The URL can be used to link to this page

SR Attachment - Public Correspondence GH SET 2'- -- " i'�rrtrvvvrrrr>:rvvr ir'1`1 ° lfrri,wniv�rrniv**iT,i,`i ijv msrvvrrrrvvrrrvrr4'.i JJI- L1=U lift Lp�� v�) PLOOR PLAN I'l'UDD ING MASTER DEVFLOPMI. NT F LANMASTER PLAN AREA G ® we w n c[1141. OREF:N HILLS S MEMORIAL PARK SOUTHWEST MAUSOLEUM I\ I I iluntti RANCHO PALOS VC -80F. S F RDFSCALIFORNIA (OUILDINGS A, O. C,/v D, ^F.1 5CHEMATIC SITE SECTION/BUILDINGS A,B,C,D,E S N L41"LOUD I.NC. MASTFR DFVFLOf MEM PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA a GREEN RILLS MFMORIAL PARK LAKEVIF.W TERRACE T✓r 1\ l I WlR, RANCFIO PAL OS VERDES, CALIF RNIA L \Int ,I I'. uarr PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 181 I I sll Vlll1gg11 ��. I�rLuu m. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREAE GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK SOUTHWEST MAUSOLEUM RANCHO PALOS VERDE$, CALIFORNIA (BUILDINGS A. B. C, D, E) r "Elm" 1171111IFT".4 IF r-- 7 IJ. N I AKI"I'ODD I\t:. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA E .uuvrltT:n�KE GREEN HILLS MEMORIALPARK SOUTHWEST MAUSOLEUM I1I'b:Ku19% RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA (BUILDINGS A. B. C, D, E) ti, PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 182 :4 MvMA',j ER DEVELOPMEN f PLAN MASTER PLAN AREAE 411 Iy 3REWN 'ILSMEMORIAL PARK ,RLA PLAN V�O RANCHO PALOS RES CALIFORNIAALIORA I.AKEVIM TERRACE 4 CI P, 6 v. ------- --- ---- ----------- vz MASI ER DEVELOMMIENT PLAN MASTE R PLAN A �I-A 6 ( �REEN HILLS MEMORIAL EARN SIM SEC ONS RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CALIFORNIA I A -v -a TE. .... 6-G PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 183 J. S! MCI' TODD I\t:. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 7 lul 1IIF, II RE. GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK SOUTHWEST TERRACE MAUSOLEUM I I,\ I r:uuluti RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA (PHASE I OF 5 PROPOSED) \,I � � , TA LL\ixlc:.\I'A a�yp r.mrwt . 9w 4 r T I ❑ n !�I •.orae as n M'0 10 -tip J, SI'CAIVI-1'001) I\C: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA All urrecn'uE GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK SOUTHWEST TERRACE MAUSOLEUM i\ IM IILv RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CALIFORNIA (5 PHASES PROPOSED) AIIIII(Al1r. 7-B PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 184 SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION 6110� J. 9TC,%R.1'1'tx7D INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 7 .44p mc Irlumm. GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK SOUTHWEST TERRACE .INIVIrxKIKt RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA A\\I\l: y4.yy ra TIC I�,IR(II`IN"WREDD INC:. .W(lll'H:(m�HE 1IANNl)85 IYAtiNI%ti uvla+carr. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK SOUTHWEST TERRACE MAUSOLEUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA (5 PHASES PROPOSED) N 7-D am PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 185 lll'.,NT • ODD INC. 10tp1 fl�:('H1NK 1\ I Ii"10N5 '�N W MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA P�"O.Jw •pa,L MASTER PLAN AREA 8 8-A Cl vil! G17AMr"If. Rb+l yy HEHOIyALj Pop.M 4NTN INTECi/IIa.J VlNCH6S Ii:`a ' y •rN�t- jwc- r, i iwj it-te� 1��, $TULIP �Q �I +IIII 1 ScRempiG SITE SEGT10k KANNIT.RI NS NAN\IA Ajp 1.6VI11(:.WE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA M4WNv»a I M r �n�aJw1/ 1 y, MASTER PLAN ABPA 0 8-B PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 186 I-1, +Iii 111'1 !k'I11NIi !\ I launxs "m 4 r MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA B GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA /x� .NNLNNV N.dl1Pr V -C / 1- 1. 1'1)110 INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PI AN ABPA I au nu I I I xF GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK I\n.lu,ia+ RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA n PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 187 ,�,J. INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREAE utcurttt �n rt: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK IV IEItMti(s RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA L1.\.L\l. �Y�.p 9-B L\�us<.wt: w UUtV T ('IE ITAI M MYI , 440, .aNIMWt: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA y,.N4\PY rpw9� MASTER PLAN AREA 9 9-C PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 188 tfz� lhdu} +tf�g~�ivQ I by.lerltut -d'n r !dAlr; c�rtEr�a•.:wJ:�u,a� ww% PAYIFwNy �-.'—� � . �.- I�Iu+A WA!H104 -0. i42" ul -- _ —�•� w W'p l INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 10 .wcurrx<Tcxx GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CREMATION GARDEN ry I Fidolts RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 10-tip10-A LINIISGU'li '/A IA/ICSSIAfY=49'�RM To fiP af' -At �IIWPI' wML RIsRO� 40.ANIT& °+ 9ft•A'l�id, �6 J15TA"r/-- OuHE'IYN 3i �-�'�ip\ 4..AI.IH4ryJ Ti u.R►Ih: J �. P�w�� wl ✓ �-�� fw�rcAlw C 3e' LO' SaMeHAT'C 4ITE SeCTIP4 J. STP:UO"POUR IN(:. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PIAN MASTER PLAN AREA 10 .Utairr 1.1VIt+: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CREMATION GARDEN IVIEWOR, RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CALIFORNIA M CAIN: "x° 10-B I.iAH\Y.U'F. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 189 J, slc:\Icl" LuuD INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 10 ,�,VU.IIn ix.'n lo: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CREMATION GARDEN I� Ekaua RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA NI.IINCA ,a � W. 10—C , J. SPISIRI"L'opD INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 10 wanrrcnn1; GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE MAUSOLEUM IK)r:uu>Hs RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA pl.Wd ti, IANIMAN. — � 11—A PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 190 I ulltlitillMitt(trILLtlElttYlmidnQnlEYi(IINI[!(IiiIYYItIYrI17I71N[ECifL.�= fYtlii`t1rYITtY17Y[ni((arulfhlill(17IYlltltlllElMttIT!(h1lEltipt7ti�lYl(i�l�p�` La, LJIW1,f -------- ; ---- J. ti:' AWL I ODD INC, MASTER DEVEI OPMFNT E i AN MASTER PLAN AREA W ®tip ,It( IPI :n -m; GREEN IIILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE MAUSOLEUM IN I I Itlou, RANOI'10 PAIRS VERGES, CALIFORNIA I I,\�\I� -4' 1 1 —B i.\\Itt(' 111( �+.a 50HEMATIC 51TE 5EGTION I CENTRAL MAU50LEUM J. SlI AR II OFID INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA I I ® vieurntcl nu; GREEN RILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE MAIN BUILDING V, EDeORI RANCHO PALOS VERGES, CALIFORNIA 11-C LUbXC\PF. mtn PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 191 5GHEMATIG 51TE 5EGTION / HE5T WING J K:' E TODD IAc. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PIAN MASTER PLAN AREA 1 I ® MU urI I I II, 11C GREEN RILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL. TERRACE WEST WING I,IL Ili 1, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 11 �\AI,( 11-D tip MA 40' 0` l EXIS TING GRADE -- 51—HEMATIG SITE 5EGTION NEW GRADE OUTLINE OF MAUSOLEUM S I UAK II'DDD INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 11 tu. u1'nc nga4; GREEN RILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL, TERRACE EAST WING ® I, TDAtO lit, RANCHO PAL OS VENUES, CALIFORNIA I I „I,t. LUI 11-E PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 192 I .�,J, 51't'AK'I—l'0I)I) INC. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 10 ,VtcnlTkCttUK GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE MAUSOLEUM IN1F.kt US RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA i•1+1.NNINI� ,T4.��, 11-F 11 IRE. P n:wuus rL1�u«, 1.1KI nx _11'F. MEMORIAL TERRACE DRIVE (� (EXISTING PARK VIEW TERRACE GROUND BURIALS '-- DEVELOPMENT @ UPPER LEVEL- `R 1464 CRYPTS/ EXISTING �> 860 NICHES (LH COURT OF `, J LOWER LEVEL DEVOTION \ MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS V€RDES, CALIFORNIA .NNIIAflT Ma's MASTER PLAN AREA 12 1 2-A PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 193 I�r 't' tiIAK'f'i'OINC.,kt ill'fh7: l"1'kF: 1\T Wks 56HEMATIC SITE SECTION / COURT OF DEVOTION ADDITION ;.�kl MASTER DEVELOPMENT PIAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CALIFORNIA .MMWPr3va3f0Y w I�,MVIII)urr rE INC. Flu wrecl ruh: lvreuuuls LUSI4. I.1\IYH::11'F: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA .xnwnraoa Y 3M MASTER PLAN AREA 12 COURT OF DEVOTION 12-B MAS TLR PLAN AREA 12 12-C PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 194 Attachment C Letters from 1991 residents PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 195 May 22, 1990 To: Members of Planning Commission City Of Rancuo Palos Verdes, California From: Henry C. Jeffries F off OW5 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North 4101 Lomita, California MAY 22 1990 ENVIkownw, swfus I am one of'40 owners in a 25 -unit condominium known at, Vista Verde, which is located just across the northern city limits of Rancho Palos Verdes, within the city of Lomita. This condominium, unlike most, is 100% owner -occupied. On the western edge of our proporty is Rolling Hills Covenant Church in the city of Rolling Hills Estates. Across our back yard fence sits Green Hills Memorial Park. Tonight, this Planning Commission is meeting to consider the environmental assessment of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance Plan being proposed by the Green Hills Memorial Park. This hearing is to review two aspects of the plan which are of vital interest to all of the honeowners in Vista Verde. (1) The Green Hills "Haster.Plan" calls for the construction. of a Chapel atd a parking lot an the northwest corner of their property. This corner is immediately adjacent to the common property area of Vista Verde. (2) Additionally, Green Hills is requesting administzative relLef from Rancho Palos Verdes' mandatory 4D -foot setback zoning. This zone completely encircles the Park. This 40 -foot "buffer" zoiie prevents the Memorial Park from utilizing this area for any construction whatioever. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 196 2 of Tot City Council, omita, California From, Honry C. Jeffries The President/Chief Executive Officer, a Vice -President, and a consultant.,ompla,yed by Green Hills recently visited our condo- ninium and inet with many of the owners to discuss various elements of their plahs and the pending hearings. We were informed that the "Master Plan" is a 100 -year plan which includes the construction of a chapel and a parking area to support the chapel in "Phase 411, defined as occurring in approximately 70 to 80 years, inferring that the proposed site will lay dormant un- til, then. In fact, though, the area is not dormant. A recently constructed addition to an existing mausoleum structure on the Park's western boundary has generated excess dirt which has been dumped into the subject corner area. The dirt has been graded by scrapers into a fairly level area. Additional dirt from intern- merft throughout other area.t nF th4& park hau rzgulatly btegt pldceil into this same area over the last year or sa, When asked by us about this activity, the Pres'ident of Green Rills, Ms. Arlene Gleich, stated that the building contractor had placed the corr- struction residue in this area 'unnoticed" by the Green Rills staEf and that,. in order to trim costs, Green Rills' management was not going to pursue holdIng the contractor to removing the dirt. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 197 E _,ge 3 ot 5 To., city Council Lomita, California From, Menry C. Jefiries Let me at,,oris point in time give you some idea of how 'Much dirt was moved "unnoticed' - the area it approximately 80 feet in width and over 100 feet In length and the level has been raised approximately 5 feet - that's 5 x 80 x 200 = 40,000 cu ft or almost 1506 cubic yards of material that's been moved into this "dormant" area. Approximately half of, this dormant area is included within the 40 -foot setback area. Granted, they didn't build anything or bury anybody in that area, but they surely didn't respect any "buffer" zone. 13y the way, all of the movement of material that has been nh,Prvet,l over thie li,43t year *,,,I c, half has been done without any dust -control methods being employed, probably in violation of some city; county, state, or federal ordinances oc regulations. it alto seems to be a rather unusual coincidence that with the "unnoticed" placement of 1.506 cubic yards of dirt, the northwest corner of the Park now sits at exactly the same level as the floor of the mausoleum. With the potential for relief from. the 40 -foot setback 7oning, it 15 the belief on the part of many of the owners of our condominium that Gtoun Mills, rather than wait 70 years to construct a chapelt in fact plans to expand the size of the present mausoleum by extending the present structure into this freed -up area. This means that a back wall of the expanded mausoleum could be erected immediately adjacent to our property line. should this structure be located next to our common property line, there will be two impacts on Vista Verde. The west end of our building will be surrounded on three. sides, instead of two, thereby reducing air circulation. However, of even mote significance is that the currently unrestricted view from Vista Verde to the Los Angeles Harbor could be inhibtted by a 20 foot -high wall. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 198 p, e 4 of 5 To. City Council, Lomita, Califocnia From; Henry C. Jeffries in the meantime, if the mausoleum is not to be constructed im- mediately, internments could proceed within the freed -tip buffer zone. I an, a veteran and have attended a Rum ber of graveside services for other veterans. A rifle salute is a traditional method of showing respect for a fallen comrade that goes back hundreds of years. A rifle salute and a bugle being played 25 feet from my bedroom window is not what ! agrued to when i purchased my home in Vista Verde 10 years ago. The alternative, if we believe in the published plan of Pireen Hills, poses a similar impact' on out view - the construction of a chapel of some as -yet undefined size and shape and a parking lot to accomodate some unknown number of cars. We all knew when we purchased and moved into Vista verde that we would be serenaded on Sunday mornings by the bells of the cburth next door had the noise attendant to the slamming of doors and starting of victors of two hundred cars from the wast end of our property. With the possibility of a chapel to be built on our south side, we could get the noise'of bells and parking lots from a second side, and at 'unpredictable times. I would add that in Green Hills, present configuration, the closest a car door slamming to any bedroom window in Vista Verde is about 100 feet. The car would be parked at a random spot on a road, not within the confines of a to -be -developed do-gignated parking area. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 199 10 S of ti To: City Council, Lomita, California From. Henry C. Jeffries To anyone even remotely involved with real estate, as either a purdhaser,or seller, it is axiomatic that the most important component of value of a property is locatLon, In Vista Verde' ten years of eRistence, an unobstructed view of the harbor and ocean has been a major component in its value. To replare this view of wacer with a view of a white stucco wall or a chapel will reduce the proppr� value for each of the units affe.,cted by a significant amount - $30000, �50000, we won't know until one of the units goes on the market. Sy then of ocurse it's too late. This hearing tonight centers .around the possible impact that approval of the Master Plan and/or administrative relief from the 40 -foot setback may create. We of Vista Verde are very concerned about the potential impact upon the value of out: property that a blockage of our ocean view,,, the addition, of noise sources, as well as the. disruption in air circulation Haat could occur if ANY above -ground structures a -re built in close proximity to out homes. Therefore, we are opposed to the "Master Plan" and its chapel/parking lot and even m.oce emphatically are opposed to the granting of administrative relief from the current 40 -foot se tlbacR requirement. I thank you for allowing me to speak before this Commission tonight: PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 200 From, Richard and Dr- Lisa Pierson 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. No. # 114 Lomita, Ca. 9,0717 Phone: (213) 833-9217 Night 375-2467 Day 333-7365 Day To. Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission May 21, 1990 53DIA,91q, 1VIVAN041ANI Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO, 601, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO - 155, GRADING NO. 1442, AND VARIANCE NO. 266, 100 YEAR MASTER PLAN FOR GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK Dear Planning Commission, As owners of a condominium in the Vista Verde condominium complex which borders the Green Hills Memorial Park we strongly urge that no alterations take affect to modify in anyway the 40' setback limitation which abuts our condominium complex. We understand that a Ili' encroachment has already been made into the west setback zone. We want to make sure that rto encroachment occurs in their north setback zone. The Green Hitils. Memorial Park's 100 year plan which woufd encroach onto this 40'setback zone should not be allowed for several reasons: 1. There would be a definite visual imoairment on our view if building were to be a flowed i n the 40' setback 20 ne 'is consturcted in such a way as to permanently obstruct all views to the north, east, and west. iftheGreenHills - proposal is accepted we would have no view at all This would leave us with a very claustrophobic environment, — 2, The piv-a1cAiactor�i s extremely i mPorta nt to consider. As proposed, Green Hills hopes to ut aM. apel along with arking lot which would create additional noise from vehicles and a violation ofour privacy due to the increased number of people so close to our property line. 3. Green Hills has added a great deal of fill dirt to a strip of land just on the other side of our property line. This has already resulted in an increase in drainage run off onto our property. We anticipate mWor draignaAll aroftfns if a heavy rain a __ratna --2 Nn wit Wt e r . a were to occur since the dirt broughtd—own wit t e rainwater could clog our drainage system, 4. if the 40' setback is not upheld the adverse visual impact along with the invasion of our privacy would definitely decrease the value of outorgperjt, PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 201 Please review the proposed plan presented by Green Hills Memorial Park very carefully and take appropriate action to insure that the au' setback. limitation remain intact and not be modified in any manner. Thank you for your support. RKhard and Dr. Lgsv-Pjr1WT11 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 202 Attachment D Photos of Pre-existing Grade then After PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 203 1 As PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 205 Attachment E Pictures of View, Noise, and Privacy Impacts PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 206 15 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 208 r Attachment F 1990 Public Notice (properly discloses building plans) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 210 Moyor Pto T" JOHN C. MMOnART Coundman DOLICILAS M. MNCI° LgFFE Comm1knon ROMAT E, RYAN CoundvmmitnJACKI 13ACHAAACH PUBLIC NOTICE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CZQA Guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Director of Environmental Services has analyzed the request for Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1442 and Variance No. 262 for Green Hills memorial Park located at 27501 S. Western Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90732. The project is briefly described as; A 100 year Master Plan for the development of careen Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Plan includes 194,340 cubic yards of grading with no import or export and regrading of the remaining 45 undeveloped acres of the 120 acre cemetery. Development includes the construction of 2,44 acres of buildin4 11.87 acres of "garden" burial sites, 27.21 acres of ground burial sites and 3.72 acres of roads. The project is divided into 5 phases proposed to be developed through the year 2100. After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for the project, the Director of Environmental Services has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared. Public comments will be received by the City prior to final approval of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION and action on the project, for a period of at least 21 days, through May 22, 1990. A public hearing will be held to discuss the project, including the proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION, on May 22, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, Hesse Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. A copy of all relevant material, including the project specifications, Initial Study, and the NEGATIVE DECLARATION, is on file in the offices of the Environmental Services Department, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274. The Initial study will be available for public review on May 2, 1990. Please contact Laurie B. Jester at (213) 377-6008 for further information. MW F4AwrwmNr: souLEvAno i RANCHO PALOS VORDES. CA 9027*63M 1 (M) V74WO PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 211 Mayor Pro Tom JOHN C MMGGARr Courociffran WVOLAS M. WNCHILIFFE Cow4cilnw R01i E. RYAN Coumilmman JACK[ aACHARACH N 9 T 1 C E April 26, 1990 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on May 22, 1990, at 71*30 p.m. at the flease Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider; Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1.442 and Variance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Conditional Use Permit is are required for the Master Plan and the Grading Application is required for the proposed 194,340 cubic yards of earth movement, The Variance is required for the expanding of the existing Pacifica Mausoleum which would match the setback of the existing building which encroaches 10 feet into the required 25 foot setback from the west property line. The Environmental Assessment addresses the entire project. Location: 27501 S. Western Avenue Applicant; Green Hills Memorial Park All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and give testimony. Applications and plans are oz; file with the Environmental Services Department at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contact Laurie B. Jester for further information. Robert Benard Director of Environmental Services ,,RB -. mk I El 7 r i ll'i'111]7 !ill ill'i PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 212 PN -OS VERDES June 7, 1990 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Ranch* Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at 7-.30 p.m. at the Hesse Park Community Building. 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, to consider: Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1442 and Variance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the Master Plan and the Grading Application is required for the proposed 194,340 cubic yards of earth movement. The Environmental Assessment addresses the entire project. The Variance is required for the following items: I. A 10 toot reduction to the required 25 foot setback for all above ground structures adjacent to the west property line, (abutting Polling Hills Covenant Church and the reaervoiO. This would leave a 15 foot setback from the property line. 2. A 32 foot reduction to the required 40 foot setback for below ground interments and "garden" burial sites adjacent to all property lines. This would leave a 8 foot setback from the property line. Locatiohz 27501 S. Western Avenue Applicants Green Hills Memorial Park All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and give, testimony. Applications and plans are on file with the Environmental services Department at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contact Lauire B. Jester for further information at 377-6008. Robert —Bena—rd- Director of Environmental Services 3MO K4WTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANa4O PALLS VERDES, CA 90974,5nl I f21M 3774XM PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 213 LP&OS VERDES June 7, 1990 A A y I A i 2 2T T X —C I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning CoMiBsion of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at 7*30 p.m. at the Hogue Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, to considert Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1.442 and Variance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the Master Plan and the Grading Application is required for the proposed 194,340 cubic yards of earth movement. The Environmental Assessment addresses the entire project. The Variance is required for the following items - 1. A 10 foot reduction to the required 25 foot setback for all above ground structures adjacent to the west property line, (abutting Rolling Hills Covenant Church and the reservoiO. This would leave a 15 foot setback from the property line. 2. A 32 foot reduction to the required 40 foot setback for below ground interments and "garden" burial Bites adjacent 'to all property lines. This would leave a 8 foot setback from the property line. Location. 27501 S. Western Avenue Applicant: Green Hills Memorial Park All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and give testimony. Applications and plans are on file with the Environmental Services Department at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contact Lauire S. Jester for further information at 377-6008. Robert Benard Of Director of Environmental Services Please publish in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on Thursday, June 14, 1990. 3W44 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS V9POES, CA 9=44391 J (2f3l 377�360 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 214 Attachment G 2007 Public Notice (Inaccurate and Incomplete) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 215 February 6, 2007 RECEIVED A - MAR 2 7 2007 GITV0FLI�CHo F1ALos%==,,LD=,& T R)"INQ BULDPIC, & (,XXT. ENFOROF'M M-1 111&s� F W ZOE - - � FEB 2 0 2007 UNM PROPOSE a" PUBLIC NOTI-0 CONW B. MWA*WfK, CoUMYCLM 118GS1WpZC0EEWC0UMM= MITIGATE[]_;NEGATIVE QECt ARATIQN DOM The City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has analyzed the request for ZON2003-00086, a Master Plan Revision for Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery, located at 27501 Western Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (Thomas Guide, Page 793. H & J-7). The project is described as, Amend the originally approved Master Plan for the Green Hills Memorial Park that addresses build -out of the cemetery site over the next 30- to 60 -years. The originally approved Master Plan and subsequent Master Grading Plan included 194,340 cubic yards of grading (97,170 cu. yds. of cut and 97.170 cu. yds, of fill) to be balanced on site (Le,, no import or export), construction of 2,44 acres of mausoleum buildings, 11,87 acres of "garden" burial sites, 27,21 acres of ground burial sites and 3.72 acres of roads. The amendments to the originally approved Master Plan include: 1) acknowledgment that the actual quantity of grading that has been conducted between 1991 through 2004, which Is 288,814 cubic yards (cut and fill), is 89,475 cubic yards more than originally approved by the Master Plan-, 2) allowing up to a total of 643,259 cubic yards of grading, which includes 97,904 cubic yards of import for the proposed mausoleum buildings, and all cut and fill associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery site for the life of the Master Plan. The imported fill material Will be conducted in phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over an extended period of time over the next 30- to 50 -years; 3) clarification that the total number of ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorial Park to be 13,589 Double Depth Burials (27,178 interments), 388 Single Depth Burials (388 Interments), and 408 family estates (4080 interments),, 4) allowing a reconfiguration, relocation and additional area to the previously approved mausoleum building, which was proposed under the original Master Plan to be at the south side of the cemetery, from one mausoleum building with a 77,715 square foot footprint, to 5 separate mausoleum buildings with each footprint 07 0024232 rl.HND . WMA0 PAINVERECL,,, 'Dk 9005�539! Bu I.Ciff, 1,110I J '.CRT FAX (WO) d F -MAk R-AN141(3*,rVCGM PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 216 PUSM NOTICE ZON200"0086 (CUP, GR & EA) February 6, 2007 Page 2 measuring 23,653 square feet at a location that is approximately 300 -feet farther west than approved in the original Master Plan; 5) allowing a new 75,131 square foot mausoleum building to the west of the existing mortuary, whereby 9,871 squate feet will be above grade and 65,260 square feet will be below grade; 6) allowing an addition to the previously approved mausoleum building located southeast of the existing maintenance yard, from a 22,187 square foot building footprint to a 33,668 square foot building footprint; and, 7) reducing the size of the previously approved mausoleum building footprint at the southwest side of the cemetery, from a 60,583 square foot building footprint to a 37,820 square foot building footprint, In summary, the amendment includes a not increase of 2.17 acres (I.e., 94,525 square feet) of mausoleum footprint area, After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for the project, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has determined that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment, Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Public comments will be received by the City prior to final approval of the Mitigated Negative. Declaration and action on the project, for a period of at feast 20 days, from Tuesday February 6, 2007 through 12:00 noon on Monday February 26, 2007, A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to discuss the proposed project, including the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 7:00 pm. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. A copy of all relevant material, including the project specifications, Initial Study, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is on file in the offices of the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and are available for review from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30 am to 4,30 pm on Friday. In addition to the commenting period noted above for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City requests that written comments be provided to the city by 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 to ensure inclusion of your comments with the Staff Report, Written comments submitted after Tuesday, February 204", but before 12:00 noon on Monday February 215, 2006, will be given to the Planning Commission on the night of the meeting, The Commission will not consider any written comments that are submitted after the Monday (February 261") noon deadline. However, any late correspondence will be distributed to the 07 0024232 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 217 PUBLIC NOTICE ZON2003-0086 (CUP, GR & E-A) February 6, 2007 Page 2 Commission as part of a future agenda packet, provided that the item is continued to a later date. To receive a copy of the Initial Study, or for additional information, please contact Senior Planner Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at eduardos@fpv.com, Joe VjaF�IGIJ - Z jas, A Dirf ct of FlIanning, and Code Enforcement STATE GOWWRENT CODs SECTFQN _kM NOTtCE- if you challango 1hi* Appiffi*,xtion in court, you may bo limited to raising only those Issues you or someone Olga raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at, or prior to, the pubilc heating. Please publish in the Peninsula News on Thursday, February 8, AW PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 218 Attachment H 1991 CUP Map PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 219 Legend Clearly states RED —Above Ground Structures GREEN — Below Ground Burials •►RTINS STRIP WE 1 411AICK v PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 220 Attachment The Original 1991 CUP (Approved on appeal to the City Council) — Resolution 91-7 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 221 RESOLUTION NO. 91-_, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SUSTAINING IN PART THE APPEAL OF AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 155, VARIANCE NO. 262, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1442, AND ISSUING A FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 601 FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE' DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY. WHEREAS, Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery has requested approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Variance No. 262, Grading Permit No. 1442, and Environmental Assessment No. 601 to allow a Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery at 27501 S. Western Avenue; and WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to the Development Code, the Planning Commission held public hearings on._May 22, June 26, and July 24, 1990,• at which 'time all interested parties were given the opportunity to give testimony and present evidence; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted P. C. Resolution No. 90-43 approving a portion of the master development plan, th4; entire site grading and setback reductions for the Pacifica Maus ?leum; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed thedeaf lon of the Planning Commission and, after nptice pursuant to the evelopment Code; the City Council held public hearings on Septem, r`18 and October 16,. 1990, and pursuant to re -notice, reopened,and conducted additional public hearings on January '15 and February 19, 1991, at which time all interested parties were given the"'opportunity to give testimony and present evidence. �-- NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1- Section 1: That the City Council does hereby declare that a Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with City and State CEQA Guidelines and that the Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the Initial Study in reaching its decision. The City Council further finds that the approval of this project will not result in a significant impact upon the environment due to the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 601, which have been incorporated into conditions of approval in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. i Section 2: That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan in that the development of the site in conformance with the proposed Master Plan and related uses comply with the General Plan and zoning land use designations. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 222 +, section -. That the subject site is adequate in size and shape accommodate the intended use, subject to the conditions of approval ontaiped in gxhibit "A", attached hereto, Section 4: That the site is serviced by Western Avenue, the traffic capacity of which is adequate to serve the site and subject ise without suffering significant impacts to its level of service. Section '5: That the subject use will cause no significant adverse effect`on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, which include modification of grades and landscaping to control 'erosion and visual appearances, proper equipment storage, placement of structures which minimizes view impacts, limited hours of construction, landscaping and dust control. Section 6: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property and the use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in other southern California cities. Specifically, while the existing Pacifica Mausoleum encroaches into the western property setback abutting church and public utility uses, reasonable and adequate setbacks are maintained. Additionally, below ground interments encroaching into setbacks which abut the rear yards of single family residential properties, approved and developed under the jurisdiction of L. A. County subsequent to ,the establishment of the park and major thoroughfares, are not similar to above ground structures, and reasonable setbacks from the adjoining principal uses are retained. Section 7: That such Variance is necessary for the 1kreservation and enjoyment of a subs ial p party right o he app l`can , wic'h right is possessed y other proper y o ers under 111-Ke�-con-a it ions in the same zoning district, since the setback for above ground structures abutting non-residential districts is more restrictive than the average setback in similar zoning districts in other southern California citi.es' and the expansion of the Pacifica Mausoleum will only-iill in a corner of an already developed area and the reduction in the setback for below ground interments provides a similar and reasonable setback between adjacent uses with landscaping and screening. Section 8:' That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrime-n t l .,,,, rl � to property and improvoinents in the area in which the property is located, since the add' • n w' t impact ill match the g a c e ree an bufferin setb k i`s regsxired arr a ow ground i erments will encroach in the setg_aeks adjacent to residen a evelopment. Section 9: That the granting of such- ce wi not be contrary to the objective Ian, since the pro osed uses are the uses allowed in d n i s n x ibit "A" will a eq e y buffer 0—lution No. 91- 7 e, ., PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 223 Section 10: That the grading is not excessive beyond that ecessary for the primary permitted use of the lot since the cemetery ,a over 110 acres in size and it is necessary for the use to create a Gently sloping site with roads with minimal percentage grade, and the jrading,is balanced on site. Sect' 1: That the grading and construction do not adversely £feet visual relations Ips wi nor neig oring cit a gra es complement the topographic features 3f adjacent sites, the finished grade of the northern side of the site will not exceed the grade as existing in 1983 and above ground structures are locAted to minimize view and visual impacts Section 12: That the nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to,the natural contours; finished contours are reasonably natural, since the finished grade will not exceed a 3:1 slope and generally is much less steep and the proposed grades will be consistent with and blend with the existing site development. Section 13: For the foregoing reasons, and based on information and findings included in the staff report, minutes and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Variance No. 262, and Grading Permit No. 1442; and adopts the Final Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 601 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 1991. IS/ r)QnnT,AS M- RTNCHT.TE'F.' MAYOR ATTEST: ISI JO PURCELL City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 91- 7 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 1991. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 224 «r� f i, EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 155, VARIANCE NO. 262, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1442, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 601 )NDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND GRADING•PERMI_T CONDITIONS ITE DEVELOPMENT This approval is for the master plan of development and site grading as generally shown on the Green Hills Memorial Park Quality Designation Plan, dated 2/19/91. Prior to submittal of building permit applications, a Master Site Plan, consistent with the approved Designation Plan, including landscaping and irrigation, shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Environmental Services. a. Setbacks for below ground interment sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shall be as follows: North and South - 8' (except the northwest corner between the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 161) East and West - 0 b. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North - 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater.' South - 40' East - 25' West - 5' -- c. Pacifica Mausoleum setbacks are as follows: West - 15' existing / 5' northwestern addition North - 40' * ('expansion northerly along the eastern edge of the existing building shall be offset 8 feet to the west from the existing eastern edge of the building) Detailed building plans, including but not limited to building sections and elevations, detailed grading and lighting plans shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Services for approval prior to submittal ,for building permits to determine conformance with the Master site Plan. The location and configuration of structures and roads shall substantially conform to the Master Site Plan approved by the City Council. All building and site a plans shall clearly show finished grades and building ridgeline elevations, using actual sea level elevations. Any development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision. A noticed public hearing and review and approval by the Planning Commission shall be required. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 225 A cul-de-sac turn around shall be constructed at the west end of the new road north of Inspiration Slope. This cul-de-sac may be removed when the future road loop is completed. SIGNS 6. The applicant shall submit a complete sign program for review by the Planning Commission no later than April 30, 1991. The program 4 shall address all existing major identification signage on the entire property. Additionally, any new proposed signage shall be included in the sign program. STORAGE 7. Outdoor storage of equipment and supplies is allowed only in the maintenance yard. Supplies shall be neatly stored and stacked so they are not a safety hazard. No storage of wood, broken fencing, landscape prunings, and other trash or debris is allowed anywhere on the site other than the stockpiling of such debris within an approximately four (4) acre site located in the southwest corner of the property or as otherwise designated by the Director of Environmental Services. screening of this area shall in noway impair views. 8. The location of any temporary construction storage or trailers must be approved by the Director of Environmental Services. Any temporary construction storage or trailer shall be removed from the site within 30 days after building final of the associated structure. The exterior of any construction stor8Me or trailer shall be maintained clean and painted at all times. HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION a. Construction and grading activities including but not limited to equipment warm up, geologic investigations, interment excavation for placement of multiple vaults and installation or removal of large landscape materials shall be limited to daytime working hours (7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) on weekdays on3 y . b. Excavation for removal and replacement of vault tops for funeral service preparation, individual placement of vaults for funeral services and operation of landscape maintenance equipment shall be allowed in any area of the park 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and National Holidays. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 226 C. No construction activities at all shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. within 120 feet of any property line abutting a residential district. All equipment shall be equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels. .ADING AND DRAINAGE 1. A master grading plan (1:100 scale) for the entire site shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental services within 90 days of approval of this application for review and approval in conformance with the approved Master site Plan. A note shall be placed on the approved grading plan that requires the Director of Environmental Services approval of rough grading prior to final clearance. The Director (or a designated staff member) shall inspect the graded site for accuracy of elevations and created slope gradients. The Director may require certification of any grading related matter. L. Grading for foundations shall conform to Chapter 29, "Excavations, Foundations, and Retaining Walls", and Chapter 70, "Excavation and Grading" or the appropriate current chapters of the Uniform Building Code. 2. A surface drainage swale or some other type of drainage system approved by the Director of Public Works shall be designated or constructed along the northern property line of the subject property so as to accommodate all surface runoff away from the property fine and drainage provisions shall provide for erosion control. If a concrete Swale is designed it shall be colored in earth tones. 3. The existing unsupported vertical cut on the north side of the maintenance yard parking lot shall be reviewed by. the applicant's geotechnical and engineering consultants. Their recommendations must be submitted to the Building and Safety Divition within 30 days of the final approval of this application. All requirements of the Building official and City Geotechnical consultant must be complied with within 90 days of their final approval. 4. Within 180 days of final approval of this application, the topography of the undeveloped northern portion of the site shall be restored to the grades existing on the site in 1983 in accordance with the 1:200 scale composite maps flown by American Aerial Survey Inc. i zc are on file in the Department o£ Envir al Servzce ion of finished gra es a submitted to the Director of Env 1 S rvzces or review a roval. After cer i zcation, the irector of nv nmental Services shall estab*sh view co+-r+tors over this area which shall not allow future view impairment. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 227 ti. The fill material removed from this area shall be relocated in accordance with Condition Nos. 40 and 41. A temporary I erosion control plan for the area shall be approved by the Building ' official if any grading occurs between October 15 to April 15. 15. Buildings or grading proposed on slopes of 35% or greater shall require review and approval of a variance prior to final approval. LANDSCAPING 16. All existing and proposed landscaping in areas identified as view corridors (see Condition No. 14), except as identified in Condition No. 21,. shall be maintained so that it does not significantly impair any near or far view as defined by Section 17.02.04 A-15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 17. All existing and future landscaping shall be properly maintained in a healthy, trimmed, and tidy manner at all times. 18. The six large eucalyptus trees on the west side of the Administration Building parking lot shall not be removed unless required by the holder of the easement in which the trees are located or acceptable evidence is provided to the Director of Environmental services from a certified arborist supporting removal. 19. When Inspiration Slope is developed to the point where the majority of the landscaping is completed, the existing hedge which separates Crescent Lawn and Vista Del Pointe from this area shall be removed., 20. No later than 60 days after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall begin restoration of the gradtr`along the northerly property line (see Condition No. 14), and shall maidtain natural vegetation in all undeveloped areas. When such vegetation requires removal or cutting as required by either the L. A. County Fire Department or other governmental agencies, such vegetation shall be mowed or scraped so that it is reduced in height and all dust is controlled. 21. The existing hedge located on the applicant's property on the south property line adjacent to the rear yards on Avenida Feliciano shall be pruned and maintained so it does not exceed the height of the chain-link fence, which is 8 feet tall, and existing and future screen planting in the 8 -foot setback along the northern property line shall be maintained no higher than the fence height. SEWERS AND WATER 22. Any new facilities must tie into local main line sewers. The usage of the site may be limited by the size and type of sewage system chat ran leaally be installed. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 228 The site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities as determined by the L. A. County Eire Department. All L. A. County Fire Department requirements shall be satisfied. 'ASEMENTS• 24. Any grading, construction, placement of structures, including but not limited to walls, fences, and interments on any easement, requires prior written permission•from the easement holder. 25. The owner shall submit a title report within 90 days of final approval of this application. All easements shown on the title report shall be clearly delineated on the master grading plan. Exact location and width of easements as well as the name of the easement holder shall be shown on the plan. FENCING 26. The existing chain link and wrought iron fence which surrounds the perimeter of the`site on the applicant's property shall be maintained in its existing condition except the barbed wire on top of the fence shall be removed within 180 days of final approval of this application. HOURS OF OPERATION 27. Hours' of public operation for the flower shop are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., every day. The Administration Building public hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. every day. The Chapel may be open to the public from 7:00 a.vT to 9:00 p.m. every day. The cemetery grounds may be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. every day. GENERAL 28. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various Municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property. 29. The developed and undeveloped portions of the site including but not limited to buildings, grounds, and roads shall be maintained in a neat, clean, and well maintained manner at all times. 30. The applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of this application, a certified copy of the July 20, 1949, "Certification and Declaration of Dedication of Cemetery Property" recorded in Book 27781, pages 265 and 266 of the Official Records, County of Los Angeles, California. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 229 1. Should the applicant fail to comply with any of these conditions of approval the City may initiate revocation procedures for this permit. 32. Within thirty (30) days the applicant shall submit, in writing, a statement that he has read, understands, and consents to all conditions of approval. MITIGATION MEASURES - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BUILDING HEIGHT 33. Buildings designated on the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall conform to the submitted plans on file in the Department of Environmental Services. Maximum heights (actual sea level elevations) including forms, framing, and ridge heights shall be certified at the applicant's expense. 34. The family mausoleum on Inspiration Slope shall be located as shown on the Master Site Plan so as to not impair views from Peninsula Verde. The exact location of this structure shall be approved by- the ythe Director of Environmental Services. 35. Future buildings designated on the Land Use Plan shall not exceed 20 feet in height as measured from the average elevation of finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 25 feet when measured from the lowest finished grade -adjacent to the building to highest point of the structure. 36. The Pacifica Mausoleum northern expansion shall match the height of the existing structure, be offset a minimum of -F feet along the existing eastern building line and respect a minimum 7 -foot setback along the western property line. LIGHTING 37. A lighting plan for all new exterior lights shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Services for approval and there shall be no direct off-site illumination from any light source. Lighting must be. shielded, ground oriented with the minimum wattage, height, and quantity necessary to provided safety. Lighting shall not be placed on the side of buildings adjacent to residences. Building lights shall be placed below the building eave line, and any lights on a pole or standard shall not exceed 10 feet in overall height. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 38. All grading for site development within 100 feet of a residential --- __ ^•, and Annroval by the City Engineer and PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 230 F _from the Building and Safety Division for all grading operations, within 100 feet of a residential area excluding grading for interment excavation only. Drainage and erosion control measures shall be included as conditions for all grading permits. Graded areas which will be used to support structures shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical Consultant. Building and Safety permits must be issued for -all structures except small, one story, "Storage" structures less than 120 square feet in area and less than 12 feet in height with no plumbing or electricity, such as family mausoleums. Runoff from roofs, hardscape, and other site drainage shall be controlled and carried to the existing storm drain or other approved drainage facilities. A permit from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works will be required for any new connections to the existing storm drain, During.all grading, construction, landscaping, interment excavation, geologic investigations and similar activities, dust shall be controlled by frequent watering and/or screening of the area as necessary. Airborne dust shall -not be allowed to leave the property in visible quantities. If any import or export of material is required, trucks used to transport the materials shall be covered to prevent spillage and street sweepings may be required as determined to be necessary by the Director of Public Works. Temporary storage (maximum 24 hours) of interment excavation soil is allowed on the northerly side of the property so long as such interment excavations are covered with a green dust cover. The northern portion of the property shall be restored to the 19.83 grades and any building excavations shall be stored in the area south of Lake View Drive and the Garden of Reflection. All storage of dirt shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet from the southern and western property lines, except for overnight storage of interment soil. 2. Finished grades shall not exceed 3:1 slope. 1NDSCAPING 3. on 4:1 or greater slopes, erosion controlling plant material and other erosion control methods such as jute netting shall be required. 4. Drought tolerant, low maintenance and erosion controlling landscaping is required in the western setback adjacent to the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion. Landscaping and irrigation in all setbacks require review and approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Irrigation systems shall be designed to provide adequate coverage with no overspray, runoff, or excessive quantities of water output. Use of drip irrigation systems are required wherever possible. A low water use turf such as "Kikuyu" PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 231 or another similar variety as approved by the Director of Public zWorks and Director of Environmental Services shall be used in all new lawn areas. CHEMICALS The applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of ''this application, copies of permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and L. A. County Fire Prevention Bureau for storage of fuel, and permits from the L. A. County Fire Department, Hazardous Maintenance Division Section and Fire Prevention Bureau for the chemicals stored in the embalming rooms in the Administration Building. Permits from the south Coast Air Quality Management District for the crematory must also be submitted. Current copies of these permits must be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 46. A consultation audit through Cal OSHA including the establishment of a training program on the proper handling and safety requirements of equipment and material for mortuary and crematory employees is required. Training programs for new employees shall be conducted on a regular basis in accordance with Cal OSHA recommendations, verification of these activities is required to be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. GEOLOGY x`47. Prior -to issuance of building permi.t's, the developer shall obtain clearance for construction from the City Geologist and shall submit a geology and/or soils report of the expansive properties of soils on all building sites. Such soils are defined by -Building Code Section 2904 (b) or the appropriate current section. PERMITS 48. The applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of this application, copies of permits or licenses from the State Cemetery and Funeral Board. Current copies of these permits must be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at all times. MITIGATION MONITORING 49. The responsibility for monitoring these mitigation measures shall be jointly vested with the Department of Environmental Services and the Department of Public Works. Periodic reports required of the applicant shall be provided to the Department of Environmental Services and they will be maintained in the Project Address File. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 232 Attachment J Powerpoint Presented in August 2014 to the PC. Details uncovered CUP violations (later confirmed) by Green Hills PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 233 i`' rr'f Green Hills is currently in violation of condition number 6 of their CUP 6 Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shall be as follows: North and South: 8'-0" (except the northwest corner between the westem property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16'-0") East and West: 0'4, There are currently dozens of below ground internments within the required 16'-0" setback area How does Green Hills Propose to Fix this Compliance Issue? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 235 r Condition #35 gives the City the Authority to Revoke the Conditional Use Permit 35. Should the applicant fail to comply with any of these conditions of approval or mitigation measures, the City may initiate revocation procedures for this permit, which shall include a public hearing. Notice of said public hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. RPV municipal code 17.86.060 also gives the City the Authority to Revoke a Conditional Use Permit PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 236 Below Ground Internments within 16'-0" of Property Line PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 237 Mister Plan Revision Submittal IAASLLR ULVLLOPWNT PLAN MAWR PEµ AREA I GREEN NII ISM 1. MOR IAL PARK PA"M MAU101E1Fd NC 14A140 PAL OS VI: RDLS. CAL IFORNM 1-3 16'-0" Setback Shown Along with Note Below Ground Burials Stop at the 16' Line PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 239 CE L Approx. 16 ft Internments in Mausoleum violate Condition 6 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 240 I In order for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must comply with sections 1-6 of RPV Municipal Code 17.60.050. In the 2/27/07 Staff Report, many of the statements by Staff about compliance with those sections weren't consistent with what was approved (mostly due to the setback change.) 1 /.60.050 Frndmys and ConddronS. The piannin9 Connimsion, nay grant a Conditional Use permM1, only if a foot. t That the Site is adequate in S4e and shape l0 aCConnmodale the proposed use and for as Of the yards. Setb&rkS. web. fence!, landscaping and Other feature$ required by this tale Or by cond4grs niposed under this section t0 integrate said use with those On adjacent land and within the neighborhood. 1 That the Site for the proposed use relates to Streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantty of traffic generated by the Subject use, That, in appro. og the subXCi use at the SpeCific location. there we be n0 significant adverse effect On adjacent property Or the permfted use thereof. t That the proposed use is not Contrary t0 the general plan; Trial, d the s4e Of the proposed use is within any Of the overlay Control districts estabirshed by Charter 17 SO tOverlay Control Districts; of th s title. the proposed use complies with all appkcab$e re0urrements of that Chapter and That Conditions regarding any of the requvements Wad in th-s paragraph, whth the planning Convrrssi0n finds to be necessary t0 protect the heath, safety and general welfare. have been rVosed aSetbacks and buffers b Fences or wads. c Lighting. d Vehicular ingress and egress. e tlo,se. iOration. odors and smwar emissions f Landscaping. 9 Maintenance of structures, grounds or Vgr.s h Service roads or alleys. and Such Other condGWns as will make possible de'elopment of the city m an orderly and efficKnl rn4anner and m conformey with the otent and purposes Set (Orth in this We As a result, the CUP Revision wasn't in compliance with City Code PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 241 These are quotes about the Revision complying with the RPV Municipal Code for granting a CUP. Quotes are directlyfrom 2/27/07 Staff Report "With approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for mausoleum buildings and ground interments were established. These setbacks will not be modified or reduced with the additional mausoleum buildings." (In reference to compliance with section 1 of prior slide) "The additional buildings requested through the revision include additions to the already approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However, they will continue to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site, rather than along its perimeter" (In reference to compliance with section 1 of prior slide) "Thus, the setbacks and heights of all proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established by the prior Master Plan as approved through Resolution No. 91- 7" (In reference to compliance with section i of prior slide) "the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the perimeter of the cemetery site." (in reference to compliance with section 3 of prior slide) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 242 The First photo is the Original Resolution 91-7. The Bottom as Revised b. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North - 80, or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater. South - 40' East - 25' West - 5, 7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision) and crypts shall be as follows. North: (8'-0" for the western -most portion of the Mausoleum shown in Area 14 South: =- East. 25-0" West 5'-0" The setback change invalidated the CUP's compliance with City Code PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 243 RED Arens: Arove ,round Structures GREEN Arecis Belnw Crni ind Internments No above Ground Structure Approved in Front of Vista Verde In 1991. Vista Verde Property Line Se\10 • }' f ; s r •• �p,\G • `'i `Vista verde Mo 40'-80' Setback Below Ground Internments Above Ground Structure PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 244 i Summary: - Green Hills is currently! n violation of condition 6 of their CUP because of multiple below ground burials within 16' of the required setback. Condition 35 of the most recent resolution givesthe City the authority to revoke the CUP for non-compliance with any of the conditions. RPV Municipal Code 17.86.060 grants the City revocation authority as well. - Statements made by staff (indirect reference to compliance with RPV Code 17.60.050(A)1-6) that "setbacks weren't being modified or reduced" with the Master Plan Revision were I inconsistent with the subsequent setback change to condition 7 (80' to 8'). This directly violates section 1 and section 3 of RPV Municipal code for issuing a CUP. As a result, i, the CUP permit wasn't issued in compliance with City Code. a (Grading permit may not have been in compliance either) N PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 245 13 - Q.r Attachment K Powerpoint Presented in October 2014 Details CUP Violations for Height and Incorrect representation by Green Hills PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 247 What was approved by the Planning Commission isn't what was built... PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 248 214.33' to Pilaster 211' to Grass Area 194.00 FIN GRADE 217.00' Max Height to Pilaster 213.5' to Gross 180.82' FIN GRADE 85.0' 3t Rood eve[ The Mausoleum is 5.05ft higher than permitted per COA #38 of the CUP . COA # 38 states the following: _ "With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings sha#notexceed20-feetin heightas measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 30 -feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure." Average Elevation of Finished Grade at front of structure - 0 94.00+189.82)/2= tructure:(194.00+189.82)/2= 191.91ft Highest Point of Structure per Building Height Certification: 216.96fy 216.96ft-191.91 ft=25.05ft(Maximum of 20ft allowed per the COA #38) The Mausoleum is 5.05ft higher than allowed per condition #38 of the CUP N 1� PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 250 '25' from lowest point of adjacent g rade to highest point of mausoleum" y A aurae a axn �wu auAoa 4 p I V' 14� GUAN]IIM AVLkl.kk uvea L —dWMO YaNNL{AT 1!!IAlINa AAVkk SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION / WEST WIN& X11 %WI IINR1 Im MASTER DEVELOPMENT PUN MASTER R AN ARTA 11 W 1111 kk 1, , GREEN IRI LS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TFRRACE WEST WM 1♦TT]u IIIS RANCW PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA A 11-D a PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 251 Mausoleum is 2.14ft higher than allowed per Master Plan Revision Booklet Lowest point of adjacent grade: 1 89.82ft Highest point of structure per building height certification: 216.96ft 216.96ft - 189.82ft = 27.14ft (Maximum of 25ft according to Master Plan Revision Booklet) The Mausoleum was built higher than allowed according to this measurement as well R PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 252 What was built wasn't what was approved by the Planning Commission. The approved Schematic Site Sections for the Mausoleum show the Mausoleum not exceeding the height of the existing grade. The Mausoleum was depicted to the Planning Commission as being built into a hill. The existing grade is also misrepresented as being at least 40ft high '1.5. 6 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 253 Existing Grade shown as dotted line. Mausoleum Height doesn't exceed it W"A%W True Existing Grade 40ft n W RWE SM k1t�494VC (Yitflt 5CHEMATIO SITE SECTION / WE5T WIN6 -P-6"4-04 No retaining wall here MASTER DEVELOPMENT PIAN MASTER PI AN AREA II ,�, W rarr. 1w u: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WINCE 1%IT'AR'XI RANCHO PAL OS VEADES, CALIFORNIA ....r, . �� ,.�' 11-D 1.,.1K. t19 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 254 Notice height of Mausoleum doesn't exceed existing grade NEW GRADE 4a -O* EXISTINOORADE - SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION LNNIN.- OUTLINE OF MAUSOLEUM PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 255 The western pre-existing grade was extremely misrepresented in the 2007 Master- plan revision booklet. It wasn't 40ft tall with a 45 degree slope... not even close! Grade was raised by at least 14ft west of Mausoleum Pre-existing grade was FLAT in front of Vista Verde 9 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 256 Master Plan Revision Booklet Incorrectly states a "net cut" grading plan West of Mausoleum. Makes it appear as if Mausoleum was being built into an existing hill PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 257 Row of internments placed too close to property line Grade was raised by approximately 14ft to the west of the Mausoleum. Pre existing grade was level with the road Mausolemn also was built higher y; --- approved by the Planning j 11 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 258 Attachment L Ray Frew's Quote from Daily Breeze Article Published on 7/30/14 http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20140730/[omita-condo-residents-object-to-new-rooftop- burial-ground-at-green-hills-memorial-park PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 259 Frew said he is open to discussing the possibility of the cemetery buying out the condos that are most impacted by rooftop Minerals, but that an outright ban "would be like taking an asset that I built with (the, city's) permission and saying I can't sell it," PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 260 Attachment M Letter to PC date Aug 6th, 2014 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 261 From: Matthew H. Martin August 6, 2014 2110 Palos Verdes DR N #208 Lomita CA, 90717 To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Subject: Green Hills CUP Review on 8/12/14 Dear Planning Commission, Based upon research into the 2/27/07 and 4/24/07 Planning Commission (PC) meetings, it's unclear if the PC ever knowingly approved a reduction in the setbacks for above ground structures for the Green Hills Memorial Conditional Use Permit (80' to 8' along the northern perimeter). This assumption was reached after watching the videos from both of the meetings in 2007, reading the minutes from both 2007 meetings, reading the staff reports from both 2007 meetings, and reading the originally approved Master Plan (Resolution 91-7). It appears that the only discussions about changing setbacks for above ground structures at those meetings were statements and assertions by Staff that setbacks weren't being modified by approving the revision. A copy of the 2/27/07 Staff Report as well as the videos from both meetings are available on the RPV website. The staff report that was presented to the PC clearly stated the following: "With approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for mausoleum buildings and ground interments were established. These setbacks will not be modified or reduced with the additional mausoleum buildings." The original master plan (Resolution 91-7) clearly shows an 80'-0" for above ground structures along the northern end of the property. The photo below is taken directly from Resolution 91-7 (attached) that was passed and approved by the City Council on 2/19/91: Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North_ _ $0' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater, South - 40' East - 25' West - 51 Shown below is a photo taken from PC Resolution 2007-32 which was passed on 4/24/07: PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 262 Setbacks for bove ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Maus leum and the Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision) and crypts shall a as follows North: 8 '4' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater ( -0" for the western -most portion of the Mausoleum shown in Area 11). South: 40'-0" East: 25'-0" West: 5'-0" It's apparent that a note was added on that date reducing the northern setback for above ground structures to 8'-0" for the Mausoleum in Area 11. This seems to directly contradict the quote by the Staff above and ones below. It's unclear if this change to the setbacks for above ground structures was knowingly approved by the planning commission. The following statement was also made by staff in the 2/27/07 staff report and subsequently to the commission: "The additional buildings requested through the revision include additions to the already approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However, they will continue to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site, rather than along its perimeter" The proposed addition to the previously approved building in Area 11 of the original Master Plan was most certainly located along the perimeter of the property. The above statement to the PC was apparently inconsistent with the Master Plan Revision, "Thus, the setbacks and heights of all proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established by the prior Master Plan as approved through Resolution No. 91-7 (attached)" The setbacks from Resolution 91-7, as shown above, clearly define an 80'-0" setback for above ground structures along the northern property line. The proposed addition to the Mausoleum in Area 11 required a 72' setback reduction from 80' to 8'. Other statements by staff to the PC at the 2/27/07 and 4/24/07 meetings that areas weren't clearly defined in the original Master Plan is inconsistent with the evidence shown. The Photo below shows the map of the originally approved Master plan: PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 263 The red areas clearly show where the approved above ground structures (Mausoleums) were to be located. Notice that the approved Mausoleum in the northern area (referred to as Area 11 in the new plan) is shown as being located in front (south) of the Green Hills maintenance yard and not extending west past the Visa Verde property line. This originally approved structure was to be located within a large hill and was consistent with the 80'-0" setback for above ground structures because it's placed 80' from their northern property line (the maintenance yard). The green areas of the map are clearly defined as "below ground burials" in this map. The green area to the west of that structure was approved for below ground burials and not an above ground structure. Notice that the green area doesn't extend in front of the Vista Verde property viewing area. There were no above ground structures or even below ground burials approved for the area directly in front of Vista Verde viewing area. The statement by Green Hills Architect J. Stuart Todd in the Master Plan Revision Submittal that "the proposed overall density and development of The Green Hills Memorial Park is consistent with 1999 Master Plan" doesn't seem to be consistent with adding a 25tall building with 6870 crypts inside and 360 double depth burials spaces on top into an area that wasn't approved for above ground structures. 3 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 264 Research into this subject also uncovered the following condition in Resolution 91-7 (attached) Within 180 days of final approval of this application, the topography of the undeveloped northern portion of the site shall be restored to the grades existing on the site in 1983 in accordance with the 1:200 scale composite maps flown by American Aerial Survey Inc. in--A1ri4-�1-'} W1T1b "are on file in the Department of Snva sasaaatal�_ ,ervzc" e�"--�+e tfic-st of finished grafi shalt be submitted to the ,Dareetar of wr�vrcr:mental S vices 'or review dn' Appr6val . After ce` rt"z"Picatifyn, the nirectnr of n—Vtronm ntai Servicer shall establ sh view_„,g4,rr-i.dors F.-` over this area which shall not allow future view zrnp&zrment. The fill material removed from this area shall be relocated in accordance with Condition Nos. 40 and 41. A temporary erosion control plan for the area shall be approved by the Building Official if any grading occurs between October 15 to April 15. This condition was likely added because several then -owners from Vista Verde reported to the PC and City Council in writing that Green Hills had dumped approximately 40,000 cubic feet of dirt into the northwest corner of the property and raised the preexisting grade by approximately 5 feet (letter from Henry Jeffries attached). This condition of approval included a provision to establish "view corridors" over the area. To the best of my knowledge, this condition was never satisfied and the 40,000 cubic feet of dirt that was illegally dumped in the area was never restored to its 1983 level. This is based on conversations with current Vista Verde residents who remember the dumping and said that the area was never restored to its prior grade. I would like to now return to the issue of setback reduction for above ground structures because it's the most important topic in my opinion. It's unclear to me that any such setback reduction was ever officially approved by the PC. Further statements were made by staff to the PC that the Master Plan Revision wasn't altering setbacks that were set in the original: "The existing conditions contained In Resolution No. 91-7 (attached) will remain in effect and have been added to this Revision for ease in implementation. With regards to existing conditions, however, the applicant is of a different opinion PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 265 regarding condition no. 2b, which states "Setbacks for above around structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North — 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road..." The applicant believes that 30 -inch garden walls are not structures, and has proposed a series of family estates with 30 -Inch high decorative garden walls that would be located in the area between the northern perimeter road to the 8 - foot setback from the north property line (Area 4 of the proposed Master Plan Revision). When the City Council considered the Master Plan on appeal (excerpt Minutes of the October 16, 1990 and the February 19, 1991 meeting are attached), the applicant objected to a 40 -foot setback for structures and ground interments since it resulted in a large area of the cemetery that could not be utilized for the burials. As a result, the City Council allowed ground interments up to 8 -feet from the north and south property lines, and included condition no. 2b to ensure no above around structures were to be located in this area. Although the applicant believes that the garden walls do not constitute a structure, Staff believes that such walls constitute a structure. According to Development Code section 17.96.2040, a structure is defined as "...anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which is located on or on top of the ground". As such Staff believes that the condition should remain and that no structures including -garden walls, should continue to be prohibited within the area specified in the condition." Staff makes direct reference to the decision by City Council in 1991 to not allow above ground structures within 80'-0" of the northern property line. It's interesting to me that staff concludes that this condition shouldn't be modified for 30 inch garden walls and states that the condition should remain intact. The above statement by staff seems contradictory to allowing that exact same condition to be modified to allow a 25' tall Mausoleum in Area 11 at the very same meeting without any known discussion of that action. Staff also made the following statement in their staff report and to the PC: "Further, the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located alon_a the perimeter of the cemetery site." As is shown on previous pages of this document, the Mausoleum in Area 11 required a setback change from 80' to 8' and was indeed located along the perimeter of the property. The above statement improperly represented the proposed Master Plan revision to the PC. Consequently, the validity of its adoption may be called into question. How can a Master Plan revision be represented to the PC in one way and then approved and acted upon contrary to those representations? If the Master Plan Revision in 2007 required a note to change the setbacks for above ground structures to 8'-0", when was this properly disclosed to the public and/or the PC? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 266 I'd like to note that the above references and quotations in regards to factual statements and contradictory actions contain the bulk of my concern as to whether setback reductions were ever officially approved by the PC in 2007. It's my hope that the PC and/or City Council will consider investigating this very carefully in order to understand how and why this happened. It's unclear to me what took place here. I would not, and am not, making accusations of anyone intentionally misleading the PC here. I'm simply presenting factual statements and subsequent actions. It's my hope that the City of RPV will investigate this situation and come to their own conclusions as to whether the setback reduction for above ground structures was actually approved by the PC in 2007. If a setback reduction wasn't officially approved by the PC then I hope that appropriate actions are taken to fix the current problem and to ensure that something like this doesn't happen in the future. I'd like to also mention that concerns about the Area 11 Mausoleum construction were made by Vista Verde residents to both Green Hills and the Planning Department via certified letters prior to completion. Three groups of certified letters were sent prior to the Mausoleum being completed to which we received no response. Concerns were raised by residents in person at the city planning department as well. The public notice that was sent to Vista Verde residents in 2007 did not mention a setback change and improperly represented the previously approved Mausoleum as being southeast of the maintenance yard when the originally approved structure was directly south of the maintenance yard. Our community didn't receive any response to our complaints until then -Mayor Susan Brooks ordered an operational review of the CUP to the Planning Department. The rest of this letter is of less importance compared to the issue of the PC ever officially approving a 72' setback reduction for above ground structures. I'm including the rest of this letter for public record and knowledge. The following statements were also included in the 2/27/07 Staff Report: "In regards to significant impacts to views from neighboring properties, Staff believes that the grading will not adversely Impact any views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausoleum buildings and ground interments. The locations of the mausoleum buildings and the associated backfill continue to be within the internal portions of the cemetery site, and no mausoleum buildings are proposed along the perimeters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and south." The statements made by staff to the PC in regards to obtaining a major grading permit for the project were also inconsistent with subsequent activity. The PC may call into question the validity of the grading permit based on the following statements: "The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site." The Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11 was built almost completely above the existing slope (which may have been illegally raised by 5 feet in the 1980s). The following photo was PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 267 included in the Master Plan Revision submittal on page 11-F. Note that the area is incorrectly identified as Area 10 on the plans /-' i..... ., .nv WSiEn q:vElUnA.NI nAN NASIEn RAN WA 10 U�EIN IrILLS 4lAYJIIW I�AI4c SiMUNIAI iFNMf.F 4UUSOlEIM n/NGIq PAtpS Y[MF; f.A:�f(%WA The bottom right picture in the above figure shows the existing grade of where the Area 11 Mausoleum currently sits. As you can see, the existing slope in front of the Vista Verde Condos is nearly flat and certainly not a hill. The hill that's located to the right of the Vista Verdes homes shown in the above bottom right photo is where the original master plan approved an above ground structure. That hill is directly in front of the Green Hills maintenance yard and the approved building in that location would have complied with the existing 80' setback for above ground structures. The picture below shows how the topography and grade looks today. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 268 In reference to the picture above, the preexisting topography has been altered significantly contrary to the statements made in the Staff Report. The preexisting grade has been raised significantly as the highest point of the Area 11 Mausoleum is approx. 32' when measured from the existing road the ridgeline (pilaster) pursuant to RPV building height code. The following quotes are also from the staff report pertaining to grading permit criteria: "Therefore, Staff believes that the -grading will not significantly adversely affect the visual relationship nor the views from neighboring properties, and the Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion." "This grading allows for excavations into slopes and backfill to extend the slopes to the mausoleum structures, thereby blending the structure into the natural contours of the property. Further, the preparation and subsequent grading for ground interments will retain the existing topography and will not raise these areas, with the exception of Areas 5 and 6, which will be filled to raise the grade to be similar to the adjacent grade. However, these areas upon completion will retain a naturally sloping topography common to the other areas of the cemetery site. Thus, Staff believes that the Master Plan Revision has been designed to account for the necessary grading, minimizes disturbance to the natural contours of the property, and ensures that finished contours are reasonably natural. As such, Staff believes that the Master Plan complies with this criterion," Staff stated that the grading operations for the Master Plan Revision conformed with Section E.9 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 in regards to obtaining a major grading permit. Part of this section includes the following statement, "exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls cannot exceed W-0" and Y-6" high, respectively." In 2009, planning clearance was given to build a 12' high retaining wall in Area 1/Areal1 and an associated "tractor ramp" for the Area 11 Mausoleum. This clearance included grading operations that significantly altered the existing topography of the landscape (which staff said wouldn't happen). It may also be worth noting that the tractor ramp and its location 8' from the Vista Verde property line wasn't included in the Master Plan Revision and wasn't disclosed to the public or to the planning commission. The purpose of the tractor ramp is to allow heavy machinery to travel up to the top of the Mausoleum in Area 11 and the proximity of this structure to a residential area without any buffer was, perhaps, an oversight in my opinion. The vibrations, noise, and exhaust emissions carried directly into the Vista Verde complex by the heavy machinery may not have been appropriately considered by Green Hills or Staff. The sound level created by operating a typical backhoe at 50 feet is 8OdBa (this is according to the Federal Highway Transportation Authority and multiple other resources. I've also measured 8OdBa+ from my balcony area with a sound measurement device). The closest condos are approx. 30' away from this ramp and the sound/vibrations/exhaust is unreasonable to residents. The vibrations created by such large equipment operating on top of a hollow structure creates vibrational resonance effects which are similar to a bass drum or speaker. The vibrations and sounds are amplified by this configuration. This issue was certainly not brought up to the planning commission prior to approval or considered in the CEQA environmental assessment. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 269 The retaining wall of the tractor ramp, as it stands today, appears to extend 14' above adjacent grade when measured with a tape measure and confirmed by looking at approved construction plans. Approving a retaining wall in excess of 8'-0" directly violates the criteria for a major Grading Permit as shown above. I'd also like to point out at the Master Plan Revision includes 10' high retaining walls in the proposed Mausoleum in Area 11 (has not been constructed yet) which seems to be inconsistent with the above grading permit criteria of maximum retaining wall heights (Page 11-A, 11-C, and 11-D of the Master Plan Revision Submittal). Staff also stated the following in reference to grading activities and view impairment: "the grading and related mausoleum building do not impair views; and the excavation does not significantly effect the current appearance of the slope from the public rights-of-way or from other residences. Lastly, the proposed grading activity will not be detrimental to the public safety or to the surrounding properties" As is shown by evidence, the slope of Area 11 was significantly changed and views were impaired substantially for Vista Verde residents. With further reference to the Master Plan Revision Submittal and grading activities, the Cut and Fill Plan of the document, page M -B (shown 2 photos below), shows a 'net cut' in the area west of the Area 11 Mausoleum. I find it hard to believe that this area experienced a 'net cut' because the grade was artificially raised approximately 12'-14' in this area (shown directly below) in order to accommodate the 'tractor ramp' for access to the roof of the Area 11 Mausoleum. 14' PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 270 As is shown in prior correspondence for the staff report, Green Hills has many single and double depth internments that are currently placed in violation of their CUP. According to Green Hills Master Plan 7/22/14 item number 6 there exists a 16-0" setback in the northwest corner of the property between the western property line and the maintenance yard. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, 'Garden ural sites and roads shall be as follows North and South: 8'-0' (except the northwest corner betwe a western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16'-0') East and West: 0'-0" 11111111low- If you refer to the map revised Green Hills Master Development plan below, you will see the northwest area as well as the western property line. The maintenance yard is the gray area to the right of the number 11. 10 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 271 .�'.= 4► 4,1.5EL'AP�'i'lIHIIHG MASISR OfiVEIOPMENI PLw YARTFRPIAN nz m! GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PAW 1'.Nwnx RAHOHOPALOAVEROPS.G r*RNIA �NI�K MA The photo below shows the location of dozens of double depth below ground internments (according to estimates based on the master plan revision) that are approximately 8' from the property line in the northwest corner between the western property line and the maintenance yard. 11 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 272 The tape measure in the photo above is extended 16'-0"from the property line and the below ground internments are shown well within the required setbacks set forth in the Green Hills CUP No. 155. The photo below shows another view of the below ground internments which are in violation of the setback rule. Further confirmation that this row of double depth internments may violate their CUP is shown by looking at page 1-13 of the Green Hills Approved Master Plan Amendment Submittal from 2007. 12 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 273 4&r ICEN111tSW11hICNi AIIA IACIMAMAW003i C IMM �I11t)LSy!O iIAi P NIA I'AC,I(tO�MU\t1ROtLUN IlANCl101 AIO V(IIUFS, ri%aiFani�In n 1-B The first row of double depth below ground internments are shown as being 16'-0" from the property line. I've reviewed all of the recently approved constructions plans for this area of Green Hills and none of them show approval of below ground internments within the required 16-0" setback. This 16' setback for below ground internments is also violated on top of the Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11 of the Master Plan. The planning department approved construction plans which include a row of approximately 57 below ground internments within the 16'-0" setback restriction. The photo of construction below shows where those internments are located within the Mausoleum in Area 11. 13 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 274 ;I11M IR, C(1(il �I I 11-71--d", F Y I i 4&r ICEN111tSW11hICNi AIIA IACIMAMAW003i C IMM �I11t)LSy!O iIAi P NIA I'AC,I(tO�MU\t1ROtLUN IlANCl101 AIO V(IIUFS, ri%aiFani�In n 1-B The first row of double depth below ground internments are shown as being 16'-0" from the property line. I've reviewed all of the recently approved constructions plans for this area of Green Hills and none of them show approval of below ground internments within the required 16-0" setback. This 16' setback for below ground internments is also violated on top of the Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11 of the Master Plan. The planning department approved construction plans which include a row of approximately 57 below ground internments within the 16'-0" setback restriction. The photo of construction below shows where those internments are located within the Mausoleum in Area 11. 13 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 274 In the photo above, the concrete wall which is closest to the wooden structure is 8'-0" from the Vista Verde property line. The entire first row of internments (approx. 57 according to approved construction plans) were placed in violation of their conditions of approval. The possibility exists that the second row of below ground internments are in violation of condition 6 of their CUP as well but official measurement by a surveyor would have to confirm that. The height of the Mausoleum may be higher than was approved by the PC as well. According to the following excerpt from 4/24/07 minutes, Schonborn told then -commissioner Jim Knight that the height of the Mausoleum would be measured from the roadway. Commissioner Knight discussed the plans for the new mausoleum. He noted that currently the silhouette shows the ridge line below anything that will block a view. His concern, however, was that as the grading behind was raised, a new benchmark would be established, which he felt would then cause view impairment of the harbor. He asked staff if that had been considered. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the condition dictates that the mausoleum not impair a view, no matter what the height of the structure is. He stated that the height would be measured from the roadway, since that is something that will remain constant. He stated that would be addressed thoroughly when staff receives an application and plans for the construction of the mausoleum. 14 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 275 Based on approved construction plans for the Area 11 Mausoleum, the elevation of the road at the eastern most edge of the structure is 185.00' and the highest point of the grass is at 213.5' and the highest ridgeline (pilaster) is at 217.00'. In either case, the maximum height of the structure exceeds the 25-0" height limit shown in the revised Master Plan submittal. (28.5' to the grass area or 32.0' to the ridgeline). The height of the structure may also not be in compliance with condition number 38 of their CUP (shown below). 38. With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 2.0 -feet in height as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 30 -feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure. This shows that Green Hills is possibly in violation of their CUP based on both unapproved and approved construction activities. Again, this something the PC may consider investigating. Condition number 35 of the Green Hills Conditions of Approval, shown below, gives the City the authority to initiate revocation procedures if the applicant is in violation of any of their conditions. It appears that there may be grounds for such an action. 35. Should the applicant fail to comply with any of these conditions of approval or mitigation measures, the City may initiate revocation procedures for this permit, which shall include a public hearing. Notice of said public hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.050, To sum up my correspondence with the PC, It appears that the PC never knowingly approved a setback change for above ground structures and the validity of that supposed approval may possibly be called into question. Inaccurate representations were made with regard to required compliance sections for obtaining a conditional use permit revision and a major grading permit. The current validity of both their CUP and Grading Permit could possibly be questioned based upon apparently inaccurate statements and/or contradictory activities. It also appears that Green Hills may be operating in violation of their CUP by violating condition 6 of their conditions of approval by placing dozens of below ground internments within a 16' setback area. The below ground internments within the setback easements in Area 1 don't appear to have been approved by the city planning department but the internments within the 16' setback easements on the rooftop of the Area 11 Mausoleum were. Thank you for reviewing my correspondence. 15 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 276 Kindest Regards, Matthew H. Martin Attachments: Resolution 91-7 Letter from Henry Jeffries 16 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 277 Attachment N Letter to PC date Nov 3rd, 2014 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 278 From: Matthew Martin To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission: 11/3/14 I'm sending this letter as requested by Commissioner James at the 10/28/14 planning commission hearing. From my review it appears that Green Hills and their architect (in my opinion) didn't adequately disclose what their building plans were to the RPV planning commission nor the public in 2007. One of the most notable inaccuracies is the approx. 13ft hill which was created directly west of the Mausoleum in Area 11. It's hard to get a photo showing the height of this hill due to the fact that Green Hills planted trees directly behind it, but it wasn't shown in the 2007 Master Plan Revision grading plan, shown below in the circle: 10 The area west of the Mausoleum experienced a "net -fill" and not a "net -cut" as shown by the photos below. The orange color above represents a net cut and blue represents a net fill. The land added to the roof of the Mausoleum in Area 11 may also make a large portion of the site a "net fill". According to this map, the entire Mausoleum was being built into a large existing hill (this wasn't the case.) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 279 Previous grade was at the same level as the road. The grade was raised by approx. 13ft in this area Approx. 13ft increase in land height despite a "net cut" shown on 2007 master revision grading plan (shown on previous page). PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 280 Road shows where preexisting grade was before construction. Below is another quote from the 2/27/07 staff report: "Further, the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the perimeter of the cemetery site." Another view showing the difference in height between the road and the 13fttall hill that was �� BLIC C Below is another quote from the wasn't disclosed to the planning commission or the public. In fact, the 2/27/07 staff reportcontains multiple inaccurate statements (in my opinion) with regards to grading activities including: "Therefore, Staff believes that the grading will not significantly adversely affect the visual relationship nor the views from neighboring properties, and the Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion. " The existing topography was significantly altered. Please reference the 2/27/07 staff report to see dozens of false statements (in my opinion) about construction and grading activities. Staff stated that the grading operations for the Master Plan Revision conformed with Section E.9 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 in regards to obtaining a major grading permit. Part of this section includes the following statement, "exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls cannot exceed 8'-0" and 3'-6" high, respectively." Tape measure is extended approx. 13ft from the real preexisting grade at the rear of the building and the 13ft tall retaining wall. RRESPONDENCE 281 Finished grade Preexisting grade... � r . ` Another quote from 2/27/07 staff ,v t . ' report: "The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site." PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 282 MAS TF R P1. AN ARFA 10 MEMORIAL TERRACE MAUSOLEUM It should be clear from the evidence shown that Green Hills and their architect may not have been clear and forthcoming with the planning commission or neighboring residents about their construction plans. As the commission is already aware, the site sections from the 2007 Master Plan Revision booklet for the Mausoleum in Area 11 show the building being constructed into a large 30ft+ tall existing hill. The site sections also show the Mausoleum height not exceeding the height of the existing hill. In reality the Mausoleum in Area 11 was built on nearly flat ground and was extended at least 13ft above the existing grade. The natural topography of the land was significantly altered and had detrimental effects on neighboring residents. I urge the commission to look at the 2/27/07 staff report, which is available online, and read the conditional use permit and major grading permit sections. Multiple false statements were made (in my opinion) with regards to "setbacks not being altered" and subsequent grading activities. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 283 I think it's appropriate and necessary that Green Hills be required to submit a new variance application for the Mausoleum in Area 11 within 30 days. I also think it's appropriate that further activities including sales and burials on top and within the Mausoleum should be discontinued until the new variance application is approved. Discontinuing operations just on the roof of the Mausoleum isn't comprehensive enough in my opinion. It's the entire building which requires a variance and not just the rooftop. If Green Hills and their architect would have been transparent and forthcoming to neighboring residents and the planning commission about their plans in Area 11 then this problem would not exist today. It's unfair to unnecessarily involve any more innocent families by selling them internments or placing loved ones within or on top of a structure that is in need of a variance. Thank you, Matthew Martin PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 284 Attachment 0 2003 CUP Revision Application Filed by Green Hills. (Incorrect information provided) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 285 jjr , �NJED PLANNING, BUILDING, �x °DDS �.N�°R°FMENjLiRANCHO PALOSVERDES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE EN ORCEMENT QMckwo,.-l-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. l ss rx APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: LANDOWNER: �Zdb3�°O� (Name): _ Jbtt-o-s 2 sac.yk (Name): GRrF-N r gra l a lc (Address): Z75bl S• Wcn.TsaN hle(Address): 2-190 f S• WMj-S!; ,t,) -AJ&►J{ Rlanchu (P9kOS Vow C q(02.7iC lZan4o ?kJo-s c Qo2.Zr Phone: Work: [g fs3l oatl Phone: Work: (3� &3 ( 0'3.1 Home: (30 &3z Zyls Home: $E4 R37— 261P - Project Location: GQMW 4%% Vkeryloa.t of t?Aglk- Project Description: AmeQ6^e"l— 7c, AwNn-. QIa+3 Lot & Tract Number: Current Zoning: (lefAe-Tt 2 \&C - GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Development 1. Square footage of existing structure footprint (including any covered or enclosed patios and garage). 2. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. iZl f'— p«s 3. Square footage of lot or parcel. 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) 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. 30940 HNNTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275.5391 PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT: (310) 544-5228 BUILDING: (310) 541-7702 DEPT FAX: (310)544-5293 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 286 8. Square footage of proposed new floor area. A. First Story = B. Second Story= see MA' 9. Square footage of proposed new structure footprint. Aitta cue c7 10, Square footage of driveways and parking areas. 11. Square footage of new lot coverage [line 1 + line 9 + line 101. 12. Percentage of new open space [100% - (line 11 divided by line 3)]. GRADING INFORMATION Are any of the following conditions proposed? X Yes No If yes, a separate Grading Application is required. • 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? Wo 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: Burden of Proof Statements 1. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. E -`fr S�e+a 0._Q2wmp % Coup vh-�4YL Aw"voQ PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 287 Explain how the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. 3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use thereof. !F-41 s„ Ng ce a,-e.t* — No Acyc . ez1" orJ N 4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. I H REBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials s m' ith this application are true andQnature and Si atur of Applicant/Contractor b do neDated: 419 .� Dated:�d3 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 WVorrns\Ping\apps\Conditional Use Permit.doc updated 7101 Page 6 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 288 RANCHO PALOS VERDES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT 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 March 4, 2002, 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. IMPACT CITY: RANCHO PALOS VERDES STREET ADDRESS CURRENT USE FORMER USE RWQCB CASE: No. CASE STATUS 3860 CREST ROAD 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 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD Mobil service station Same R-01504 Open 28732 HIGHRIDGE ROAD Hilltop Automotive . Unocal service station 1-06434 Closed 96 NARCISSA DRIVE Residence Same R-23219 Closed 6100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Office building Shell service station R-315348 Closed 6124 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Fire Station No. 53 Same R-12757 Closed 6560 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Two residences (32504 & 32508 Seawolf Drive) Chevron service station R-14832 Closed 6600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Partially demolished Marineland and Texaco service station R-01.409 Closed 31200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Unocal service station Same I-11074 Closed 27501 WESTERN AVENUE Green Hills Memorial Park Same R-12803 Open 29421 WESTERN AVENUE Chevron service station Same 1-15523 Closed 29505 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center Mobil service station R-03558 Open 29701 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center Unocal service station R-05958 Closed In 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 these lists. (Applicant) (Signature) (Date) 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard / Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Planning & Code Enforcement Divisions: (310) 544-5228 / Building Division: (310) 541-7702 / Department FAX: (310) 544.5293 www.palosverdes,com/rpv PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 289 HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEME,Ml 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: 62ee— 4, (L Kk�e " a � "'i. Lt 2. Address: _ 23 S—'?/ i S• lNu,la-- 3. Phone Number: Day ' Iu -&3'1 "t-- Evening j)- 4. Address of Site (Street name and number If available, and ZIP code): 211 5. Local Agency (City/County): G oS / S,49ro L c-- VLA 6. Assessor's Book, Page, and Parcel Number: 7. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: 8. Regulatory Identification Number: ?L \2-" ? 9. Daae. s :_, Maki-- 4, Lzo— Ch 1 ,U rte.e- o , J PAAL" Z (Signature) FOR STAFF USE ONLY M!—S (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 Code, 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 4, 2002 W:\Forms\Ping\mise\Hazardous Waste & Substances Statement.doc PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 290 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A VICINITY MAP AND PROPERTY OWNERS LIST In order to satisfy public noticing requirements, certain planning applications require the submittal of a vicinity map and accompanying property owners list. The size of the vicinity map varies by application and may involve either adjacent properties, a 100' radius, or a 500' radius, Please check on the application form you are submitting for the vicinity map size you must submit. With the exception of "Adjacent Properties" maps, a vicinity map and property owners list must be prepared by a Title Company or other professional mailing list preparation service. The mailing labels must be certified as accurate by the agent preparing the mailing list. Attached Is a list of firms that provide services in preparation of vicinity maps and certified mailing labels. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list and the cost of the services provided will vary. If you have any questions regarding properties of the vicinity map or property owners list, as described below, please contact a planner at (310) 544-52213. VICINITY MAP The purpose of the vicinity map is to clearly show all properties within the required radius of the subject lot (applicant). The vicinity map must clearly show the required radius line, dimensioned and drawn from the exterior boundaries of the subject lot, as shown below. All neighboring properties (including lots outside R.P.V. city limits) which fall completely within, partially within or are just touched by the radius line, must be consecutively numbered and the names and the addresses of the owners provided to the City as described below. Please devise your own consecutive numbering system on the map and ignore the lot number, Assessors number, or any other number already found on the lots on the vicinity maps. An "adjacent properties" vicinity map does not involve a set radius but rather needs to identify all properties behind, beside, and in front of the proposed project site, as shown below. The city's planning staff can provide the base map for preparing the vicinity map for a nominal charge. Applicants may also prepare their own maps, at a clearly marked scale of not less than 1" = 200'. PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LIST The property owner of every parcel (even if vacant, rented or government owned), which falls completely or partially within the required radius on the vicinity map must be identified, placed on a mailing list and submitted to the City. The name and address of every property owner along with the assigned lot identification number, which corresponds to the vicinity map, must be neatly typed on 8'/z" x 11 sheets of Xerox or Avery self-adhesive labels, as shown below, Two (2) sets of self-adhesive labels and a Xerox copy of the list must be provided to the City with your subject application. These labels will be used by the City to mail notice of your subject application to neighboring property owners. The property owners list must be obtained from the most current L.A. County Tax Assessor's roll, The City, does not provide this service. The Assessor's office located at 500 W. Temple Street, Room 205, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Office hours are 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday -Friday. The telephone number is (213) 974-3441. Assigned Lot I.D. Number Property Owner Name Address City, State, Zip Code W:\Forms\Ping\misc\V icinity.doc SAMPLE M MLING LABI-LS 1 2 Harold Jackson Malcolm Hili 773 Graylog 4117 Greenwood Meadow RPV, CA 90275 Torrance, CA 90503 SAMPLE VICINITY MAPS "Adjacent Properties" Z 7 �r m PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 291 Map Makers, Ownership Listing Services & Title Companies that may prepare radius maps and mailing lists 1. Angeles Planning Group 7. Westcoast Mapping 5515 York Boulevard 5147 W. Rosecrans Los Angeles, CA 90042 Hawthorne, CA 90250 (323) 259-3573 (310) 973-4619 (Ownership Listing Service) (Ownership Listing Service) 2. Blue Energy 8. Commonwealth Land Title Company P.O. Box 3305 801 N. Brand Blvd Palps Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 Glendale, CA, 91203 (310) 465-1825 (818) 552-7000 Attn: Natalie Kay Data Pro (Ownership Listing Service) Attn: Michael Higgerson (800) 568-7104 3. G.C. Mapping 711 Mission Street, Suite 'B' 9. Southland Title Corporation South Pasadena, CA 91030 7530 N. Gienoaks Blvd., 2nd Floor (626) 441-1080 Burbank, CA, 91504 Attn: Gilbert Castro (310) 603-0191 (Ownership Listing Service) 10. Lawyers Title Company 4. Kimberly Wendell 251 So. Lake P.O. Box 264 Pasadena CA, 91101 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (800) 347-7800 x395 (562) 431 -9634 (562) 431-6175 — FAX 11. JPL Zoning Services, Inc. (Ownership Listing Service) 6257 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 101 Van Nuys, CA 91401-2711 5. Nieves & Associates (818) 781-0016 115 S. Juanita Ave. Attn: Maria Falasca Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (310) 543-3090 (Ownership Listing Services) 6. Susan W. Case 917 Glenneyre St., Suite #7 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (949) 494-6105 (Ownership Listing Service) W 1Forms\Ping\misc\MapMakers,OwnershipListing Srvs,Title Companies.doo (Updated 9/17/02) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 292 LI ANCHO PALOS VERDES Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS` MAILING LIST Application(s) Applicant Name Subject Property Address Notice Radius Required Number of property owners to be notified 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 land within 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 Map Instructions Sheet." I also understand that if more than 20% of the notices are returned by the post office after mailing due to incorrect address information, or if the address information is not complete, that I will have to submit a new property owners' fist that has been prepared and certified as accurate by a Title Company or other professional mailing list preparation service, and the project notice will have to be re -mailed. Property Owner (Applicant) Signature Date Name (Please Print) W:\Forms\Ping\mist\Certification of Property Owners' Mailing List.doc 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD/RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275.5391 PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT: (310) 544.5228 BUILDING: (310) 541-7702 DEPT. FAX: (310)544.5293 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 293 APPENDIX H ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed By Applicant) Date Filed: General Information 1. Name and address of developer of project sposor: 2. Address Address of project: 2--Is—a 1 S woi Assessor's Block & Lot No. 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be conta ted concerning this project: .-dt*i i sas:tLL, — (3tg301; T 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Oaf 5. 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: 6. Existing zoning district: C'C4ktJt*4.-t 7. Proposed use of site (Project forwhich this form is filed): r S7W ai Q,l bcJ R- "VIJ*1 PMA, AJ Project Description 8. Site size. tz-t -t- — A�c.rtres 9. Square footage. 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. r Amount of off-street parking provided. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 294 12. Attach plans, 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated project. 15. Anticipated incremental development. 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). RIA PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 295 Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or roads. 23. Change in patter, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amount of solid waste or litter. 25. Change, in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, by, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, ✓ or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ✓/ 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ✓ RIA PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 295 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic `r substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, V, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural ✓ gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ✓ Environmental Setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including infor- mation on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 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, statements, and in formation presented are true and correc� the sof my knowledge and belief. z I V k I o -> Date For ` (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) W:\Forms\PIng\misc\Environmental Into Form - Appendix Kdoc PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 296 Appendix I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 297 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Land use and Planning NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Biological Resources I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there Aesthetics will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an Population and Housing attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Energy and Mineral Resources I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one Cultural Resources effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal Geological Problems standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as Hazards described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Recreation Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must Water analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed, Noise I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there Mandatory Findings of Significance WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have Air Quality been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or Public Services mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 298 Signature Date Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g, the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it Is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e, g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate If there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate Into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source fist should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 299 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potoottelty Peteallslty tanThoe No slunincant ti►pnlncant Sipolncaat Impact Issues unless Impact 11111109809" Incorporated 11. LANG ®SE AND PLANNING. Would His OroOosol: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ---Explain choice of impact below each item; multiple lines may be entered or Delete this row if no explanation is required --- 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? I ( I I I j d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an + established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 12. POPeLATION AND HOUSING. Would the progesol: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population j projections? I I I ! 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? 1 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential Impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? :l PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 300 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potsellolty Yotsauolhi lass Thin No 811nlncent Sllmncent 8tsnmcent Impact Isssos ehlsss Itnyect Miuseuon Incorporoted ure, d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4, WATER, Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? e) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water I + body? 5 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 301 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? issues and Supporting informati®n Sources source$ Pataallally Pat$anally touiaad No 8110111cout 8150111cant 511dlllcadt Impact Issues Vale" Impact Mitnanan I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Incorporated j) Storm Water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (Including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Storm Water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (Including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? k) A significantly environmentally harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water runoff? i) A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? m) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc,)? n) Warm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 302 lase®S and SUPPOr ln® InfuMe in S®afenn sources Peuldedr POWWOW taarnel No slsntftannt slgedlcent 618NItl1:nt Impact Innes ®11111: Imlent midulds1 I1esrooreted j 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result In- a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? I e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I I ' I I I f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ■ 0 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 303 1 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or I! birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? I I I I j j d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation pians? 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 of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, I( chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or I ! J emergency evacuation plan? l PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 304 Issues and Suppardag InfermsUen Sources 80110162 PoteeU511p retendantl Lessi2an No 8I12111cent significant slgnificant Impact 1::552 intoe Impact midestion Incorporated 1 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or I! birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? I I I I j j d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation pians? 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 of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, I( chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or I ! J emergency evacuation plan? l PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 304 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? I I I I j 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: I a) Increase in existing noise levels? I I I I I I b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? I e) Other governmental services? I I I I I I PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 305 Issues and Supporting Inforuaution Senfees searces Potentially Petoatiaily ton Than No signilicont sigalficant slgn8lcont Impact Issues galeas impact Mitigation Incorporated c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? I I I I j 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: I a) Increase in existing noise levels? I I I I I I b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? I e) Other governmental services? I I I I I I PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 305 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? I I I 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? I I I I c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? 10 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 306 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potoodalty Poteatlolhl tosalron No "Iplucant slenidoont slpnlNcant Impact 119e1 sales Impact Nldeaseo Incorporated 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? I I I 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? I I I I c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? 10 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 306 1311®s and SUPPOrUng Iniernilntl®n S UNN seeress Petenuelty Petenuelts LouTpen No slsnlncunt slsenlcnnt steuillcent impact Issues tioless [[asset Mluseuen 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? incorporates 11 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 307 c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. 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? --- Explain here --- b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? --- Explain here --- 11 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 307 Issues and Supporting Inlermotion Sources sources Pelentielly Potentially loeentan No cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" slpninoant stgninceat 8111111110811 Impact means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of Ittues tlolass Impact the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the littlpatiea effects of prcbable future projects) incorporated 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15083 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review, --- Explain here ---- b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. --- Explain here ---- c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 12 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 308 c) 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 prcbable future projects) --- Explain here --- d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --- Explain here --- 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15083 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review, --- Explain here ---- b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. --- Explain here ---- c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 12 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 308 --- Explain here --- Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal, App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 --- General Plan Update, Every City, 1994, pages 7, 9 --- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 --- Do not Discontinue the Header on this page until the entire Checklist is complete; material may shift forward and the Header may be needed--- W:\Forms\Ping\misc\Environmental Checklist Form - Appendix Woc 13 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 309 ISSn®S and SUPPOrtlng InISrmaWn S®nreeS Semites retennena Petenttelb tons Then No slenmcant alenlncent Slenlncent Impact lanes unless InleeCt mitilsuen Ine®reersted --- Explain here --- Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal, App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 --- General Plan Update, Every City, 1994, pages 7, 9 --- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 --- Do not Discontinue the Header on this page until the entire Checklist is complete; material may shift forward and the Header may be needed--- W:\Forms\Ping\misc\Environmental Checklist Form - Appendix Woc 13 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 309 STO' ':N WATER PLANNIN PROGRAM PRIORITY PROJECT CHECKLIST F►(, NCHO PALOS VERDES P Neme Omer Name 0evabper Name ProiedAddross 0*mer ren %r, iA.v�.1 ll�_w s- z..) ( 5• waaticN.CN\ P eevebper/ddau V tat�'a1G�J `' c, dY.�aXi..D Ch i -&i CY,y Gbi Vrovab- Ca••. ✓ CbedWraNNumber Omar Plana ✓ Part 'I - Type of Project Does the proposed project fall into one of the following categories? Yesl No 1) Ten or more unit homes, including single and multiple family homes, condominiums, apartments etc.* ✓ 2) An industrial or commercial development with 100,000 square feet or more of impervious surface' ✓ 3) An automotive service facility _ ✓ 4) A retail gasoline outlet ,. 5) A restaurant 6) A parking lot with either 5,000 square feet of impervious surface or with 25 or more parking spaces' 7) Single family hillside - *(one acre or more of surface area) ✓ 8) Redevelopment projects as defined on back' 9) Project located in, adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA (defined on back) AND creates 2,500* square feet or more of impervious surface area^ If any of the loxes in Part 1 Is chocked "Yes", this project will require the preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back). 'Numerical Criteria will apply. Part 2 - Project Specific Concerns Does the proposed project Include any of the following elements? Yee No 1) Vehicle or equipment fueling areas (retail or private) _ ✓ 2) Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, including repair or washing 3) Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage 4) Outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials ,. 5) Outdoor manufacturing areas 6) Outdoor food handling or processing 7) Outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter ✓ 8) Outdoor horticulture activities If any of the boxes in Part 2 is checked 'Yes", this project will require the preparation of a Site Specific Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SSSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back). If boxes In Paris 1 and 2 are both checked "Yes", a combined urban stormwater plan will need to be submitted. Vlkkk.% (1.aM Applicant Name Applicant 11119 cc; One copy of document to Public Works a/19/n91 Date Fmm HKA-PCrov.6/02 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 310 Definitions: Pervious surfaces are those that allow storm water runoff to percolate through. Typical pervious surfaces include: grass, gravel, concrete pavers, and some specially designed asphalts. Hillside means property where the slope is 25% or greater and where grading contemplates cut or fill slopes. Redevelopment means land -disturbing activity that results in the creation, addition, or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Redevelopment includes, but is not limited to: the expansion of a building footprint; addition or replacement of a structure; replacement of impervious surface area that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities related to structural or impervious surfaces. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include modifications to existing single family structures, or emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) means an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Also, an area designated by the City as approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (See picture below) Maintenance Agreement and Transfer: All developments subject to SUSMP and site specific plan requirements provide verification of maintenance provisions for Structural and Treatment Control BMPs, including but not limited to legal agreements, covenants, CEQA mitigation requirements, and or conditional use permits. Verification at a minimum shall include: The developer's signed statement accepting responsibility for maintenance until the responsibility is legally transferred; and either - A signed statement from the public entity assuming responsibility for Structural or Treatment Control BMP maintenance and that it meets all local agency design standards; or - Written conditions in the sales or lease agreement, which requires the recipient to assume responsibility for maintenance and conduct a maintenance inspection at least once a year; or Written text in project conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) for residential properties assigning maintenance responsibilities to the Home Owners Association for maintenance of the Structural and Treatment Control BMPs; or - Any other legally enforceable agreement that assigns responsibility for the maintenance of post - construction Structural or Treatment Control BMPs, PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 311 STvRM WATER PLANNING PRuGRAM or Pi PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS L'IWCHO PALOS VERDES Project Name Leet -r _.__0sA1 MfvJ 0 ru.4 P n pGeneral Project_ Project Location r"I �� 27' I `'• wea{ww NVQ Company Name -(,f24tt 4v(k d&tCertification Address 21Jb I S • if�1eo-� (� e Contact Name /Title :BW,,3 • RfistG t r< A completed original of this form must Phone i FAX/Email 'So ___ 9-:5 �_! accompany all SUSNP submittals Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the design of this project to accomplish the following goals: 1) Minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of Natural Drainage Systems and water bodies in accordance with requirements under CEQA (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21100), CWC § 13369, CWA § 319, CWA § 402(p), CWA § 404, CZARA § 6217(g), ESA § 7, and local government ordinances. 2) Maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground. 3) Minimize the amount of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and to the MS4. 4) Minimize pollution emanating from parking lots through the use of appropriate Treatment Control BMPs and good housekeeping practices. 5) Properly design and maintain Treatment Control BMPs in a manner that does not promote breeding of vectors. 6) Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in stormwater from the development site. I certify that this Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. The information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complet ertyO er/Developer(signature) Property Owner/ Developer(printed) Title Date Post Construction / Maintenance Certification Proper operation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is an important component of reducing pollutants in urban and storm water runoff. As the responsible party, I certify that the BMPs will be implemented, monitored and maintained to ensure their continued effectiveness. In the event of a property transfer, the new owner will be notified of the BMPs In use at this site and must include written conditions in the sales or lease agreement, which requires the recipient to assume responsibility for maintenance and conduct a maintenance inspection at least once a year. Property Owner (signature) Property owner (printed) Title Data Signatory requirements: This section shall be signed by the landowner. If the landowner Is not an Individual, the signatures may be from a corporate officer, a manager If the authority to sign has been delegated to the manager, a general partner, or a sole proprietor. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 312 Plann.. j Best Management Practic Please refer to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks for more information. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 313 BMP Identification No. Check If t® BMP Name and Name be used Car Wash Facility SC3, Vehicle and Equipment Washing and Steam CI ani Constructed Wetlands TC3, Constructed Wetlands Control of Impervious Runoff Not applicable Efficient Irrigation Not apellcable Energy Dissipaters ESC40, Outlet Protection Extended Detention Basins TC5, Extended Detention Basin Infiltration Basins TC1, Infiltration Infiltration Trenches TC1, Infiltration Inlet Trash Racks Not applicable Landscape Design ESC2, Preservation of Existing Vegg Cation; ECS10, Seeding and Planting; ESC11, Mulching Linings for Urban Runoff Not applicable Conveyance Channels Materials Management SC5, Outdoor Loading/Unloading of Materials; SC6, Outdoor Container, Storage of Liquids; SC8 Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials, Products and BY -Products Media Filtration TC6, Media Filtration ✓ Motor Fuel Concrete DispensingSC2, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling Areas Motor Fuel Dispensing Area SC2, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling Canopy Oil/Water Separators and Water TC7, Oil/Water Separators and Water Quality Inlets Quality Inlets Outdoor Storage SC6, Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids; SC8, Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials, Products and By -Products Porous Pavement and Alternative TC1, Infiltration Surfaces Protect Slopes and Channels ECS40, Outlet Protection; ESC42, Slope Roughening and Terracing Self -Contained Areas for Vehicle or SC3, Vehicle and Equip. Washing and Steam Equipment Washing, Steam Cleaning, Cleaning; SC4, Vehicle and Equipment / Maintenance, Repair, or Material Maintenance and Repair; SC7, Outdoor Processing Process Equipment Operations and Maint. Storm Drain System Stenciling and SC30, Storm Drain Systems Signs Si na e Trash Container Areas SC9 WasteHandlln-q and Disposal Vegetated Swales and Strips TC4, Bio -Filters Wet Ponds TC2, Wet Pond Please refer to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks for more information. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 313 1 a 2ad�rrA RANCHO PALOSVERDES y ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT GRADING APPRO L APPLICATI N NUMBER # �g.7,46�— uap(o APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: rd -FA '15�41 Ci Z� cw i Pi e (Address) -PI" o Polo, V CL" Telephone: Home L w) k's I u3I I Work kZLQ I ajt Z Zrpf LANDOWNER: GRA l-�Ll1s W"kU1L'*'k 06�kLc (Name) 2-I -�y (Address) Telephone: Home S. we3 � P,/' SZa nc.E. a bs Ute,., Work Lot and Tract No: Project Location: Project Description: General Information: 1. Maximum height of project, measured from top to lowest foundation wall to ridge. 2. Maximum height of project above finished grade. 3. Square footage of project. (Building footprint) 4. If addition, square footage of existing structure (including any covered or enclosed patios). Page 6 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275.5391 PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT: (310) 544-5228 BUILDING: (310)541-7702 DEPT, FAX: (310) 544-5293 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 314 5. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. (i. Square footage of lot. 7. Percentage of existing open space, 8. Percentage of open space after development. Grading Information: Lot Type; Pad Upslope Downslope 1, Maximum depth of cut, 2. Total cubic yards of cut. "10)000 A. Under the building (excluding footings). B. Outside of building footprint, 3. Maximum height of fill. 4. Total cubic yards of fill, A. Under the building, B. Outside of building footprint. 5. Total volume of earth to be moved, A. Under the building (sum of lines 2A & 4A). B. Outside of building footprint (:sum of lines 213 & 4B). 3 to ( 6. Maximum percentage of created slopes. 3 TO 1 7. Total average slope of site. 4t.. 8. Maximum height of downslope retaining wall. 9. Maximum height of upslope retaining wall, tN o< _ _ 10. Maximum percentage grade of driveway. `f To 1 11. Maximum percentage of existing slope. Page 7 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 315 Does the project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or public drainage structure? tJ0 . If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction permits. Does the project require any off-site grading (remedial, contour, utilities, etc.) or stockpile of excavated materials? ►Jc�, 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. 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 ail required fees, and approval by the Director is not final until approval has been granted by the City Engineer, 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 pciertito obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division. Applicant/Contractor Dated: Z f m ( ".) Staff Signature: Date Received: M.\Pnn MPhrg\apps\GR ADINGA PP. da 6/30/99 Signature of Lad er Dated: I� Page 8 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 316 Southern California Rejjonal Office W6 South Harbor Boulevard Suite 260 Santa Ana, CA 92704 (714) 431-4100 Fax (714) 825.0685 January 26, 2000 Clayton ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Mr. John Resich FEB :t cJ 2003 Attorney at Law lay ANNIPiG, 8U11 -DING, 840 W. 9th Street -,ODE ENFORCEMENT San Pedro, CA 90731 Clayton Project No, 80-98248.00 Subject: S:iecifications to Complete Final Cover per Remedial Action Plan Requirements for Green Hills Memorial Park, Rancho Palos Verdes, California Dear Mr. Resich: Per your request, Clayton reviewed the Revised Remedial Action Plan, Green Hills liemorial Park, -:o determine the requirements approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department regtxding the final grade on the former "East Pit" located in the undeveloped portion of Greer, Bills Memorial Park. As you may remember this portion of the site was covered with an impermeable membrane and perimeter drain system to prevent runoff Water from running through the soil underneath the membrane. Page 6-6 of the :,pproved Revised Remedial Action Plan states that " the liner will be covered with cntshed concrete or similar site derived material, if suitable, and a 10 -foot (estimated) buffer of clean soil will be added as cover material." In addition, pa.-; 2 of Appendix B (Proposed Grading for Remedial Action. Plan prepared by Smith -Emery GeoServices) of the Soil Remediation Report for the Southern Undeveloped Area of Green Hills Memorial Park, dated June 1999, also refers to the 10• foot cover above the liner. I hope this provides you the information you requested, if you have any questions regarding this lotter, please feel free to contact me at (714) 431-4100. Sincerely, a div ia roject Engineer Environmental Risk Management and Remediation Southern California Regional Office \\LOSA NWWDA?n\EmaU?ROJ\P9R24g\CO P\9 24gJan2Vollayton Envlronmenta Consultants is a kol yin of Clayton Croup services, Inc. Atlanta • Boston • Chicago • Cleveland • Danbury • Detroit • Honolulu • Indranapolis • Los Angeles • Miami Minneapolis • New York • Philadelphia • Portland Rockford San Francisco • Savannah • Seattle • Wichita PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 317 GUE�N HL -IL -t- MEMORIAL PARK February 18, 2003 RECEIVED Joel Rojas FEB 19 2003 Director of Planning Building and Code Enforcement PLANNING, BUILDING, City of Rancho Palos Verdes CODE ENFORCEMENT 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 Re: Master Plan Amendment and Remedial Grading Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue CUP 155 Dear Joel: I have completed the application for an amendment to the CUP # 155 for Green Hills Memorial Park and am submitting the same for consideration and approval. I have also enclosed a grading application which you have requested. Since this Grading application is not for anyone, specific building but an overall grading application I have answered the questions generally and not specific to anyone development. Attached to this application are copies of plans which show the Plat Map for Green Hills, which have identified existing buildings, together with proposed footprints for future Mausoleum developments. Some of these locations are not changed from the original CUP which was approved. Others have been relocated based upon the Remediation which occurred and for which a grading plan was issued by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In this grading plan and the requirements for the Remediation no building could be construction over the liner or in those areas which were not compacted. The Rancho Palos Verdes building permit provided that no building could be built in liner area and all building pads in those locations were relocated. These footprints do not exceed the original size of the footprints which were previously approved. I have also enclosed the information from the Clayton Environmental Consultants pertaining to completion of the Revised Remedial Action Plan which clarifies the requirement for -placing a 10 - foot buffer of clean soil over the liner (Memo's and Letters from Clayton). This procedure followed the RAP as issued and building permit issued by the Rancho Palos Verdes Building Department. I have also enclosed letters from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Site Mitigation Unit pertaining to the requirements of the cap over the liner. The new proposed grading plan takes into consideration the 10 foot cap and drainage on the property. This proposed grading plan is consistent with the previous plan as approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in the original application on the CUP taking into consideration the requirement of the County of Los Angeles Fire Departments requirements. 27501 South Western Avenue - Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 - (310) 831-0311 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 318 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department February 19, 2003 Page Two The following are answers to the issues set forth in Kit Fox's letter dated December 19, 2002: Green Hills is requesting an amendment to the CUP which would allow importation of soil into the site in excess of the 5000 cubic yards previously granted. This request for importation would cover previous imported soil, which was imported to comply with LARWQCB requirements to channel storm water runoff, The violations have been rectified and it is the belief that Green Hills is in compliance with LARWQCB and NPDES requirements. The LARWQCB violation was for not having a new plan for storm water runoff after the partial completion of the remediation of the site. Since 10 feet of soil was not placed over the liner Green Hills did not prepare a new plan but such plan has been completed and submitted to the appropriate authorities. Since all soil has not been placed over the protective liner a complete resolution of the project could not be completed and all storm water could not be diverted without soil, The soil which was imported, (approximately 1,500 cubic yards) was placed over the protective liner to divert the storm water run off so that it didn't drain into the neighbors property nor did it drain into the County Storm Drains carrying silt. I have attached a storm water plan which has been submitted to the appropriate agencies and has been implemented at Green Hills Memorial Park, In the development of Green Hills Memorial Park and its daily operations, Green Hills digs individual Grave sites and also places vaults in the ground for future interment. When each grave site is dug, approximately 7.1 cubic yards of soil is removed. A portion of that soil is then returned to fill the site, which amount is based upon the type of out burial container and the number of interment place in each grave site. State Law requires that a minimum of 18 inches of soil be placed over each burial unit. On a yearly basis, Green Hills handles approximately 2000 interments of which approximately 1600 are ground burials. This soil is then relocated in the undeveloped areas of Green Hills and is then compacted, consistent with the master plan for development. If all the area of Green Hills Memorial Park were used for ground burials the total volume of Grave soil that would be removed and replaced would be approximately 220,000 cubic yards of soil. In the completion of the requirement of the RAP and the building permit granted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a requirement exists to place 10 feet of soil over the liner. In order to bury over the liner, Green Hills would have to generate soil sufficient to cover the liner and then remove the soil for burials. At the present time Green Hills does not have sufficient soil nor does it generate sufficient soil quickly enough to cover the liner within a reasonable time as set forth in the assurances to the City of Los Angeles, Fire Department and then be able to bury remains on PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 319 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department February 19, 2003 Page 3 this site. In a neighborly gesture, Green Hills has stated to Rolling Hills Covenant Church that if the City of Rolling Hills Estates and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would consent that they would be willing to accept approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sandy material form the proposed new development project to Green Hills if appropriately compensated so that Green Hills could meet the requirements of covering the liner and work the material without cost or expense or detriment to Green Hills. A copy of the letter is attached hereto for your review. As for the soil which was previously imported from a site on Western Avenue. No contaminated material was imported for the Instorage Site. All material was examined and tested and an independent laboratory (Wayne Perry, Inc.) has indicated that no contaminated soil was imported to Green Hills. A copy of the report has been provided to the City previously and is included in this request for an amendment to the CUP. All requirements of LARWQCB and NPDES have been addressed and a plan is in existence which brings Green Hills into compliance with the Storm Water Runoff requirements. Green Hills will continue to amend the plan as required to stay in compliance with all requirements of LARWQCB and NPDES. Such a plan is an ever-changing plan as soil is moved over the site and until the completion of the covering of the liner a permanent plan cannot be completed and submitted. In addition to the Grave Dirt which has been estimated at approximately at 220,000 cubic yards of cut and fill over the life of the park. Green Hills is seeking the approval for an additional 70,000 cubic yards of Cut and Fill. This cut and fill would be for the completion of the building of Mausoleum building on the pads as outlined in the plan submitted. The sites which would generate the majority of the cuts are the building of below ground Mausoleum in the following locations. One being the area known as Pacifica Mausoleum, which has been previously approved and Green Hills, in this application is requesting an amendment to the CUP which would allow for the underground building of a Mausoleum up to the property line in this location. As for all other requirements they would be consistent with those requirements of the previous CUP pertaining to above ground setbacks. In addition, Green Hills is requesting in this application the approval to build an Under Ground Mausoleum in that area known as Court of Devotion, consistent with the present Mausoleum at that location. Of these buildings, neither would have any impact on any view corridors nor would they be inconsistent with the present developments of the area, The remainder of the 70,000 cubic yards of Cut and Fill would be for the development of other Mausoleum on and throughout the site. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 320 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department February 19, 2003 Page Four A Radius Map and Property Owners List is being prepared by Elizabeth Srour, of Srour and Associates and will be submitted forthwith. As of this date these property lists were not available but will be submitted forthwith. Please accept this application without the Radius Map and Property Owners List as such is in the process of being completed. In summary, Green Hills, in this application is looking to amend the CUP in the following manner: To approve the new grading plan as submitted (Please refer to the Map which is attached); To allow for the previous importation and possible future importation of soil, in the amount of approximately 22g000bubic yards; For the approval of the footprints for future mausoleums to be built on the site (as set forth in the attached Plan); For the movement of soil both for graves under a master grading plan without the requirement for obtaining grading permits for interment and the placement of vaults and burials and for cut and fill volumes for future developments (for a total cut and fill for grave soil in the amount of 220,000 and for Buildings of 70,000 cubic yards of soil). Other than those items above listed Green Hills is requesting that no changes be made to any of the other requirements and conditions of the Original CUP nor the requirements or conditions to any amendments to the CUP previously granted. It is the belief of Green Hills that as for an Environmental Impact Report that this application does not require such a report as it is a Negative Declaration. Thank you for your consideration in accepting and processing this application. JJR Encl. S' cer ^y John J. Resich, Jr. Chairman of the Board Green Hills Memorial Park PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 321 Attachment P 2005 CUP Revision Application Filed by Green Hills. (Incorrect information provided) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 322 '4f� 0 CITVOF RANCHO PALOSVERDES P�261v o�G & PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT q�ANNEEN�pNGE Gp0 GRADING APPROVAL APPLICATION NUMBER # Z'�ffd3 -66694z, APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: (Name) V1 19 (Address) INt, -A,�. 7x Telephone: Home Work 2 i�. 522• �%°'' 3 LANDOWNER: n G�-r� � �� L. (_s V `� `E An.o a-� A -c._ 4Dia2..14-. (Name) S 15O t S �h% C TcYLN I Gla u S V s s r, Gn 10 27 S (Address) Telephone: Home Work 310-S31 0 $ L t Lot and Tract No: Project Location: 2'1 501 S , w s T� rZrJ kv Project Description: C--Mt-re--2:N 0 A%Tcf-L Am-c:IJ AA E-.7 General Information: 30 L 1. Maximum height of project, measured from top to lowest foundation wall to ridge. �o I 2. Maximum height of project above finished grade. 302 0o -- 3. Square footage of project. (Building footprint) Co.9 0,C) 38 (025 4. If addition, square footage of existing structure (including any Page 10 30940 HAwTHORNE BIND / RANCHO PALOS VERDES. GA 902 75-5391 PLANNING/CODL ENFORCFMLN I (310) 544-5228 / BIJILL7IN(. (310) 541-7702/ DEPT FAX (310) 544 -5293/E -MAIL PLANNING®RWCOM PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 323 covered or enclosed patios), l 5. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. (E-� I -Ti Ql:�) (T-9 A-� SgUA(Z V:;srA4,4Z n ra tes/ acaiunsC� • "l7�ot� >.c. 5,i jo'1 Cao 6. Square footage of lot. } W�-[ &e') 3 1/v 7. Percentage of existing open space. (v 7/b 8. Percentage of open space after development. Grading Information: Lot Type: Pad _ Upslope Downslope 1. Maximum depth of cut. �6 A'1 2. Total cubic yards of cut. X51 4(p o, 4 A. Under the building (excluding footings). I a z4 B. Outside of building footprint. 3. Maximum height of fill. 4. Total cubic yards of fill. A. Under the building. B. Outside of building footprint. Z-31 5. Total volume of earth to be moved. A. Under the building (sum of lines 2A & 4A). 3 B. Outside of building footprint (sum of lines 2B & _ 4B). 3 cl '% 6. Maximum percentage of created slopes. 7. Total average slope of site. 8. Maximum height of downslope retaining wall. N A 9. Maximum height of upslope retaining wall. 3 e !L- 10. Maximum percentage grade of driveway. '/AR -k, i�-,.s 11. Maximum percentage of existing slope. Page 11 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 324 Does the project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or public drainage structure? , f C, .. 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 ing (remedial, contour, utilities, etc.) or stockpile of excavated materials? No 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 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)? 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 16 feet or the 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 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 325 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 atu f Applicant/Contract Signature of Landowner nom' C. --,PSA o(z n u c Dated: I •2r, • 2ool� Dated: Staff Signature: Date Received: W:\Forms\Ping\apps\Grading Application.doc Revised: 06.24.03 Page 13 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 326 0� q ��' otioo`' GUCITVOF RArGHO PALOSVERDES o�� PLANNING, BUILDING, &CODE ENFORCEMENT CONDITIONAL U PERMIT APPLICATIO NO. ;Wr 003 -00a8b �o AS, aJ Tb 6q,0 l 55) APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: LANDOWNER: (Name): &foaN C . 1SoubAC-AuX (Name): j�J f,6&4 1- "s P,.Fw.(z1 PA12-K-- (Address): J. S-TUO-T I oma, I NG • (Address): 2 501 s , We-.Tt 2n1 hv- . 2919 wru-$g44-L 1 QA,.,t-*s Phone: Work: �- �( ) r'TZAV35 Phone:' Work: g)32.. (.19L, Home: ( ) Home: ( ) Project Location: S. WzsTC-r)-N PLA,,,,3 Mti+-Nr� Mc� Project Description: I4i L,4.5 kA 02144— Lot & Tract Number: Current Zoning: C:-� mleTc 2-'-I C.,i; ►a 1 _ GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Development 1 (, X25 S 1. Square footage of existing structure footprint (including any covered or enclosed patios and garage). Sl& ,-Ioo sF 2. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. 5,2'10 't&o sr- 3. Square footage of lot or parcel. 01oo, 325 s>- 4. Square footage of existing lot coverage [line 1 + line 21. g� Dlo 5. Percentage of existing open space. [100% - (line 4 divided by line 3)]. Proposed Development (PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY IF A NEW STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED) o 6. Maximum height of project, measured from the highest point of existing grade covered by the structure to ridge. 301 7. Maximum height of project, measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest foundation to ridge. 3094o Haw I uoanr RLVo / RANUH6 PALOs VLiobs. CA 902/b-63111 19 ANNINGA.00L LN1 ORCEMLN I (3 10) 5411 -11P28 / Lit IILDIN ;3101 541-770? / DFP I FAX (310) 54.1 5283 / E ?MAIL PLANNNNOE'RPV COM PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 327 VpF46-S - S &%-: PL -A-05 8. Square footage of proposed new floor area. A. First Story = B. Second Story= 9. Square footage of proposed new structure footprint. sr 10. Square footage of driveways and parking areas. 2 b}o2�5 -11. Square footage of new lot coverage [find�I ¢line 9 +line '101. 12. Percentage of new open space [100% - (line 11 divided by line 3)]. GRADING INFORMATION Are any of the following conditions proposed? ✓ 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. I 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? 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: Burclern of Proof Statements Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 328 2. Explain how the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways property designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. "T, 0 C, ktir P3 I -A 12-c, 6;,1`9-G,) L,& -TI 3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use thereof. P12op SC.CSkp- (�5y, rrJs. rF' C-:�ykS-TIK)C', G Mt"T ri Q SA. CAS_ i_l`Sl �r� G tJ I �r1t "c,,S KA Ai_E�-A A f ? _._. W,-) _..._ 5 �Ct. -CIL, L Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. ?`�1 aPzS4w IJ.__r6zUc zv_[zw5:.._..LG2 QS1��N__ . IN �-_'� _OP�1C�.i ti? �'--._.._�.._.� �T_�t•S7'S � I`[� 1 Pa-� • ..��u ri.. s; r/4=-_ gc,_ . _. ca c, fqs �J_�:.�c ; s �f?cY� --I 0,A C tn nl r �?1 (-0 _"r i STIQC- tuP I HEREIBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials sur ed wits application are true and correct. and _ Sign ture of Applicant/Cont act r Signature of Landowner �3 a c_ , `fix- t d (z��+'� f � . sru pfa--r- �5 d p. (a Dated: ,1a.r,4_,.F,,�-.,�c�'L Dated: ,CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL: t 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 IN Torms\Pkgy apps\Conditional Use Permit doG updated 7/01 Page 6 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 329 RANCHO PALOS VERDES I1[-/\NNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBS9ANCES S�P 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. XMPAC 6' C n RANCHO PALOS VERDES STREET ADDRESS CURRENT USE FORMER USE RWQCB CASE NO. CASE STATUS 3860 CREST ROAD FAA radar site Same R-13308 Closed 5656 CREST ROAD Demolished Unocal service station I-06500 Open 5837 CREST ROAD Cal. Water offices Same R-05395 Open 5841 CREST ROAD Verizon facility Same R-12296 Closed 2.8103 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD Mobil service station Same R-01504 Open 28732 HIGHRIDCE ROAD Hilltop Automotive Unocal service station I-06434 Closed 96 NARCISSA DRIVE _ 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 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Two residences (32504 & 32508 Seawolf Drive) Chevron service station R-14832 Closed 6600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Partially demolished Marineland and Texaco service station R-01409 Closed 31200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Unocal service station Same I-11074 Closed 31501 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Point Vicente Interpretive Center U.S, Military rifle range N/A Open 2750. WESTERN AVENUE �- Green Hills Memorial Park Same R-12803 Open 2942%. WESTERN AVENUE — ._ Chevron service station Same I-15523 Closed 29505 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center Mobil service station R-03558 Open :29701 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center Unocal service station R-05958 Closed In 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 these lists. -- s --w _ —,.11.. wM , , s..,,� ,,_ ..�,�..�s..�,, � �. a, �.�.- � ,�. -.�., � l (Appiican611-1-1-11— ) _, .A.. r . (Signature) (Dake) ,�09d(lit�p�f�a'ld`+Y. t31A L- '�A^Ir,1�i714�.:ti V LIR% ;AQi);., 6fLIi .,Cqk %I.;i HAII I';NN" N(ril!d1V� i1N) PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 330 iii i• ,�13 1 If the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application erg contained on the CAL/EPA lists, please complete the following statement. + 1. Name of Applicant;. --.-C-1 o-c-r-�J A i LL. , til, r r)� M a 12 , A -i 1 Address: W G- S 7'e=, rj _ - Ny ;Z v 3. Phone Number: Day3'.C) -, z( iEvening(__)- w 4. Address of Site (Street name and number if available, and ZIP code): I S 6 rrrza ,v. �a� i au4U Pr y �N:ru� s Ca `lc)2-7 5, Local Agency (City/County): 6. Assessor's Book, Page, and Parcel Number: 7. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: 8. Regulatory Identification Number: �L ., i 2 ESe7 -:�, ---- 9. Date of List: Lk q rn ,, a2 A,— Prat� (Annlirant) (Sicrnaturel FOR STAFF USE ONLY A • z(� (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 list,;. Is included in these lists, and the project applicant has completed the statement required by Section 65962.50 of the Government Code. Is included in these lists, and I have notified the applicant, pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code, that he or she has failed to complete the statement required by Section 65962.5(0 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\Hazarddu5 Waste & Substances Statement.doc PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 331 RANCHO P/I,OS VERDES ('LAMING, BUILDING, &GODS FNFC)IdE,FMENT G RIF11FICAMN OF PROPERTY OWNERS"MAILING LMT A . lication, s Mh S-rLYL Subject Property Address., Notice Radius Required ..... � vo Number of property owners to be notified `�° �S 6U d cr�t�� a e -T) 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 land within 5©D 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 Map Instructions Sheet." I also understand that if more than 20% of the notices are returned by the post office after mailing due to incorrect address information, orif the address information is not complete, that i 11vill 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 the project notice will have to be re -mailed. Prop weer (Applicant) Signature Nlar ire (Ple e Print) 4\k\Forms\PingMisc\CerbficaUon of Property Owners' iblailing LisLdoc Date 10c)10i1,enKAMI:Is4 ) iulviii lPi-�) -�n;; !,:,-rt d..YUiu .P I I `Ili I01N ��; SING 1 i,II "0: f)i 1' IAAC+in) L-�`bAli "I PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 332 (To be completed by City Staff) Date Filed: (To be completed by applicant) General Information APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR r - Name Address City/State/Zip Home Phone Work Phone Case No. LANDOWNER Name .5 ...(Lo kv Address City/State/Zip ,v2. z�L� Home Phone Work Phone Proiect/Site Information Address of project:�� 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: - - - t 1 A S"C rY� 1 Ct ��1 ArrJ Yk vu 7J- M_o YT ✓ F J} -- -_ PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 333 Environmental Information Form Page 2 Project Description Proposed use of the property (please provide a detailed description): C�MG7t;0--_� - ---c`r� -��n=-� =- - t�L��J �.c�._wv✓✓�_4_,.,-__.C-rze��_r+�_n�t i_o rs____�t.r.,l._v�ru_�us�*°rC_ _�''��..�_�l__._.�.sa�zi.,h l._. Site Size: Project Square Footage: f:'Aa,V- AS 6 AL. S (dumber of floors of construction: 1, l -_�_. Amount of off-street parking provided: Proposed Phasing: 5 _ 5_�'Yc 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. `C If this is an industrial project, please indicate the type of project, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: t`l / rk- PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 334 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: I! 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 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 335 Environmental Information Form Page 4 ✓ 10. Substantially change the demand for municipal services (i.e. police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 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. Signature Print Name For Date PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 336 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 V community conservation plan? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: f (�pP oC �-`7D MA.ST�Yi �._orhl t5 C-tcl.s�iLl4u-�-i I ^� Go P.S�'o12•VK ASN �=k"r (.3 J"CN kPPPA� I`i`i 1 MaS Fi o.ri1• 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? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 337 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: �} ',r� f-. S .= O IYS „e=,i'a._ t''i..�n�+�� 1 S Ce w -N :s�R-,4-«..r( r3 eea r�;=a fL..v�P✓r,.1 C_r W on-�- 11ta t 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 i 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, v 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? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 338 Environmental Information Form Page i 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 ✓ available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: /"� A. 5 -f' P M WrQ'--LvP M C"1 -Sq ^) r-'zF..2 A4 t v LIFE' 'S 1�� 'T�j *--C7V { /{t: MC 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposah 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? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 339 Environmental Information Form Page 8 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? I) Have post construction activity impact % on storm water runoff? Comments: q-a—P�•S Prz.,o.�c�-tS wt t.t �..,-U 3^ PS SI�¢N.-`� t^� Ac.,e.aP•A hNr--t. Ur (TtF oRninl (i So AS -C.> rwtPtc-*r Ab--.Ac-t-i-rT 14—PdY3-Tt—r Puo- scC fofSTfLVL'Clor1 �I4A S SS, Goa FxNt_wt A.nt t -E `C'o 'Toa R -UA ttilh`C.V (2.. Af3PTc n.t�ni'� ��, e.� r3.3fr..c'�" wOu 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected V/ air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ✓ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable not 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? 3(-ts PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 340 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 FkE7 ?a— po s =aY7 P rim J r_-c:T i -k3 c: S r3 CsT A c"'i" .d � ba-. � J AL, t `r1k 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street 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 j incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? Comments: pa-* P_ S o --Q D (Li �l �S A-( -Z I W CcFTZ 1,1 A -c.. w t < H 00 ASD r -r LCI Pv�" , PO 6W C- NCAJA c �� sTC n . A t �- Ta.� C, Va t " 13,= " Pay D �L�[o Us vT u rJ r N `ACS' PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 341 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, 1 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 Art (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: r4� P'llp" s -t) P�qs r�f2 P -wa t nae u� sD .rvz a✓'�t fJl v (lS`rli<sC� C,;E L�(LW t non`ft C� w raF nry i3�oc,oci�GAi (c tAacc I v1^ P k< --c . PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 342 Environmental Information Form Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Ne Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless 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? v c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the w 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: Tv� Pn,-f o sti o (fin s r� cL ire c-...0 o )G'J . 0Pnn r-�'f ( or_ 6-If..L S-rl t4 c---, nn�� e a� l Gin-. P r3- ( wt P AC` -r `C—, 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 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 j Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 343 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 �s 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 f where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: F(2o crj' A.fZ-.cam cis Np"z-.Q''<>-4�ovS +aA'�tc p_�ftL. 5l`Cr NhS Pr�-�6flCJ`'j 'gam' -7J VNArrIC\AT4z'f), l G Od" , (l't� f P�� l 4P J r wS t-� hi zs i M P R��T T� Fx1214 c cS MA"rt21A.<-�, . 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 r 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? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 344 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: Tl k R c w n�a.., h 610 vi T s 4 S—r"A tJ DA -P -Z c.c. N s T f 6 D-rz.L tit C1 0. ,t5r(2-0 C - r i ' AA i . � v KN u� 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? t iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? .� Comments: iuc GC nn C i 0-�� t�A S n� v t nn P Iv c i ons YCFF� Ai'� a L.t s' ct `FL)6L4C- e;----V-VI 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ✓ Regional Water Quality Control Board? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 345 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 (i 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 needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: Tim oP ,-r i..r-� ci- TF4c Prtyos,-Y)c nuc- r`fL7 t-}A�J:7 k 0 k NAX-C , t Ah (IA C T C'A 5 -ro (2.aLk ti N, to Q3. d fLA.t rA A.c r ars0 56y0 6-JAs�::' pr5 ®saw—. 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? PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 346 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: w G L. nn c rid S t 4L�n3 ro (xj z r� (7��, l Ce N Cee> 4 l hti l Mtrsr�2 �MPt�c ( pt1 �iufL(2c ra tract Hyl-�F'rn� � , [(.�lk�`H p. *-e W l-T,4j - .WhfrL. '- NvtCtLA--s 5,F -r FloT4L0 d�Efp_c�..x �A". ttor+ f ki-T-cZ-4-^ 1' -AA, 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: �Idc fn -,DP- S ZE-p C N� r `L VL 4� M rV S `i c'-rc _ PLjp'� < a a 47 L4-1 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 347 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) goes the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 146 C-_-1&Tc2N USv cA-- _r 14-,Z (�(tnP �� 30, rn 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 v 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: i de' `1'4-c eA.) P-5 W T(4th� E'�lsittlCti t ,crvt CC's �- Cn.,c ts f cr �i i �t E Hl�•c 4t -p -c -NO 1 4 , �-L p A, D-0 J .... i Uig. 4,t. viC PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 348 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 v, 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: -Pic u PM nth or- 'RAF: MA %T Z9 VP(JPTE 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: - tL4E c,) /v% u L A `f i oZ C -F G j 5 e —Ci4 rF,j NAA S'c�",P-.. PL -40 P- C 1 wv P (k c r t can!�rT� C ENet J2 a «) ur' t 8P" _Ct•kc GO M M V O CT� . c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: T4--. Cc' -M q T e P -.1 MAS C c fz- p- At -1 (;1Ar% M i ra t m A -c. e. E•` PJ t Via 0 Ni E' hliA-, _— IMPhmoi. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 349 Environmental information Form Page 18 1 18. SOURCE REFERENCES I waforms/Environmental InforMalion Form PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 350 STORM"AT E_bg PLANNING P v G> m PRIORITY PROJECT CHEChLIST exnar Namn � poWlapor Name �~� Prged AddrwS _n2T5v1 t`As �Nts ,�-.'�lS lfc_YL — T"" �0 1 w�t44b t i as J_ rzoe, Ck �nB �� Check/rradNumber ✓ Onnerrmonc veropar Part I - Woe of Protect Does the proposed project fall into one of the following categories?��— Yes No I) Ten or more unit homes, including single and multiple family homes, condominiums, apartments etc.*� ✓ 2) An industrial or commercial development with 100,000 square feet or more of impervious surface* 3) An automotive service facility 4) A retail gasoline outlet 5) A restaurant 6) A parking lot with either 5,000 square feet of impervious surface or with 25 or more parking spaces* 7) Single family hillside - *(one acre or more of surface area) _ 8) Redevelopment projects as defined on back*� ✓ 9) Project located in, adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA (defined on back) AND creates 2,500* square feet or more of impervious surface area If any of the boxes in Part 1 is checked "Yes", this project will require the preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back). 'Numerical Criteria will apply. Part 2 - Project Specific Concerns Hoes the proposed project include any of the following elements? 1) Vehicle or equipment fueling areas (retail or private) ( s c , a Yes No 2) Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, including repair or washing C y, s -c t hrr, 3) Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage 4) Outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials 5) Outdoor manufacturing areas_ 6) Outdoor food handling or processing 7) Outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter 8) Outdoor horticulture activities If any of the boxes in Part 2 is checked "Yes', this project will require the preparation of a Site Specific Slormwater Mitigation Plan (SSSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back). If boxes in Pads 1 and 2 are both checked "Yes', a combined urban stormwater plan will need to be submitted. n-�- _�• �u�fz-cA�__.�l�e.c�+17�cv O _ --- I �2�.'2,00s Apph'cantName�— Applicant Title ypplicantSignature— —pate cc: One copy of document to Public Works Fon NKA FFm,5102 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 351 S^� � � X ~�^��"~^^,��""��"�^""��""��~°" R�ORITY DEVELOP80ENUREDEVEL0PMENT PROJECTS LI'�ANCHO 'Unmun�avcnuco ProjectNaine General Project Project Location -��T�?-i Company Name Certification Address Contact Name/ Title — ............ A completed original of this form must Phone / FAX)Email it accompany all SUSMP submittals aoot Management Practices (8MPn)have been incorporated inNtbedooigncdthinpnojecthoommmpUahtho following goals: 1) Minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of Natural Drainage Systems and water bodies inaccordance with requirements under CEOA(Co|.Pub. Resources Code 8211OO).CWC 013369.CVVA0310. {WA84O2(N.[WA&404.CZARA0821T(J).ESA §7.and local government ordinances. 2) Maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground. 3) Minimize the amount of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and to the MS4, 4) Minimize pollution emanating from parking lots through the use ofappropriate Treatment Control 8MPoand good housekeeping practices, 5> Properly design and maintain Treatment Control 0NPainamanner that does not promote breeding ofvectors. U) Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in stormwater from the development site, |uortify that this Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. The information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and ----' Property owmo /oa,wvpo (sigovxm) Property Owner/ Developer (pxvmd) Title oem Post Construction I Maintenance Certification Proper operation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) isanimportant component of reducing pollutants In urban and storm water runoff. As the responsible party, | certify that the BMPs will beimplemented, monitored and maintained to ensure their continued effectiveness. |nthe event ofaproperty transfer, the new owner will banotified ofthe BMPuin use at this site and must include written conditions in the sales or lease agreement, which requires the recipient to assume responsibility for maintenance and conduct a maintenance inspection at least once a year. Property Owner (signature) Property Owner (printed) mm Date This section &hall be signed by the landowner. it the landowner Is not an Individual, the signatures may be from a corporate officer, a manager if the authority to sign has been delegated to the manager, a general partner, or a sale proprietor. �N�U|��»�� PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE �� wr a • :.vi 1 ff BMP identification CF and Name Car Wash Facility sipaters ESC40, Outlet Protection )etention Basins _ TC5, Extended Detention Basin Basins TC1, Infiltration mm Trenches TC1, Infiltration Racks Not applicable Cleaning; SC4, Vehicle and Equipment ESC2, Preservation of Existing' Maintenance, Repair, or Material ECS10, Seeding and Planting; E Linings r Urban Runoff Conveyance Channels Materials Management Media Filtration Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing Areas Motor Fuel Dispensing Area Canopy Quality Inlets Outdoor Storage Porous Pavement and Alternative Surfaces Y t Not applicable Materials; Storage of of Raw Me SC2, oading/Unloading of Outdoor Container, ds; SC8 Outdoor Stc s. Products and By -F Quality Inlets SC6, Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids; SC8, Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials, Products and By -Products TC1, infiltration Protect Slopes and Channels ECS40, Outlet Protection; ESC42, Slope Roughening and Terracing _ Self -Contained Areas for Vehicle or� SC3, Vehicle and Equip. Washing and Steam Equipment Washing, Steam Cleaning, Cleaning; SC4, Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance, Repair, or Material Maintenance and Repair; SC7, Outdoor Processing _ Process Equipment O erations and Maint. Storm Drain SystemStencilingand Si na e SC30, Storm Drain Systems Signs Trash Container Areas SC9Waste Handlin and Dis osal Vegetated Swales and Strips TC4, Bio -Filters �Wet Ponds TC2, Wet Pond Please refer to{the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks for more information. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 353 Attachment Q 1991 CUP Revision Application Filed by Green Hills. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 354 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION OJ APPLICANT: L'C.S. "--o flSSCXA"T' C1' Green Hills Memorial Park L-Vbt11i41.i am ne 27 O1 South Western Avenue a ress Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90731 91204 telephone: home work 1-213-831-0311 LANDOWNERS _Green_ Hills MemorialParr tname 27501 South Western Avenue (a ress telephone: home work 1-213-831-0311 Project Location: 27501 South Western Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes Lot a Tract No.: Portion of Lot. 1, Tract No. 3192 Current zoning: Cemetery Size of Parcel: 120 Acres Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development: An existing 120 acre cemetery, of which 75 acres are fully developed and remaining 45 acres to be developed in phases. BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENTS 1. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code to adjust the use with those on abutting land and within the neighborhood. The site presently is partially developed as a beautiful cemetery. Future development will maintain and complement the aesthetic beauty of the existing memorial nark There is no adverse impact on adjoining land uses. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 355 CONDITIONAL USE PERKIT APPLICATION r APPLICANT: 1 -c -,B. AAA-,) f1SSac Green Hills Memorial Park 7r401 South Western Avenue -13 1p �. p a ress Rancho Palos Verdes CA 073 CAA`il?p4 telephone: home work 1-213-831-0311 (nems) �n Hills Memorial -Park (;Q.—.10) 7501 South Western Avenue res Rancho Palos Vgrdgg. CA 90732 telephone: home work 1-213-831-0311 Project Location: 27501 South Western Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes Lot A Tract No.: Portion of Lot. 1, Tract No. 3192 Current toning: Cemetery Size of Parcel: 120 Acres Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development: An existing 120 acre cemetery, of which 75 acres are fully developed and remaining 45 acres to be developed in phases. BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENTS 1. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and for all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code to adjust the use with those on abutting land and within the neighborhood. The site presently is partially developed as a beautiful cemetery. Future development will maintain and complement the aesthetic beauty of the existing memorial_ gra, T ere is no adverse impact onadjoining land uses. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 356 2. Explain how the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. Green Hills Memorial Park is presently serviced and will continue to be serviced by Western Avenue. The proposed use at this specific location will have no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, because: The presently developed portions of Green Hills Memorial future development will continueto maintain a native impact. 4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General plan because: The General Plan designates the site for cemetery uses. Does the project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or public drainage structure? N If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Wor separtmenprior to issuance of construction permits. I HEREBY CERTIFY, under the penalty of perjury, that the information and materials submitted with this application are true and correct. Dated at NG/yD 41a5 dMafiforniia on. 1�4P J Signature of Applircant I HEREBY CERTIFY, under the penalty of perjury, that I am the owner of the property for which this application is made and, in that capacity, have authorized the above -listed applicant to act in my behalf. Dated at syyriG//0AAWs i omrCaliforni"n /.7J/eQ f—, 1;221 Start gnatwe / Date Accepted: 3/86 atuTe of Laoe'bwrfer PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 357 Attachment R Email to Susan Brooks PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 358 Dear Matt, Staff is following up and will get back to all if us ASAP. I am so very sorry for your situation. Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Matt Martin wrote: Mr. Joel Rojas Thank you for looking into this. We are just as worried about the noise from funeral services and public gatherings as we are from the equipment. The vibrations and sound amplification created by running heavy machinery on top of this hollow building is astounding. I can't enjoy being anywhere in my home because it vibrates our entire building and is, of course, a HUGE eyesore. We have been living with this construction noise for over a year and I realize now that it's NEVER going to stop. There are no walls or trees obstructing any sound coming from the top of this Mausoleum. I don't think there can be because it would violate their height limit and also obstruct our views even further. Just having people on top of this Mausoleum talking is loud enough for me to hear in my living room with all my doors and windows closed. I'm not familiar with RPV building laws, but isn't there a rule against building a structure that obstructs other owners views or privacy? If so, how could this be approved when it's obstructing the views of many residents in this complex? Our rec area is completely in the shade now from the Mausoleum. Instead of a view of RPV and Long beach we see a giant concrete wall. I'm on the 2nd floor and my view is heavily obstructed. The owners on the first floor had their view completely taken away. I bought this condo in 2008 with a beautiful view and privacy. Now there PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 359 are headstones practically in my living room and frequent public gatherings. This is not the same condo I paid for. This structure has devestated me. It's mostly older, quiet couples in this community and I feel like I'm on my own here. We are all upset, but many feel helpless against the big money and influence of Green Hills. This community has been perfect neighbors to Green Hills for decades and they are not returning the favor. I don't enjoy living in my own home anymore. I never open the blinds in my living room because people can look directly into my entire living room from the roof of this Mausoleum. The living room and balcony area is why i bought this condo and now its why I can't stand it. Thanks to the housing crisis plus this giant Mausoleum, I can't afford to leave now. I was never notified that this building was going to be built, and I surely never imagined that they would bury people on top of it. Who is responsible for approving this? I believe we should respect the dead but what about respecting the living? Who deserves to have funerals, caskets, heavy machinery, and mourning families in their living room? Who would buy a condo with that in thier face? I don't think Green Hills should be allowed to sell plots or bury people on top of this Mausoleum. Thanks again for your help. It gives me some hope that you are listening. If there is anything you need from me just ask. Matthew H Martin On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:00 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR(@rpv.com> wrote: Mr. Martin Let me look into this issue. While the new mausoleum was constructed in accordance with city approvals, the use of equipment at that noise level does not sound right. Let me look into this and get back to you. Joel Rojas Community Development Director From: Matt Martin Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 1:15 PM To: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08a-gmail.com> Cc: Joel Rojas PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 360 Subject: Re: Green Hills Cemetary has Ruined our Community Mayor Brooks and Joel They just buried someone in it this morning, despite our letter asking them to wait. I know you directed me to the City Planning person, but I believe we have already communicated with them. Is there something else we can do? Thanks Matthew Martin On Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:10 PM, Matt Martin wrote: Susan Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm relieved to see that you are willing to help us out. We are right of the border of RHE, RPV, and Lomita. If you can do anything to mitigate the invasion of peace and privacy that has occured here It would mean a lot to this community. I don't believe they have buried anyone on top of this thing yet so I hope we can do something to stop it before it's too late. This isn't fair to the people who paid for these condos and, in my opinion, it's not appropriate for families to be sold these graves so close to our living rooms. I've attached a before and after picture from my living room balcony to give you an idea... believe it or not, there are units below me who have had their views completely destroyed. Thank you Matthew H Martin On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:03 PM, Susan <subrooks08Caj„amail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Martin, Your email is very disappointing and all news to me, and probably to This Council, as well. I'm cc'ing staff to get some clarification of why this occurred and what can be done to mitigate further problems. Are you in RPV or RHE? I'm sorry for your extreme inconvenience. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 361 Regards, Susan Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) Sent from my iPhone On Oct 26, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Matt Martin wrote: Mrs. Susan Brooks I'm a condo owner in the Vista Verde complex at 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N #208. I'm writing to you in regards to the new Mausoleum that was erected this summer. Not only does this building violate multiple building codes including height restrictions, it also blocks many of the views that our condo owners paid for. The view from our pool/rec area is completely gone including all sunshine. Our entire pool is in the shade now. To add insult to injury, the equipment that they are now running on top of this thing is producing sound levels much higher than deemed acceptable by RPV ordinances. Today I measured a sustain DB level of 77 for over an hour from INSIDE my condo. If i went to my balcony or property line and measured it would be even higher. I did not measure the vibration levels but I'm sure that those are above acceptable levels as well. In addition to equipment running, they are planning on conducting funerals on this mausoleum which can include bands and large gatherings. All of those events will violate noise levels for our community as well. Our privacy is another issue because these public gatherings can peer directly into my condo. To say that this Mausoleum has ruined our community is an understatement. It has devestated us. I'm writing in hope that you can help stop the abuse that the Green Hills Cemetary has been giving us. It's my wish that Green Hills be disallowed from use large machinery on top of the Mausoleum or conducting funerals. Thank you for reading and I appreciate any action you can take. I would also welcome advice on what else I can do to stop this. Thanks Matthew H Martin PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE 362