of this matter. Nonetheless, it is important that the record be complete. Ms. Berkowitz made several references to the application package submitted by Green Hills in September 2006. She did not attach a copy of that package to her letter although it contains several other exhibits. According to her, all of the information regarding the "true" nature of the project is contained in this application package. Vista Verde resident, Matthew Martin, however, made request of the City Manager to provide copies of Green Hills' application for its revised master plan and was provided with an initial application filed with the City in 2003 and a revised application filed with the City in 2005. The erroneous and misleading information regarding the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is contained in these two applications. I have attached them hereto for inclusion in the record of this proceeding. The exact words which I complained about in my letter to you dated January 12, 2015, are found in these applications. It appears, however, that Green Hills' application was deemed complete on November 22, 2006. Despite Mr. Martin's request, he was not provided with any revised application filed in September 2006. It appears, then, that the investigation of this matter remains incomplete and, before a decision is reached, Vista Verde urges the City to make a complete investigation of the facts underlying its approval of Green Hills' revised master plan. Thank you for considering this so near in time to tonight's meeting. Michael Friedman Michael N. Friedman HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LL, 5023 N. Parkway Calabasas Calabasas, California 01.302-1421 Tel/Fax (818) 225-9553 Cell (81 8) 642-0822 Frail mnfesa0lifllp.com Website www.hfilp.com 1 / LATE CORRESPONDENCE 32 GGG� CITYOF LW*14\ RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLMNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT GRADING APPROVAL APPLICATION NUIVIBER # �&v6e('5' APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: (Name) ZG 19 vi t;L-?20rzNJ (Address) r� Telephone: Home LANDOWNER: , S-ro �- 2--( DD I I r') c . Work 411�. SZZ, 40 3 � 6 P-4 -t7 n (Name) t I l' o f -�; (Address) Telephone: Home Work 31©. 9 $ l I, Lot and Tract No: Project Location: _ Project Description: _ General Information: $0 1 2 3 2 Dot 3 G.9 Ar- G2-'2 4 Maximum height of project, measured from top to lowest foundation wall to ridge. Maximum height of project above finished grade. Square footage of project. (Building footprint) If addition, square footage of existing structure (including any Page 10 30940 FiAVV I HC)RNE BLVD. / I�ANCI10 PALOS VFI2DEs, CA 9027;,)-536)1 i}LANNINC,/LODE ENFoI�(:FMI..n i (M) 544-0228 i 8(lirk,r7*84CIO�f}�.�r�ESCPIj�(N1�-� j�l1NC1e@R1-1V.0 � 52 %v"1 Cora 6. 1�L Arca �3 p/. 7. (p V, 8. Grading Information: Lot Type: Pad covered or enclosed patios). Square footage of driveways and parking areas. (mac t -1-i S c? u A ate.of Square footage of lot. Percentage of existing open space. Percentage of open space after development. Upslope Downslope atie=s- 1. Maximum depth of cut. 2 ;26 41 w 2. Total cubic yards of cut. I Cao e.l A. Under the building (excluding footings). I © B. Outside of building footprint. i Cs 3. Maximum height of fill. 2c5p 4. Total cubic yards of fill. G A. Under the building. B. Outside of building footprint. 25_ 5. Total volume of earth to be moved. o' -� A. Under the building (sum of lines 2A & 4A). 3� B. Outside of building footprint (sum of Imes 2B & 4B). 3 n "'/� 6. Maximum percentage of created slopes. _Vafa-t e -s 7. Total average slope of site. N/- 8. Maximum height of downslope retaining wall. N /d 9. Maximum height of upslope retaining wall. 3 °1a 10. Maximum percentage grade of driveway. ./A,rt-± c-- -s 11. Maximum percentage of existing slope. Page 11 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 34 Does the project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or public drainage structure? . d a . If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction permits. Does the project require any off-site gra mg (remedial, contour, utilities, etc.) or stockpile of excavated materials? INO If so, provide a written explanation as to why it is necessary, the quantity, and length of time the stockpile will remain. Also, delineate on a plan the limits of off-site grading and/or stockpile. If off-site grading is required provide proof of landowner approval. Information to Determine if a Foliage Analysis is Necessary �S Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which is 120 square feet or more in size and which can be used as a gathering space and viewing area (i.e., decks, covered patios)? 1 - Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which consists of 120 square feet or more of habitable space (i.e., room expansions, additions, conversions)? If the answer is "no" to both questions, the proposed project is exempt from the "foliage removal" requirements, and a foliage analysis of the applicant's property is not necessary. If the answer is "yes" to either question, a foliage analysis must be conducted by Staff prior to approval of the Grading Permit Application to determine if any existing foliage on the applicant's property, which exceeds 10 feet orthe ridgeline of the primary residence, whichever is lower, impairs a view from any surrounding properties. Voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility Pre -application Step Was the voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility Pre -application step completed? A) Yes B) No If yes, please include the Neighborhood Compatibility Consultation Form (NC -F) at the time of application submittal. COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 70 OF THE CITY BUILDING CODE Upon approval of the application by the Director of Planning or Planning Commission, the application must still conform to all conditions imposed by Chapter 70 of the City Building Code, including all required fees, and approval by the Director is not final until approval has been granted by the City Engineer. Continued on next page Page 12 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 35 CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL I UNDERSTAND that a City business license is required for all work performed in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This license is obtainable from the City's Finance Department prior to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division. (initials) Sig f Applicant/Contract Dated: ) • 2c� Staff Signature: Date Received: WAForms\Pinglapps\Grading Application.doc Revised: 06-24-03 Signature of Landowner Dated: Page 13 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 36 .019 d�co`lf qoob, �C ITVF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONAL U PERMIT Goons► APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: (Name): '5APLyV�,��� uX R ANNINGI, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCLMLN_f APPLICATIO NO. ��0 �00� -D l �5�-O LANDOWNER: (Name): ,�L�,6c- rs 41 Ls PA -i- K - (Address): .S ubfl-t" oma, It -34 . (Address): '��l�a� s. G�)e%Te v=. S91 9 W ra-e4 1. , Art-cw,� S . T -� C --,2l 9 NE-ira Phone: Work: ) L2., 33 Phone: Work.: ALL t32 11�> Home: ( ) Home: ( ) Project Location: S. W�sT<-rtn1 ra �'W" Project Description: cQ' -tit 41 LA— OG:o(2,1 Ar -L— PA-�—f - Lot & Tract Number: Current Zoning: cle 8,,. --c'c " ( C.,,::F #A GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Development ' [, !„25 sr1. Square footage of existing structure foot rint (including any covered or enclosed patios and garage). �;z 2. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. S 210 1C. a sr 3. Square footage of lot or parcel. l ooa 325 sr- 4. Square footage of existing lot coverage [line 1 + line 2]. 5. Percentage of existing open space. [100% - (line 4 divided by line 3)]. Proposed Development (PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY IF A NEW STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED) 301 6. Maximum height of project, measured from the highest point of existing grade covered by the structure to ridge. 7. Maximum height of project, measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest foundation to ridge. 3094o Hmvi'I IORNE BLVD / RANCHO RALO5 VLR01-13. CA !10275-5391 P1 ? An. u. ?c;�.:<�;:.�L l.nr c�izc:tN?L. I! t?,n? 54,1-52128 i (3UILL"A'` E CORRES '. a � ,N DE NG I) cc,37 VA,N6s - 8 oo 41,F 9 10 (, 2sbbjJLr- 11 12 Square footage of proposed A. First Story = B. Second Story= _ new floor area. Square footage of proposed new structure footprint. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. 4 Square footage of new lot coverage jlin�1 + line 9 + line 101. Percentage of new open space [100% - (line 11 divided by line 3)]. GRADING INFORMATION Are any of the following conditions proposed? v/'. Yes _ No If yes, a separate Grading Application is required. k Total volume of earth to be moved (cut and fill) is 20 c.y. or greater. Height of fill or depth of cut is 3 feet or greater. Does the project involve any work activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or public drainage structure? j o. If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction permits. Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development: C-'1(-� t� tJ �.1 1� `� J (moi p� ti , _ S c CTI d_+�i c �J = Lta f'^11 t-07��a_ vim_ A- C� T 4l• i -fit L? / " �5} S £`� Ue �V1I1 L t )_ !S. Burden of Proof Statements Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. U s A,c, -esa c-� s� 4A cF QSt I sJ�.-� ('q=0\J � SAS-Cr`'2-. 2L -A - LATE CORRESPONDENCE 38 2. Explain how the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed to carni the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. kc"- `T G c0 I L,4- i3 c C -M'- FI A coo � 1 GA�-S`T t Q G -4 --,F- Ce -,F C t M tre R 1-.3 AW S Ia l -t } IN �.{�t _ C) CAA -i f t %c"o 1' c.a P -c> A-_+ .y AA -1— 0 e _ (2z my S AL1 5 /ate P A. zi-g) �; fv- 3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use thereof. zi of) S ( i ST 10 E) VTi L-17zC-P 0KA�TVz.i R-0 ra a C = 4 CA-YvA Pu s ' yrs 4 c--Ff - 4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. Q,`, S ---13 f;,-- C-7 U C AP -,Z7 -fl l Ca I j cW.b dJ �k r�3 C �} 1T F'V-A I vi P-- Gi, t J S -r"[ KSTS d,(:,- MGI ` Qc u,..- " F ciy- vS Nt� � 1.�c.ci-�' ► o N l5 � � ��>� ��i�:a ►.� �-- f` � �G 1� � rsT� ti] - c1=�ss�tzc-1� f�R- -c-0 kyI ►J U tE~ h C�6 til C "CE 0-`-( rLN; RA—C k a r) S P-fJ 6 U to() AX t 0 G, 6F t T l Q cn kkA S�°c� P� . I HER BY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materiels —� su#ed vvitb.�is application are true and correct. and _ Sign ture of Applicant/Cont act r Signature of Landowner 7.1. srup�-r cep, to,-, ted; +4+.t Ubf2 Dated: CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL: I UNDERSTAND that in order to perform work in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a business license must be obtained from the City's Finance Department prior to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division. (initials) Staff Signature W lrorms\Pinglapps\Conditional Use Permil doc updated 7101 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 3€7,ge6 CITUOF RANCHO PALOSVERDES PLANNING. BUILDING, & C ODE ENFOR('IMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMIEar The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has compiled lists of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites for the entire State of California. Although the current list for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (reproduced below) is based upon data retrieved from the Cal/EPA web site on September 16, 2003, you should be aware that these lists are revised periodically. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(f), before the City can accept an application as complete, the applicant must consult the list and indicate whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site, which is included on any such list, and shall specify any list. 11APACT Com: RANCHO PALLS VERDES S`rREEi ADDRESS CURRENT USE EoRMER USE RWQCiB CASE No. CASE STATUS 3868 CREST ROAD i FAA radar site Same R-13308 Closed 5656 CREST ROAD Demolished Unocal service station 1-06500 open 5837 CREST ROAD Cal, Water offices Same R-05395 Open 5841 CREST ROAD Verizon facility Same � R-12296 Closed 28103 HA%wrHORNE BOULEVARD Mobil service station Same R-01504 Open 28732 HIGHRImE ROAD Hilltop Automotive Unocal service station 1-06434 Closed 96 NARCISSA DRIVE — F Residence Same ` R-23219 Closed 6100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Residence (1 Sea Cove Drive) Shell service station R-36348 Closed 6124 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Fire Station No. 53 Same � R-12757 Closed 6560 PALLS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Two residences (32504 & 32508 Seawolf Drive) Chevron service station R-14832 Closed 6600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SouT." Partially demolished Marineland and Texaco service station R-01409 Closed 31.280 PALOS VERGES ®Rive WEST Unocal service station Same I-11074 Closed 31.501 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Point Vicente Interpretive Center U.S. Military rifle range N/A Open 27501 WESTERN AVENUE Green Hills Memorial Park Same —�� — - R-12803 Open 29421 WESTERN AVENUE Chevron service station Same I-15523 Closed 29505 WESTERN AVENUa Shopping center Mobil service station - R-03558 Open -- 29701 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center _ Unocal service station R-05958 Closed %n the event that the project site and any alternatives proposed in the application are not contained on the Cal/EPA lists, please certify that fact as provided below. i have consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on :hese lists. (Applicant) (Signature) (Date) '30NOIEVrVI`10RNLBIYD,`I�NT:i10I!vil�i�`LIZhI:-S t;��f�;)lihf;afil � Yi111` O( 0 )1 I .NIH X21 l hl iti l (3101 5.1.4 1711 I ,I II Il'l � 4 �:, I_.t' 'TE CORR ' 'F't�N �E'N` `E < "'�i40 HAZARDOUS WASTE AND StJBST,'ANCIES Si'ATEMENT If the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the CAL/EPA lists, please complete the following statement, 1. Name of Applicant: 2. Address: q r�-Q 1 S. 3, Phone dumber: Day (??�' 11 - 2 i Evening L_--) - 4. Address of Site (Street name and number if available, and ZIP code): ✓C,""l $7 t�� r r2 �: 1� Pam Q'2-'7 1 5. Local Agency (City/County): _f + t I 6. Assessor's Book, Page, and Parcel dumber: - - J. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: 3. Regulatory Identification Number: 9. Date of List: (Applicant) (Signature) F , STAFF USE ONLY (Date) I have consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are located on a site which: (check one) Is not: included in these lists. Is included In these lists, and the project applicant has completed the statement required by Section 65962,5(f) of the Government Code. Is included in these lists, and I have notified the applicant, pursuant, to Section 65943 of the Government Cade, that he or she has failed to complete the statement: required by Section 65962.5(f) of the Government Code by letter dated Staff Signature Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement Page 2 of 2 Revised March 1, 2004 W:`Forms\P1ng\misc`Hazarddg5 Waste & Substances Statement.doc LATE CORRESPONDENCE 41 CITVO-L RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY U OWNER ' AI .I UST App Iiication( s) --I AN s� � . - � kf\A E -N t� M ------- Applicant Name _ rA R,G �C- _ -��tt �� UVB C= MI(Z.t AL. Subject Property Address 1,1 � l S ink s�� N 4:11) Z O U:. -- - Notice Radkm Requilred ._..__,_ Sn�a Number of property oitvners to be notified 3 4a � c -C 4'7t`a,�,t+%;z0 " sT) I certify that the property owners' mailing list submitted with the application(s) listed above includes all of the persons listed on the latest adopted LA County Tax Roll as the legal owners (and if applicable occupants) of all parcels of laird within 15-%q feet of the subject property noted above. I certify that the property owners' mailing list has been prepared in accordance with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and "Vicinity iWap Instructions Sheet. ° / also understand that if more than 20% of the notices are returned by the post office aftermailing due to incorrect address information, orif the address information is not complete, that l will have to submit a new property owners' list that has ,been prepared and certified as accurate by a Title Company or other professional mailing list preparation service, and tj�e project notice will have to be re -mailed. Prop omerl- (Applicant) Signatwe' Date lame (Plee Print) 'A/.\Forms\Pinglmiscicerdhcation of Property Owners' Mailing Lisk.doc 30NO 1 1+AVV lr lORM. [:MI"i Jl2-aN ia-, �yr,ll�, ,,r.t ii,; N[�,��.�<� �11 111 (:;Irl; �,;,.; >>�, ",1N l L- ATE' 'CRRES'PO:N DE'NC« ;i), � :)"42 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by City Staff) Date Filed: (To be completed by applicant) General Information APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR Name S r�A2Tac�q, Jra Address r7 S 21 City/State/Zip 1n(� �( ����� Home Phone Work Phone Project/Site Information Case No, LANDOWNER /7 w Name tzl,�D i S l ATL pal Address City/State/Zip Home Phone Work Phone Address of project: _ T1'S' , L S. tLl2 S-S'� 2r� >-U;-�7- U` Assessor's Parcel Number: Existing General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning: List and Describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by City, Regional, State, and Federal agencies: A S "C S CZE' ► Y� ut it �= 7J tVt e � C C rQ- Pq 7 LATE CORRESPONDENCE 43 Environmental Information Form Page 2 Project Description Proposed use of the property (please provide a detailed description): 0 GL -v 0 t N Gn Cq r2.o o 0 r� t-!, a, A, L S LE!X> J �- A. r4 ,'far l P -C Nk 1,J S o t..A,`QAA C47Lt:; I+2 A -C t ca n S r U rzt_-N M l"tJ( 1.,N cD RLJ 2i Site Size: Project Square Footage: Number of floors of construction: Amount of off-street parking provided: � V\A Proposed Phasing: S S I -t-c p -&-14 Anticipated Incremental Development: If this is a residential project, please indicate the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and household sizes expected: If this is a commercial project, please indicate the type of project, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square foot of sales area, and loading facilities. p / A -L, --S A.(z.9t- Ar c)F2- L- ik r r Q G, PA C A 4 .L M L If this is an industrial project, please indicate the type of project, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: /Jk--. —_ -- - LATE CORRESPONDENCE 44 Environmental Information Form Page 3 If this is an institutional project, please indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project; If the project involves a City discretionary permit (such as Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or Zone Change application, etc.) please indicate why these applications are required: Are any of the following items applicable to the project or its effects? (for any items checked yes, please describe why on separate sheet of paper) YES NO / 1. Change in existing feature of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills, or substantially alter ground contours. ✓ 2. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, or public lands or roads 3. Change in pattern, scale, or character of general area of project. 4. Produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter. �- 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. 6. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream, ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns _�- 7. Substantially change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ✓ 8. Site is on filled land or on slope of 10% or more. ✓ 9. Use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables, or explosives. LATE CORRESPONDENCE 45 Environmental Information Form Page 4 10. Substantially change the demand for municipal services (i.e. police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). vz 11. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (i.e. electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). ,/ 12. Relationship to a larger project or a series of projects. Environmental Setting On a separate page, please describe the project site, as it exists before the project. Please include information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Additionally, please describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of said structures. Please attach photographs of the site and the structures (snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted) On a separate page, please describe the surrounding properties. Please include information on plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Please indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of the land use (single-family, multi -family, shops, department stores, etc.) and the scale of development (height, frontage, setbacks, etc.). Please attach photographs of the vicinity (snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted) NOTE: Before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes can accept this application as complete, the applicant must consult the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and submit a signed statement indicting whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and shall specify any list (Please see attached Hazardous Waste and Substance Statement). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Please complete the attached Exhibit "A" Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statement, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. j' tau Signature I Print Name u.,S � .t o ��n--rz c� L • ' , . 20 d 5 For Date LATE CORRESPONDENCE 46 Environmental Information Form Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM EXHIBIT "A" Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Please check of level of impact for each question. In comment box, please provide reasons and supporting evidence for the section (attach additional pages if necessary). Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies , with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use ✓ in the vicinity? d) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural `J community conservation plan? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Co�mpments- t i2, p co O'3 r -z n_v"' A, N C."G U3 VT 14 kPPpov I`i!t l NAA$ 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or ✓� local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 47 Environmental Information Form Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 4 NPP/L')J _—.-o lqq 1 , 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the proposal: a) Expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ✓' iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ✓ c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, ✓ subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, thus creating substantial risks to life or property? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 48 Environmental Information Form Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not ✓l available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: �i P. S Pf'= I) v -t-0 P lu 1 --1ST rc ..(l -At z CR L t � �' S 1�r �F��` � �`fR U � (Zo5 &A z ts7-, , 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any water quality standard or wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer ✓ volume or a lowering of the local groundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or �- amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 49 Environmental Information Form Page S Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or property to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Have construction impact on storm water runoff? 1) Have post construction activity impact on storm water runoff? Comments: P a. S Zo w al -U L -..D VIE! U . s l ce 1. +, t A c_ao4%Z NN�CIC LU ,Tt+ aiz 01 �'1 A So AS azxi IWtppc-T laA�A�"►Jr Pf�o P�f�-Tt C�� �t�S� Gar.�SC� UeT(or� [alt&S5 Cta�i�n u�tnke��c t� 5��,(zun wh-ry2 Af3Ptcnao—nr� p�e.cr��rr we 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ./ air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a ✓� substantial number of people? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 50 !r'7 Environmental Information Form Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan? Comments: T P P®spm F'r.��-c ( �i� s tj� n4 F'a�7 a 9. �a.tiLt rel . 6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal, a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street ✓f system? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for ✓ designated roads or highways? c) Result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to ✓. nearby uses? d) Result in insufficient parking capacity . on-site or off-site? e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g. farm equipment? Comments: A� pa -0 ('o s -r� � (ti il �-S � fz c INT 2 r.1 4 C� W VT K Amp (T LC> PA Tb SL c `S'; R -e =?V S(c`i� A.c.�- X9_6' ='1 c, vJ� u. E3 t.rJ (3 �-��p WZ7A r P "T i� c LATE CORRESPONDENCE 51 Environmental Information Form Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or ✓ by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc...), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological ✓ resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: `�C+i� P2opa S.�-p a��•a,s-C �•-Yz. P�-�,-ra t Nt-�..•uD:� � ��=L.o,P^1�1.1`� csF �,� S`t"i ►'� � c.� dui `C�: rz-i-r Qrti.o n �--c y w ,•-t• � nrb �� a � t c,A�-r t�-c'"��l/� cLr c l 6 I VV" LATE CORRESPONDENCE 52 Environmental Information Form Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues finless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ✓ conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a ✓ wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ✓n of future value to the region and the residents of the State? c) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan? Comments: 1 k' PCL'tp - s -C� (P t s -rt rx t -a IQ 174, tJ I N', P Ac. T `Co 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Would the proposal involve: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the 1,✓ release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government / Code Section 65962.5 and, as a V result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 53 Environmental Information Form Page 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: .1. C -.T A.f��fr. �P �A � oU S r�lA'L p.\lk�-- l`C N►�� t.{L-` �3tJ A.S. J -; -q4' ►ca' L4AA J oQ crc. Oa I Nc P QCT 'Tb �A2Arr� �c�4a S M A'T'6a I A-,— S . 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan �. or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 54 Environmental Information Form Page 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: k-ceo !,-0 s -r" C -7t ,. r c: -r `i tJ ","o J S An 5 , n rJ = v -"(I�t'�+C t,iau� r:7 Ea'� C c E'riJ iar'-+aims l;�t S . 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i) Fire protection? / ✓... ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? ✓ iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Comments: 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 55 14 Environmental Information Form Page '14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which / could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition ✓ to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal V' needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: �W� ca P=-tomA'Z i r CF- `K* c t,4AQ G: Nl PN y w n S T' D('S f- lkt- 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic �- vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highways? LATE CORRESPONDENCE 56 Environmental Information Form Page 15 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the ✓ area? Comments: 4'4 . Q (I -r 4 t -r c ry �'� 6-t"qez M E S l ;moi (�- � Des t 6"N "ANJ tAIN0Q. IMPhcT Dl" Sv22ov�f�lr•aGt ��� craPnti 'S - � , 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? e) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: t l i P G� ren e7 " a a nn 4 S rte- r� �� t-y� 0 I ► �� t V -k p —e --r- LATE CORRESPONDENCE 57 Environmental Information Form Page 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Qoes the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical 1% effect on the environment? Comments: 'rj E C c`►�'1 c T� ri u S cam- T 4ec P� =may T* Oz> �s s r zs T- L h^ A c, � 1( a"E t --r l p l�! Ak— t=om' "-T e T , 16. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ✓- contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use? Comments: GY.Gp P -S t. i r(.k i $'TI R.o 1 p RP(�Oui�2 �rntic-r�'R- lyS r LATE CORRESPONDENCE 58 Environmental Information Form Page 17 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Comments: U P 0 PTo' eF -r Hie: M A*STC f� P� � a f'('ti�J � h � t� 1 `) 9 I , b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Comments: ae W M u L A. 'f i u F f me= c -,-r s TKc. �"uu�{ 1�l "A S c ��P-- p a 114A� M t rJ I Mc__ R �� t h c. -r ` 0,A) -IZI� t t-3,1 „&.4 ) A4 9T c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ✓ directly or indirectly? Comments: TI -i% M AS T'e-P, GAY M l N L M A-(— Gni Q I kZza r--� M t I�i7'A-IL, 1 IM PA � 1 T. LATE CORRESPONDENCE 59 Environmental Information Form Page 18 18. SOURCE REFERENCES w:/forms/Environmental Information Form LATE CORRESPONDENCE 60