Attachment G - Public CorrespondenceGabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Attn: Gabriella Yap
Debbie Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>
Friday, November 06, 2015 3:35 PM
CityManager
Written Comments Re-Appeal of Planning Commission's 11.14.14 decision in P.C.
Resolution No. 2014-29 ...
11.6.15 Response to RPVCC Resolution mtg.docx
I am an owner at Vista Verde Condominiums and am submitting a written response for the hearing of the P.C.
Resolutions 2014-29 on the Consent Calendar for the November 17, 2015 of the RPV City Council Meeting.
Thank you for your consideration
Debbie Landes
310-780-1449
Debbie Landes
dlbodesi@fastmail.com
1 Public Correspondence - 1
November 6, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Rancho Palos Verdes
FROM:
c/o Ms. Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Debbie Landes
Owner, Unit 102
Vista Verde Condominiums
2110 Palos Verdes Dr No
Lomita, California 90717
SUBJECT: Comments re-Public Hearing scheduled for November 17,
2015 regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's
November 11, 2014 decision imposing modified Conditions
of Approval and amending Green Hills Cemetery Master
Plan as the result of an Operational Review conducted by
the Planning Commission in 2014 following the
construction and Commencement of operations at the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum.
IT IS TIME.
Our lives have been have been put on hold long enough and it is time to
do the right thing.
As you know, at the end of November 2014, Green Hills Cemetery filed
an appeal with the RPV City Council to stay the PC Resolution 2014-29
that was passed by the RPV Planning Commission on November 11,
2014. Here we are, ONE YEAR LATER still without a definitive answer to
this appeal. You voted "yes" on September 1 and we still have not seen
the Resolutions finalized.
And. Green Hills Cemetery has been allowed to conduct business as
usual at the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum . ..
Public Correspondence - 2
I find it ironic that the group of people most negatively effected by this
whole situation (Vista Verde Owners) have been the most
disenfranchised by this system of rules and regulations that are
supposed to mitigate the wrongs that are done to citizens.
While this is simplifying the entirety of the disclosed investigation, some
of the facts disclosed in this case were:
1. Two independent investigations, requested by the city of Rancho
Palos Verdes, conducted by RCS Investigations and Lilley Planning
Group, determined that Green Hills "significantly altered the size and
design of the mausoleum between plan submittals to the city over time
and continually confused the situation with unresponsive piecemeal
information and misrepresentations"
2. A Senior City Planner, who has since resigned, who presented the case
to the Planning Commission in 2007, included the following:
a. failed to research the RPV code on setbacks for cemeteries and
therefore failed to require Green Hills to submit a variance for the
mausoleum. Green Hills was aware they needed to file a variance
when requesting a change in setbacks.
b. misrepresented the location of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum on
a public notice to neighbors, even though he knew it would be
built 8 feet from their home.
c. listed the changes in moving the setback from 80 to 8 feet as
"acceptable to staff' and it never came up in discussion when the
plans were discussed with the Planning Commission
d. "kinda of eyeballed" the area it was to be built from the cemetery
side and concluded the condominium's were elevated enough to
avoid obstruction.
e. upon discussion, presented a map to the Planning Commission
that did not depict the condominium or rooftop burials
f. described the mausoleum's location in a public notice to
neighbors as being southeast of the maintenance yard when in
in fact it is southwest.
g. told investigators that he did not require the cemetery to erect a
wooden frame silhouetting the size of the mausoleum, which is
common in projects that might impact views for neighbors,
Public Correspondence - 3
because the condo's were located in the city of Lomita -and
those views were not protected under the RPV's view ordinance.
The City Manager has stated the investigation disclosed mistakes that
were made and this has led to new practices in the planning department
to prevent those from happening again.
While we at Vista Verde are glad of this change for future planning
requests, we have been left without resolution of the public nuisance
that continues to exist in our own backyard.
We have lost property value with questionable ability to sell our
property, a right to a peaceful and pleasant domicile that we once had
and our time and energy spent in the past two years fighting for what is
a right and ethical conclusion.
This has been due to the lack of action taken on our behalf by the RPV
City Council.
We, once again, ask you to uphold the Planning Commissions Resolution
No. 2014-29 in all their entirety, so we may begin to attempt to be made
whole due to this unfortunate set of circumstances.
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
Public Correspondence - 4
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joanna Jones-Reed <tenuspro@yahoo.com>
Monday, November 09, 2015 5:59 PM
cc
Fw: Owner V VOA #204 vs GreenHills (my testimony)
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 5:00 PM, Joanna Jones-Reed <tenuspro@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good Evening ...
My name is Joanna Jones-Reed.
I am an owner at the Vista Verde Condos and I live in unit #204.
I am here to address the City Council to urge them to take action and pass the Planning
Commission's resolutions in full.
I am also here to express my extreme dissatisfaction, dismay and disgust, with the way the Planning
Commission was manipulated by Green Hills. I contend that the errors found in the plans were
intentional and then overlooked by those who were involved in the approval process.
The fact that this monstrous mausoleum got built without the 40" required setback is shocking and
illegal. The Homeowners of Vista Verde have been violated and harmed by this injustice. There are
burials taking place adjacent to our swimming pool and barbecue area! Whoa! Whatever were they
thinking??!!
Why build a Penthouse Mausoleum with burial grounds on top of the 30 foot high mausoleum at eye-
level to the patios and living rooms adjacent to it? How in your face is that? How inflammatory to the
senses! So I ask you .. what do you think ... What on earth was Green Hills' motivation? It doesn't
make any sense to me ... does it to you??
Yet, I contend that Green Hills knew exactly what it was doing and the Planning Commission was
scammed in the process!! One of your former planning commissioners spoke out in an earlier
meeting and said plainly and loudly, "These people got screwed!!" This was an honest man, a man
who appeared to be in disbelief and ashamed that the planning commission allowed it to happen. He
displayed integrity and I urge you all to find that same integrity in yourselves and help right this
wrong. This particular former commissioner realized that corrupt actions had occurred between
Green Hills and the Planning Commission. He realized that Green Hills had committed malfeasance
and for all intents and purposes has gotten away with it ... because you allowed this to happen.
THUS FAR!!
I urge you to correct these wrongs in whatever capacity you can muster and squash this gross
overreach of power, greed, and control by Green Hills.
I refer you to an article that appeared in the Daily Breeze 8/24/14
It reads:Green Hills cemetery buried dead in violation of conditional-use permit, Rancho Palos
Verdes says
1 Public Correspondence - 5
... "Residents have been passing around a video clip in recent weeks from the April 2007
Planning Commission meeting, when plans -including the setback revision, which never
came up in discussion -were approved.
At the tail end of the discussion, moments before the vote took place, then-Commissioner Jim
Knight asked Senior Planner Eduardo Schon born if any of the plans would impact apartment
residents along the northwest edge of the park.
Someone is heard saying, "Say, 'no,'" before Schon born says, "No, and as a matter of fact
that's in the city of Lomita."
Now I ask you, don't we who live in Lomita deserve the same respect and treatment as those that
live in Rancho Palos Verdes? One would expect so , but this is proving not to be the case.
Is this why we are being 'dissed'? Is that why we have to attend meeting after meeting and present
our case over and over again??
Is that why we have to hire attorneys and fight for justice because people were asleep on the switch,
or bribed,or fearful of the power of the the big Green Hill Kahuna? Admitting errors were made is a
start. Let us proceed from there.
Thank you for listening,
Joanna Jones-Reed
2 Public Correspondence - 6
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Councilmen and women,
I am attaching my letter.
Thank you.
Julie Keye
julieikeye@aol.com
Monday, November 09, 2015 10:55 AM
cc
letter re: Nov. 17th meeting and Green Hills Mausoleum area 11
RPV CC new correctionsll-9-2015docx.pdf
1 Public Correspondence - 7
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council November 8, 20152015
At the November 17th, 2015 meeting you will decide whether there will
be a moratorium on the mausoleum in Area 11 of Green Hills cemetery.
You will also decide whether Green Hills needs to get a variance for
having built the mausoleum.
In 1990 Green Hills applied to the RPV Planning Dept. to reduce the
setback from 40 ft. to 8 ft. They notified everyone within 500 ft. of this,
and they notified the city of Lomita to let them know they were planning
on changing the setback. They did everything correctly and with
transparency. They even applied for a variance.
The response from Vista Verdes and the surrounding area was
tremendous! Everyone fought it. Even the Mayor of Lomita wrote a
letter against it! Because of the uproar, it wasn't allowed.
In 2007 Green Hills went to RPV Planning Commission to try to get the
same 40 ft. setback changed to8 ft. They worked with Eduardo
Schonbrun, and it was overseen by Joel Rojas. This time nothing was
done correctly, and you have to ask "why".
1) The City of Lomita was not notified.
2) The RPV Planning Dept. did not notify anyone of the proposed
setback change.
3) They gave misinformation as to the location of where the mausoleum
was going to be built.
4) They said that the proposed building was "an extension of a building
that had already been approved."
5) They didn't say which building that was, and in fact, the building had
never been built!
6) At the meeting, no one came. Because of all the misinformation,
and not letting people know about the proposed change to the setback,
no one knew. Even if people had known and had gone to the
meeting, it would have changed nothing because the setback was
never even discussed!
Public Correspondence - 8
7) There was no discussion with the commissioners! The rooftop
burials weren't even discussed. At one point Mayor Knight asked if
the views would be impaired, and he was told "no" (after the "now
infamous whisper" ofJoel Rojas to Eduardo. To get out of that, Joel now
says they were talking about another area.) If that was the case, then
practically nothing was discussed about the mausoleum at all!
8) This time they didn't apply for the variance. Why?
Green Hills didn't get what it wanted in 1990. Is it accurate to say that
in 2007 they did everything they could to prevent the public from
knowing that they were going to change the setback? It really is.
In addition, I spoke to Eduardo Schonbrun about 5 times before the
mausoleum was built and I told him that I was told they couldn't build in
front of our condos. I spoke to him at least 5 times! I asked him to
check it out. Do you think he didn't know about the city code that
requires a 40 ft. setback?? He absolutely lied to me. That is FRAUD!
Why would he risk his reputation and his job over a mausoleum for
Green Hills? I'm even mentioned in the investigation on Exhibit P pages
185 & 186. Many words on the email are blocked out. I have asked for
a copy because it is about me, and I haven't gotten one yet.
The LA District attorney has all the documents re: RPV Planning and
Green Hills, including the investigations, and we have asked them to
check for collusion. Every detail, with regards to these meetings and
your decisions, will be sent to them from now on.
Under these circumstances, if you don't agree to a moratorium, and if
you don't make Green Hills get a variance (like they did in 1990), then
you are aiding them in breaking the law. This has been going on for
over 2 years! Why? The evidence is absolutely clear. The building is
illegal. It is a disgrace! You are supposed to uphold the law, not give
special privileges to rich corporations! Shame on you!!!
Julie Keye
Vista Verde Condos
Public Correspondence - 9
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
To Whom it May Concern:
Lindsay Carter <lindsaymay@live.com>
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:16 PM
cc
Hubby; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Anthony Misetich;
Doug Willmore; Gabriella Yap
Letter Regarding Green Hills Mausoleum: CC Meeting Nov. 17
2015llll_RPV City Council Letter _LCarter.pdf; A TTOOOOl.txt
Please see the attached letter for the City Council members regarding the issue of the Green Hills Mausoleum.
1 Public Correspondence - 10
November 11, 2015
City Council, Ranchos Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Council Members,
First of all, I must say, as I write this, I am upset, annoyed, and angry at all of you for failing to
resolve this terrible situation that the City Council and its delegates, through the Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission, have created. It is a situation that is unbelievable and reprehensible and at this
point UNSOLVED. You had a chance to make things right and make good on your fiduciary responsibility
to rule on the issues at hand on September 1, 2015 and you failed to do your jobs. You may have passed
a series of resolutions that night, but after the fact, and behind closed doors, you all decided to reopen
the public hearing and negate all of the work, and hours, spent in the lead up to that night. It is at this
point that my husband, Brian Carter, and I have decided to no longer remain quiet and hope that by
addressing you all directly you understand the true impact you are having on people's lives ... and make
no mistake your indecisiveness is impacting every single homeowner or tenant in the Vista Verde
complex. Brian and I may not have been in front of you every two weeks speaking, or writing you letter,
or email, week after week, but we have spent so much time and effort on fighting you and Green Hills
on this Mausoleum that it has become my second job. I spend days discussing, collaborating, and
comforting my husband and fellow homeowners on how best to respond to the lack of caring,
sympathy, and utter disregard for your own rules and regulations. The stress and emotional trauma on
myself, my husband, and my neighbors is OUTRAGEOUS.
Let me paint you a picture ... two and a half years ago my husband and I had finally saved up
enough money to buy our first place in California ... in Los Angeles County no less! We fell in love with
our condo; its size, its features, and its location were all unique, private, and ours. We were excited to
make it our home and make it perfect... we spent weeks upgrading the condo to reflect our style and
modernize the home to our liking. Initially being told that the rooftop on top of the Mausoleum was
simply a "reflection park" by the previous owners' real estate agent we were quite shocked to learn that
the Mausoleum was in fact allowed to have rooftop burials. Watching the first funeral happen was
heart breaking. After a check of our property sale paperwork, we learned that nothing in the title report
even refers to the existence of the Mausoleum, its ability to vent its hazardous, dry air directly to our
property (our pool area no less!), and of course, nothing is mentioned about rooftop burials. So how
Public Correspondence - 11
could this happen? How could you let this happen? Of course, now we know, and while the questions
keep piling up you all seem perfectly happy to let the questions go answered.
So imagine, what should have been the best years of our lives, being newly-weds in our twenties
in our own home, has turned into a living hell. Little did I know all of the time, effort, and money that
we have put into this fight...a fight that should never have happened! Imagine your sons, or daughters,
or grandchildren buying their first home and within days having to deal with a funeral taking place on an
illegal Mausoleum. Imagine them having to fight consistently, and nearly every day, to have their voices
heard in front of a seemingly apathetic City? What would you do then?
I simply don't understand how you guys can treat this like it is no big deal. Delay after delay
after delay. This has occurred for over two years and there is no end point in site. To you all we might
just be Lomita residents, but we are people. We are children, parents, brothers, sisters, and friends.
And in many cases, our families live only five minutes away in your city, or Rolling Hills Estates, or Rolling
Hills. Why should we, and our homes, be considered anything less than Palos Verdes? I had always
thought one day my husband and I would buy a house in Palos Verdes after a spending a few years in
Vista Verde. That will not happen now as I would never want to live in the area knowing how the people
who run the City actually behave. I have spent the last couple of years of my life fighting the
Mausoleum and I won't' back down. I won't accept the excuse that because the Mausoleum is built it
can be allowed to stay. I won't accept the fact that Green Hills can just ignore their Conditional Use
Permit or Rancho Palos Verdes laws. And I certainly won't accept a City Council that pretends to care
and decide, only to change course behind the scenes when the public eye is no longer watching them.
Enough is enough. This is not the last you'll hear from me, or my husband.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Carter
2110 Palos Verdes DR N Unit 203
Lomita, CA 90717
Public Correspondence - 12
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mr Willmore,
Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com>
Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:28 PM
Doug Willmore; CC
Letter for November 17th Green Hills Agenda Item part 1
NOVCCLetterPartl.pdf
Attached to this email is part 1 one of a 5 part letter that I would like included in the 11/17/15 staff report for the Green
Hills item.
I'm delivering it in this format because it's too large for one email.
Also -Can you direct me on who to email my powerpoint presentation for the meeting?
Thanks
Matt Martin
MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------This message and any attached documents contain information that may be
confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this
information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------This message and any attached
documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected
by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
1 Public Correspondence - 13
From: Matthew Martin 8/24/15
Dear RPV City Council:
This letter attempts to detail the results of an effort to understand how and why a 30'+
Mausoleum with rooftop burials was constructed 8' from the property line of Vista Verde condos.
To summarize what follows I will provide a quick overview:
1. Green Hills submitted incorrect information to the City in order to have their CUP revised
(attachments 0 and P). These false statements include misrepresentations of the
preexisting grade in front of Vista Verde, misrepresentations of how tall the building will
be, misrepresentations of the site sections of the building, misrepresentations of grading
plans, and misrepresentations of 1991 CUP compliance. Green Hills also made incorrect
statements on all of their CUP applications as well as to the planning commission at the
two 2007 hearings on the CUP revision (attachments 0 and P).
2. The staff at RPV presented incorrect and incomplete information to the Planning
Commission with regards to what they were approving (attachment A). No discussions of
the 72' setback change were had with the public or the planning commission. The
2127107 staff report (attachment A) is fraught with obscene inaccuracies with regards to
what the CUP revision would entail. It's not even close to being correct (detailed later in
this document). The Public notice that was sent out prior to the 2007 meetings was also
blatantly false and did not disclose any setback change or height changes to above
ground structures (attachment G).
3. The internal investigation that was completed by the City of RPV sums up this situation
up as a "perfect storm of errors". This notion is ridiculous considering the systematic
nature of the misinformation, incorrect notice, and videotaped statements by members of
Staff. One such statement is in a video clip of Joel Rojas whispering to Eduardo
Schon born to "just say no" when asked if the Mausoleum in Area 11 would have adverse
impacts on Lomita residents. Lying to both the Planning Commission and the public
because it was 'getting late' is not a legitimate excuse for such obvious prejudice and
negligence. The fact that one of these individuals is still employed by the beautiful and
highly regarded City of RPV is an embarrassment to both the city and its residents.
Meanwhile, upstanding people such as Ms. Carolyn Petru are leaving the City of RPV.
4. The "perfect storm of errors" was due, in large part, to the incorrect information provided
by Green Hills. The excuse that this was all a 'mistake' can't be upheld as a result. A
mistake, as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary is
: to understand (something or someone) incorrectly
: to make a wrong judgment about (something)
: to identify (someone or something) incorrectly
The deliberate act to change a setback by 72 feet (along with many other actions) was
not a judgement error but a deliberate act. As such it can't ever be defined as a 'mistake'
according to its defined meaning.
5. Green Hills has numerous confirmed CUP violations that apply to the Mausoleum in
Area 11 as well other areas. (attachments Mand N).
Public Correspondence - 14
6. Green Hills needs a variance for the Mausoleum to remain encroaching in the
established 80' setback.
7. It's my opinion that the City of RPV should initiate a hearing to revoke the CUP of
Green Hills and to require them to reapply for it along with the proper variance for
Mausoleum in Area 11.
8. The mitigation measures that have been forcefully imposed and/or suggested by Green
Hills and Staff do absolutely nothing to mitigate the extremely harmful Public Nuisance
that currently exists in violation of law.
RPV Definition of "Public Nuisance": RPV code 8.24.030 (F)
"Public nuisance" means anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the
senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property by a neighborhood or by any considerable number of persons in
the city irrespective of whether the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals is unequal.
By the letter of that definition: the Area 11 Green Hills Mausoleum is indeed an ongoing public
nuisance and the City of RPV and Green Hills has a duty to abate it.
I've invested over 1500 hours of my personal time to collect this information and to make these
things known to the City and the Public. The personal pain and suffering that this situation has
caused me should be evident from invested time. Nothing like this should ever be forced upon
innocent victims. The anguish, personal problems, and health problems that this situation has
caused me and other residents probably can't be understood unless you were in our shoes.
One's home should be many things in your life and a sanctuary is one of them. It should be a
peaceful place where you can deal with the stresses of the world with your loved ones. My
sanctuary has been forcefully taken away from me and I've been required to fight to defend it.
This situation has gone on too long and those who are responsible need to be held accountable.
It's only fair that my home is restored to the wonderful place that it used to be.
The rest of this letter will go into the details of the above summary:
Green Hills Cemetery has caused adverse effects to adjoining properties due to the construction
and operation of their Mausoleum in Area 11 of their Master plan. The two scans below are
taken directly from their CUP application that was submitted on March 9, 1990 (attachment Q).
Public Correspondence - 15
l. :&llpl.ai.n hew the •ii::• fQ>r the ·prop1>1utd UJU' ill ade<:r1,1•t• in ai~• •nd
i8l:J&f>!!! 1;.CI &a<;!E;XJl!IDQ!il!'.C t.l:!<i' ]µ10 &!l{l h>i; Ill th!!' YIU"dli, Ht:bill:lli\5,
wal.:l.• w fences, lanhca;>.inq Alld other fe111:1.1re11 re.quired by ttteo
P!Jvelo:pment Cl>tl11> t.o adju&1;. the u•• w~t.h th01111> on 1.P>iltt.~11g l!!lld and
w.it.hin the n11j.9tioo:-.oo~ •
. The .site eresently i;i peirU;;illy developed as a be<111t:,iful
cell'Jetery. F'ut.u:re 5tevelo_Etl'..ent wil1 ma111t.at.n l!l'ld 1;?!£le~nt
the .aesthetic beatH;.y of the existing lTi€!1l!Orial !?lilt'!!. The1;:~ ls
no {:'Qveree illl!:!lilCt on adjo1nir1..s .land uses.
), The pr~..4 ~"" 11t t.hh ¥?1!9Uic loc11t.iM will have nc; ai9nifieu
A elver a. ef:f111:t cm ad;i•~t pr·O.,.l:':t)' or t.he penrii t tei:l ume thereeof,
"""~"·"'' The pre3E:mt.ly developed portiona of Green Hills Meoori(l.l
Pirie t!Hlii bi!J no adverse ett:.f!:r;~, QP ag l~1lU ng larid si@t~ ~QQ,
f\1t11re deyelopmem will !02fltirme tg maJ.$~10 i D~J!it;;l,Xi
impact.
Their statements that development and future development would have "no adverse effect on
adjoining land uses" was incorrect. Their construction and operation of the Mausoleum in Area
11 and placement of below ground internments in Area 1 of their Master Plan Revision has
caused significant impact on adjoining land uses (namely the Vista Verde Condominium
Complex). The view impairment, loss of privacy, excessive noise, dust, vibrations, and exhaust
emissions caused by the Green Hills development and operations has been unbearable public
nuisance to me and fellow residents.
Green Hills also submitted burden of proof statements in 2003 and 2005 CUP revision
applications shown below (attachments 0 and P):
Public Correspondence - 16
R~c · ':\lf.O
... \:~~: .. ~
P\ ~~.1:t<f QRCt.Mt.tii RAN CHO PALOS VERDES
DEPARTMENT OF Pl.ANNING , 8UJL!llNG, IV>IO COOE ENFOACE~Nl
ll:.f'l\CA>.cl-...L-b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO . I S".5"" 18 ii~
APPLICANT/CON TRAC TOR: LA~~~~~~~y-o,"efo
(Name): (,QES.N 1:111 ~ Ncwoo.10 l ik ~
(Add ress): 2,.1£;l1 <;.. l.l.ll'5.1!t1.N A,/t(Add ress): "2.1S:V I ~-Wf!.nP.N f.,JetJtJc.
~Mc.~w 'Pl)W. V.....&H C ~ '10'2..1l" B~c.\..Q '"?a!o ::. ~,(co.. 'fo2-1C
Phone : Work · ~"-' &-~1Q'j 1 1
Home: ~~1-'!..&~~~Je.JJ~--
Phone : Work : ~Lia.!..~~ 1 \
Home : $~ i ~'1.. u.1e.
Project Desc ription: A ~cNO.fMY\..-To ~~o.. <i'IA..}
Lot & Tract Nu mbe r:-------------------
Curren t Zoni ng: --~=..;.:"'..:.:<::;.:..T',,..~ Clc.:.."l+--'v.s,c..;;;._ ___________ _
I
4. Exp lai n how t he propo sed use is no t .o nt rary to th e General Plan .
'Pp....;. p \ .,. I i-l' f. <' Ul P--0 lA.
C<i,J S "T"@ ~ <1P' \G\"t _f'~. 'Pu ~ ~E _;R-:...!.----
H.of)1f-\CA'i : o~ fQf2. A.0~.1 T ~'i • .'S.~
ft;'f' c,.o...rf 1 U e "'C ce 1-\ · \e.(.l.. :\~t>N S. t-J ~ uPo TL~ tF
G-y.1 S T Ii-} C-i M 'S. 'L€{i... (-) ."4 .
I HE RE'BY CERTIFY , und er pena lty of perjury, that th e inlorma ·on an d male(ia ls
c 11hml1t~rl with th i ~ ~nn li r.::1t ion ArA l r11A Rnrl r'.orrect.
Public Correspondence - 17
H tiie proiect nwolves a City (.such as Vanancf.J, Conditional Use Permit. or
Zm1H Ch<ingn application, etc.) plc;asa 1nctic;ite why these app!1calions an:
Explrnn l'iow the sit<~ for !he
accommodate the use
c) :(iS ·I~·: pm1::,"r~:::uf.:,.;r(:nrn~nh1l 1·····---J~-1,--]-U
(lHe~ts. whi~f) Will CUll~i(l ~,.11.1:;l1;1nli<'1I • .·
advmso utir.Jcl~ 011 l!i.l!•Hn» tit'<ingJJ, (>iltrier I j , .. /
. dir,mtly ::ir i11dirncHy? l l t--::----,~..,_,,,,,.,~,~-;,.~, '-••O~>--~ --~~---•• -.~~"''" ••·.,-~.,,, • .....--~-.-~..,,,~~-•""'"'~~
i Comme11ts: .
7µ,~ Q.€1/1A ET>E?;{<..-..1 r,A,>\0,-{:<t:F~ f',,,_,..,,...l \.A;:..'\ M. I t-0 I M '""-~ [;,,.,_',...; '· ~, •• ;:, M ti ,..rr ,A-L... ,
jilv\ p 1\ ccT.
Green Hills submitted, at best, incorrect information to the city in order to get approval for their
CUP. The city of RPV has the authority to revoke their CUP for these actions. As you can see
above: Green Hills clearly stated that the revision was in compliance with height and setback
standard in 1991.
If that is the case, why did they request a 72' setback reduction and height extension for
the CUP revision?
It's because their plans were not in compliance with the 1991 CUP (obviously ... )
The unwillingness of Green Hills to address our concerns on these issues directly has been very
disappointing. Prior to completion of the Mausoleum in Area 11, a series of 3 certified letters
were sent to Green Hills by the Vista Verde Special Interest group expressing our concerns
about the impacts their new structure would have on our community. Green Hills made no
response to those letters and continued their development without regard to our concerns.
Multiple calls as well as visits were made to the RPV planning department before and during
construction of the Mausoleum and no significant attention was paid to our inquiries. Proof of
Public Correspondence - 18
this is shown in the internal investigation report. It wasn't until (after direct order by the Mayor of
RPV) the city of RPV initiated an operational review of the CUP in 2014 (attachment R) and held
a planning commission meeting where they motioned on a 7-0 vote for a 90 day moratorium on
rooftop burials on the Mausoleum in Area 11 that Green Hills started communicating with our
community at all.
The official offers that Green Hills subsequently made to mitigate the problems were
disappointing and inadequate. A planning commissioner said as much when he addressed
Green Hills at a public hearing on this issue. Such offers included:
1. A fence on top of the Mausoleum. This offer wasn't acceptable to a majority of Vista
Verde owners because a fence would only serve to impair what little views we had left
even further. Furthermore, any fence on top of the structure would be inadequate to fully
shield the operations and activities on top of the building. A fence also does nothing to
mitigate the noise and vibrations caused by the heavy machinery that they operate on
top of the Mausoleum. The vibrational resonance effect of heavy machinery operating on
top of a hollow structure 8 feet from a residential property is unbearable to residents and
can't be mitigated with a fence.
2. A new fence/wall between our property and their Maintenance Yard. This resolution
offered no solutions to any of our concerns and wasn't acceptable to the majority of Vista
Verde residents.
3. Temporary Screening during Funeral Services. This offer by Green Hills didn't
address the issues of noise, vibrations, and exhaust emissions caused by daily
operations. Furthermore, these temporary screen effects have subsequently been
utilized by Green Hills voluntarily and they have proven ineffective and inadequate to
provide any meaningful relief to Vista Verde residents. The funeral services routinely
exceed the boundaries of the temporary screening and we don't want it.
4. A Decorative Fence along our Pool Area. This offer also did little to nothing to address
the real impacts that their development has had on our community.
Other mitigation measures such as reduced operating hours of funerals and temporary fences
were insufficient in light of the degree to which the development has affected us. Green Hills
management has made unofficial but public statements through the press that they would be
open to buying out the condo units which are most affected by their development (attachment
L).
In light of the above, it can be shown that Green Hills management has acknowledged and is
well aware of the adverse effects their development has had on adjoining land uses. This should
call into question the validity of their CUP and their ability to continue development without
further affecting adjoining land uses.
I loved my home before their development and now I can't say that I do anymore. I purchased
this property due, in a large degree, to the panoramic Harbor and ocean views, the privacy, the
safe location on the border of PV, Rolling Hills Estates, and the quietness that it had. I believed
that the beautiful and distinguished city of RPV (I'm from Rolling Hills Estates so I grew up next
to this wonderful city) wouldn't be so negligent to allow an illegal development to happen. I
Public Correspondence - 19
never could have fathomed the idea of rooftop burials and funeral services that are now taking
place, in what feels like, my living room. I wasn't bothered at all by the cemetery when I
purchased this property. The setback distance as well as the height at which my condo was
situated above the cemetery created an adequate buffering zone from operations and activities.
The original 1991 CUP for Green Hills, as well as the Municipal code for Cemetery, was
appropriate for mitigating adverse effects on the property.
When Green Hills submitted their original Master Plan in 1990 the then-residents of Vista Verde
objected to any above ground structures being constructed in front of this property due to
concerns of view impairment, loss of privacy, and excessive noise. They did this in the form of
letters to the planning commission of RPV, letters to City Council, public speeches at hearings,
and in direct talks with Green Hills personnel (see attachment C). As a result of this, the original
Master Plan (Resolution 91-7) and CUP No. 155 were approved by City Council with provisions
that no above ground structures were to be located in front of Vista Verde. Setbacks for above
ground structures and crypts were clearly stated as being 80'-0" from the northern property line
in condition 1 b of that document for those very reasons (see attachment I). The only structure
that was approved near our property was a Mausoleum located well east of us which would be
built within the large hill that's directly south of their maintenance yard (see attachment of
original CUP map H). That proposed building would have complied with the 80' setback
requirement of the CUP and would have had negligible impacts on our community. It can be
reasonably stated that Green Hills was well aware of the impacts that their proposed
Mausoleum in front of Vista Verde would have on residents.
1. The "CUT AND FILL PLAN" page labeled M-B of the approved Master plan amendment
package (see attachment B) shows 'net cut' in area 11 mausoleum which was and is
incorrect. The tractor ramp on the western side of the Pacific Terrace (aka Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum) structure was built up approx. 12' higher than the existing grade
with 'net fill' from dirt imported from another area of the property. This action created an
artificial hill which, in addition to obstructing the views of neighboring residents, included
unapproved grading and construction activities inconsistent with the conditions of
approval for the master plan and major grading permit criteria. The majority of the
mausoleum in area 11 was constructed with minimal cutting into the existing grade.
2. The submitted Master plan amendment package misrepresents the final height of the
Pacific Terrace Mausoleum as not being higher than the pre-existing grade. Page 11-E
of that document (see attachment B) includes a schematic site section that clearly shows
the existing grade as a dotted line at an angle of 45 degrees. The new grade (or final
height) is represented as being equal in height to the preexisting grade. This
inconsistency is clearly confirmed by referring to the bottom right picture on page 11-F of
the same Master Plan document (attachment B) in which the pre-existing grade in front
of the Vista Verde Condominium was nearly flat and not at a 45 degree angle as shown
in the Master Plan Revision submittal document. This inconsistency is also relevant to
assertions pertaining to approval for a major grading permit for the master plan revision
(this is addressed later in this document).
RDS subsequently confirmed this existing and ongoing CUP violation
Public Correspondence - 20
3. The submitted Master plan amendment package (attachment B) misrepresents the
existing grade in Area 11 as the new grade artificially built up following planning
clearance on 517109. The planning clearance for grading activity included approval to
raise the existing grade by approximately 12' and installation of a 12' high retaining wall
that was actually built up to a height of approximately 14'. The construction of this ramp
and pertinent grading activity was also left out of the operational review staff report on
2125107 in the background section of "approved projects since 2007." This construction
and grading activity for a tractor ramp wasn't disclosed in the master plan revision or to
the planning commission at any point despite receiving "planning clearance" from the
planning director on 5/9/09. There was a note added to this planning clearance
document by Staff on 5122109 which states that the retaining wall shall not exceed 12' in
height. Criteria for obtaining a major grading permit for this project included an assertion
that any retaining wall shall not exceed 8' in height. Documents providing these facts are
on file with the planning department.
RDS subsequently confirmed this existing and ongoing CUP violation
4. In the staff report from 2125107 (see attachment A), the background section says that
operational review was brought about from "complaints to staff from nearby residents".
This statement is incorrect because residents were complaining to the staff long before
the structure was completed. It was only upon direction from RPV Mayor Susan Brooks
that an operational review was conducted by staff (attachment R). Three certified letters
from the Vista Verde Special Interest group were sent to both Eduardo Schonborn and
Joel Rojas starting in June of 2013 and all of them were unanswered. Furthermore,
inquiries from Vista Verde owners made directly in person to the city planning
department prior to that were not appropriately addressed by the staff. The certified
letters were also all sent to Green Hills executive John Reisch to which no reply was
received.
5. The submitted Master plan amendment package (attachment B) doesn't include an
entire row of approx. 44 double depth interments north of the Pacifica Mausoleum which
currently exist will within the existing 16'-0" setback area. Page 1-B of Master plan
amendment package clearly shows a 16'-0" setback from the property line in Area 1 and
the double depth below ground internments being planned outside of that area. My
PowerPoint and letter on this subject was presented to the planning commission
(attachment M and J). Condition number 6 in the most recent conditions of approval for
the Green Hills Master Plan also confirms the existence of a 16'-0" setback in this area
shown in parenthesis. Attachment M and J for this document confirms that these
internment sites are approx. 8' from the property line (well within the approved 16').
Concrete vaults for internments sites continue along this property line up onto the Pacific
Terrace (aka Memorial Terrace) Mausoleum which exists well within the required 16'-0"
setback. The construction plans submitted and approved by the planning department for
the Mausoleum in Area 11 didn't comply with this setback condition. There are approx.
57 single depth internments located in this area on top of the Area 11 Mausoleum. All of
these below ground internments clearly violate the conditions of approval and RPV
Public Correspondence - 21
municipal code. None of these burials were approved by any construction documents at
the city that I could find.
RDS subsequently confirmed this existing and ongoing CUP violation
6. PC Resolution NO. 2007-32 includes condition No. 34 which states: "With the exception
of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not
exceed 20-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."
The approved construction plans on file at the RPV planning department don't comply
with this height condition. My PowerPoint and letters on these issues were presented to
the Planning Commission (attachment K and N) which clearly shows the proposed
finished grade at the front of the building along with the proposed finished height. The
proposed finished grade at the western end of the structure is 194.00' and 189.82' at the
eastern end. The average elevation would then be calculated to be 191.96' (194.00 +
189.82 I 2). The highest point of the proposed structure is shown to be 217.00'. The
difference between the proposed highest point of the structure (217.00') and the average
finished grade at the front of the structure (191.96') is 25.04' (217.00-191.96) which is
5.04' taller than was permitted via the conditions of approval. This would make the
approved construction plans in violation of this condition of approval. The building, as it
stands now, is in violation of the CUP.
RDS subsequently confirmed this existing and ongoing CUP violation
7. The master plan revision submittal (attachment B) shows a maximum height of 25'-0"
(from the lowest point of the adjacent grade to the highest point of the structure) for the
Mausoleum in Area 11 and the approved construction plans at the city allow a maximum
height of 27.18'* (from the lowest point of the adjacent grade to the highest point of the
structure). The Mausoleum in Area 11 violates the height limitations of municipal code,
the master plan revision submittal, and the conditions of approval. *189.32' (lowest
adjacent grade) -217.00' (highest point of the structure)= 27.18'.
RDS subsequently confirmed this existing and ongoing CUP violation
8. RPV Municipal Code 17.60.050 states that the city may only grant a conditional use
permit if the planning commission finds that it complies with section 1 - 6 of that
development code. PC Resolution NO. 2007-32 which was approved on 4/24/07
incorrectly states that the proposed and submitted Master Plan Amendment package
satisfies all of those sections. The published staff report on 4/24/07 (attachment A)
includes many incorrect statements in reference to each of these sections and
incorrectly represents that the proposed conditional use permit amendment is in
compliance with those sections. Many of the proposed changes to CUP No. 155
subsequently deemed acceptable by staff at the 4/24/07 meeting directly contradict their
reasoning in "Conditional Use Permit" section of the staff report at that meeting. Section
Public Correspondence - 22
1-6 of this municipal code are shown below along with the incorrect and/or contradictory
statements and actions explained below:
a. Section 1 of RPV Municipal Code 17.60.050:'The site is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate said use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls or
fences, landscaping and other features required by this title [Title 17 "Zoning'] or
by conditions imposed under this section [Section 17. 60. 050] to adjust said use
to those on abutting land and within the neighborhood."
i. Staff wrote the following in response to section 1 (attachment A), "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
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."
Staff incorrectly stated that the setbacks would not be modified or
reduced here and then proceeded to change the setback by 72'. The
proposed addition to the previously approved mausoleum building shown
in area 11 of the revised master plan required that item number 7 of the
conditions of approval for the northern property line was modified to
include a reduction of the existing 80'-0" setback to an 8'-0" setback for
the western-most of the Mausoleum shown in Area 11. This change was
deemed 'acceptable' by staff at the same meeting. Furthermore, the
statement by staff that that the "additions to approved Mausoleum
buildings would be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site
rather an along its perimeter" was incorrect because the proposed
addition to the Mausoleum in Area 11 clearly didn't have sufficient
setback and was, in fact, located along the perimeter of the site. The
preexisting 80'-0" northern setback for above ground structures was
sufficient but an 8'-0" abutting a residential area isn't.
ii. "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), and the conditions
contained therein will remain in full force and effect unless specifically
modified by this Master Plan Revision."(attachment A)
Staff incorrectly states here again that the setbacks for proposed
improvements would be consistent with Resolution No. 91-7 (the original
Master Plan) (attachment I). As stated above, staff accepted the setback
change for above ground structures from 80'-0" to 8'-0". The above
statement directly contradicts their accepted action.
Public Correspondence - 23
iii. "Thus, this Revision provides clarification in regards to the areas
dedicated to ground burials, while ensuring that these areas continue
maintaining the 8-foot setback requirement for ground burials from the
north and south property lines. "(attachment A)
This statement incorrectly asserts that the original master plan's setback
requirement is 8' for ground burials for the north and south property lines.
Staff failed to mention that a provision for a 16' -0" setback was included in
the original Master Plan for the northwest corner between the western
property line and the maintenance yard. The most current versions of the
conditions of approval still include this setback provision and, as
mentioned earlier in this document, Green Hills has placed approx. "44"
double depth below ground burials in this area.
iv. "With regards to existing conditions, however, the applicant is of a
different opinion regarding condition no. 2b, which states "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 ... " 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 ground 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." (attachment A)
Staff clearly says here that an 80'-0" setback exists along the northern
perimeter of the property and then states that they believe that condition
should remain intact. The statement that they believe the setback should
remain intact is contradictory to their actions on the same night that this
staff report was published when they reduced that same 80' setback
condition to 8' for western most portion of the Mausoleum in Area 11.
Public Correspondence - 24
b. Section 3 of the RPV Municipal Code 17.60.050: "In approving the subject use at
the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent
property or the permitted use thereof."
i. "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." (attachment A)
While this statement refers to new mausoleum buildings not reducing
setbacks, it fails to mention that additions to previously approved
buildings would, in fact, drastically change approved setbacks.
ii. "As indicated in the attached Initial Study, it was identified that the project
may create potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality,
Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and
Water Quality, and Noise. However, an environmental assessment of the
proposal found that the proposed project would not create significant
adverse effects with appropriate mitigation measures. As such, for these
reasons, there will be no significant effect on adjacent property or the
permitted use thereof, and this finding can be made and adopted."
(attachment A)
The assertion by staff that the proposed project will create no significant
impact on adjacent property pursuant to CEQA guidelines was clearly
incorrect. Their environmental assessment was incorrect in many ways
but especially with respect to view impairment and noise. The Mausoleum
that was subsequently constructed in Area 11 has created significant view
impairments for the condo owners whom purchased their properties, in a
large degree, for the panoramic San Pedro Harbor, Rancho Palos
Verdes, and Ocean Views. View impairment was not only created from
the living areas of the properties, but also from the pool, BBQ, and
recreational area which has been replaced by a concrete wall. The
assertion that no adverse noise effects would be created was also
incorrect because Green Hills now operates very heavy machinery on a
daily basis within 8' of the property line of the Vista Verde residential area
without any significant mitigation measures. The resonance effect of such
large machinery operating on top of a hollow structure (the Area 11
Mausoleum) was clearly not taken into account because the effect of
these operations has created enormous and unbearable noise and
vibration pollution to the residents in Vista Verde. There is no point in any
area of any condominium within the Vista Verde complex which doesn't
experience vibrations and noise from operations despite all windows and
doors being closed. The exhaust emissions carried by said machinery
directly into the living areas, balconies, pool area, and BBQ area by the
prevailing onshore ocean air flow is also an environmental hazard that
wasn't addressed by the staff. The proposed mitigation measures are
clearly insufficient to reduce these hazards to 'less than significant' as
staff concluded. It's my opinion that there are no mitigation measures that
can be implemented to reduce these hazards beyond moving the
structure to a new area. The recommendation by staff to put a fence
along the northern end of the structure is a bad one because it would be
Public Correspondence - 25
insufficient to shield the noise pollution and due to the size, height, and
location of the structure with respect to the Vista Verde condominiums,
any attempt to shield rooftop activities would not only further impair views,
but it wouldn't accomplish the goal of fully shielding the rooftop activities
such as funerals, mourning families, and machinery operation. The
originally approved Master Plan included appropriate mitigation measures
for these hazards which was an 80' setback for above ground structures
and a 16' setback for below ground internments.
c. Section 6 of RPV Municipal Code 17 .60.050: "Conditions regarding any of the
requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be
necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed
[including but not limited to]: setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting;
vehicular ingress and egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions;
landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads or
alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the City
in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes
set forth in this title [Title 17 "Zoning]. "(attachment A)
i. "With regards to the items listed within this finding, Staff believes that the
proposed project has been designed and conditioned through appropriate
mitigation measures incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(see attached Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program), and through
appropriate conditions incorporated in conditions of approval (see
attached Draft Conditions of Approval). Said mitigation measures and
conditions have been based upon the requirements listed above so that
the proposed project will not cause an impact to the health, safety and
general welfare of the site nor surrounding residents. For these reasons,
Staff believes that this finding can be made and adopted." (attachment A)
This statement by staff in reference to section 6 of the conditional use
permit approval was clearly inaccurate according to the evidence
presented in this document. The surrounding residents have been
unreasonably and undoubtedly impacted by the proposed project and
failure to forsee these impacts was a profound oversight that, I believe,
any reasonable person who conducted a reasonable investigation would
have realized. The reason that the setbacks for above ground structures
was 80' in the originally approved Master Plan (attachment I and H) was
because all of these environmental hazards on adjacent properties were
obvious.
9. Statements made by staff asserting that the proposed grading for the Green Hills Master
Plan revision complied with city code were incorrect. A major grading permit pursuant to
RPV code 17.76.040 of the Development Code was required to be granted when the
Master Plan revision was proposed in April and February of 2007. RPV code 17.76.040
requires that the grading project complies with 9 criteria of section E.
Section E.2 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 says the following: "The proposed grading
and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships
with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where
grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this
Public Correspondence - 26
finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade
under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured
pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8) of this title , is lower than a structure that could have
been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing)
grade;" (attachment A)
Staff wrote the following in response to that section: "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." (Attachment A)
This statement was incorrect because the proposed addition to the
Mausoleum in Area 11 of the Master Plan revision not only created
significant view impairment for neighboring properties (namely Vista
Verde), but was also located along the north perimeter of the property
which clearly abuts the Vista Verde residences .
i. Staff also wrote this in response to section E .2: "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."
(attachment A)
This statement by staff contradicts the approved Mausoleum construction
plans which included the Mausoleum in Area 11 being constructed on a
nearly flat slope. This clearly contradicts their statement above that that
building would be built by excavating into the slope.
ii. Staff also wrote this in response to section E.2: "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." (attachment A)
This assertion by staff clearly incorrect as the grading that was
subsequently approved by the planning department significantly affected
the views of neighboring properties (Vista Verde). Refer to attachment E
of this document for that evidence .
b. Section E .3 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 says the following: "The nature of
grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are
reasonably natural."
i. Staff wrote the following in response to section E.3: "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
Public Correspondence - 27
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." (attachment x)
If you refer to (attachment D) of this document, you will see a photo the
pre-existing slope of Area 11 of the Master Plan. If you compare this
photo to (attachment D) of this document you will see the slope as it
exists today. It's quite apparent from this evidence that the structure
doesn't blend into the natural contours of the property as was asserted.
c. Section E.8 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 says the following:"The grading
would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation." (attachment A)
i. Staff wrote the following in response to section E.8: "No wildlife habitats
have been identified on the subject property; thus, this criterion does not
apply."
The issue of the proposed grading not affecting the natural landscape of
the property wasn't addressed by staff. As shown in (attachment D) of this
document, the natural landscape was highly affected by the approved
grading operations.
d. Section E.9 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 says the following: "The grading
conforms to the following standards for: grading on slopes, height of cut/fill, and
retaining walls. According to the City's Development Code, grading and
construction on slopes over thirty-five (35%) percent is not permitted if the lot
was recorded and legally subdivided after November 25, 1975. Further, no finish
slopes greater than 35% shall be created; no fill or cut shall occur on a slope
exceeding fifty (50%) percent; and that exposed upslope and downslope
retaining walls cannot exceed 8'-0" and 3'-6" high, respectively. Lastly,
except for the excavation for a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a
depth of 5-feet at any point except where the Planning Commission determines
that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances
make such grading reasonable and necessary. "(attachment x)
i. Staff wrote the following in response to section E.9: "Staff has reviewed
the proposed Master Plan Revision and has found it to be consistent with
the aforementioned criteria, with the exception that the depth of cut and
height of fill will exceed 5-feet for construction of the mausoleum
buildings. However, these are issues that were reviewed during the
original Master Plan and the Revision includes making some of these
buildings larger. Staff believes there continues to be circumstances that
make such grading reasonable and necessary." (attachment A)
Public Correspondence - 28
Staff subsequently granted planning clearance on 5/7/09 in Area 1 and
Area 11 of the Master Plan for a grading plan which included raising the
natural grade of the area approximately 12' to facilitate the construction of
a 'tractor ramp' for the Area 11 Mausoleum. On 5/22/09 a note was added
with a pen to this planning clearance that the height of the retaining wall
shall not exceed 12'. The subsequent approval of a retaining wall 12' in
height is clearly inconsistent with Staffs guarantee to the commission that
retaining walls wouldn't exceed 8' in height.
e. Staff ended the grading permit section of the 4/24/07 staff report with the
following statement: "Development Code Section 17. 76.040 states, "the purpose
of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the
maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the
development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining
properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the
General Plan." Due to the operations and 121-acre size of the cemetery, the
amount of grading and related cut and fill is necessary to accommodate the
proposed built-out of the cemetery site, which Staff believes is not an excessive
amount of grading; is consistent with the existing and continuous use of the
property; 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-wayor from other residences. Lastly, the
proposed grading activity will not be detrimental to the public safety or to
the surrounding properties"
These assertions made by staff are inconsistent with the grading plans that were
subsequently approved. Raising the natural grade of Area 1 and Area 11 was
most certainly not harmonious to the adjoining properties and didn't comply with
the goals and policies of the General Plan. The subsequently approved grading
plans and Mausoleum buildings significantly impaired views and raised the
natural grade as much as 14' in Area 11 of the Master plan. This approval did
significantly affect the current appearance of the slope from other residences as
shown in (attachment E) of this document.
It should be clear that the statements made by staff in reference to obtaining a
major grading permit pursuant to RPV municipal code were inconsistent with the
subsequently approved grading activities and was also inconsistent with the
conditions of approval.
10. According to RPV Municipal code 17.86.060,
"The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to the provision of this
title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving such a permit, revoke or
suspend the permit if: The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to
the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving
such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if:
A. The permit was issued erroneously; or
Public Correspondence - 29
B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the
applicant; or
C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code; or
D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of
such permit."
It's in my opinion that the applicant for CUP No. 155, Green Hills, can have their CUP revoked
based upon violations of 17.86.060(A)(B)(C)(D). I've elaborated the reasons for each violation
as follows:
With regards to 17.86.060(A) and (C):
1. The City Attorney for the City of RPV has admitted that a variance should have been
required for the 72' setback change that was made by the Staff in 2007. This is because
a CUP can only allow deviations from the City Code when the change is LESS strict than
what the City Code requires. This would qualify as contrary to the Municipal Code and
'erroneous'.
2. As explained at length above, the CUP revision was 'substantial' considering the 72'
setback change and, as a result, could only be approved by the body that took final
action on the original approval. That body was the City Council and not the Planning
Commission. This would qualify as contrary to Municipal Code and 'erroneous'.
3. It's also apparent that a full blown EIR and not a MND was required for the project. This
was also contrary to municipal code and 'erroneous'.
4. As it has been confirmed through the internal investigation report: Inadequate public
notice was provided to neighboring residents (attachment G). The location of the Area
11 Mausoleum was misrepresented as being East of the maintenance yard when it was
actually West. This is definitely 'erroneous'.
5. The public notice also didn't mention any setback or height changes which were
subsequently made. The public notice in 1990 (attachment F) clearly stated such
changes and the public outcry from residents was enough to require a 80' setback for
above ground structures in front of Vista Verde. It's clear that if the 2007 notice was
correct then there would have been a similar reaction from residents of Vista Verde.
With regards to 17.86.060(8):
1. The applicant stated on their original CUP application in burden of proof statement
number 1. that there would be "no adverse impact on adjoining land uses." They also
stated on the same application in burden of proof statement no. 3 that future
development would not have adverse impacts on adjoining land uses (attachment Q).
2. In the subsequent CUP revisions applications Green Hills said multiple times that the
CUP revision was in compliance with the original 1991 CUP and that no adverse impacts
would be imparted on neighboring properties (attachments 0 and P).
3. Green Hills severely misrepresented to the Planning Commission what the Area 11
Mausoleum would be. In the Master Plan Revision Submittal booklet Green Hills
misrepresented the existing grade in front of Vista Verde as being a 40' tall hill
(attachment B).
Public Correspondence - 30
4. Green Hills also misrepresented the Mausoleum as not extending above that hill. In
essence they presented the Planning Commission a building that would not extend
higher than existing grade except for a 4' tall railing. See attachment (Band M)
5. The Architect for Green Hills told the Planning Commission that the existing grade of
Green Hills will NOT be raised in the revised CUP. This is available to view at the 4:45
mark of the 2/27/07 Planning Commission hearing.
With regards to 17.86.060(D):
1. The height of the Area 11 Mausoleum doesn't conform to their CUP (attachments K and
N). Confirmed by RDS
2. There are currently 44 burials plots within the required 16' setback in front of Vista
Verde. This violation was confirmed by City Staff as well as RDS (attachments J and M).
There is substantial evidence available that shows that the applicant was well aware that the
proposed Master Plan Revision Submittal would substantially affect adjoining land uses,
namely, the Vista Verde Condominium complex. The evidence is as follows:
During the approval process of the original master plan for Green Hills, objections to above
ground structures (Mausoleums specifically) in front of Vista Verde were made in writing and at
city meetings by multiple then-residents of the Vista Verde complex. Their objections included
view impairment, excessive noise, and loss of privacy. I've attached copies of these letters to
this document along with the minutes from "date" meeting which clearly show that the applicant
was well aware of the substantial negative impacts a structure would have in the area where
they developed. The city council acted appropriately by approving the original Master Plan.
At the 2/24/07 planning commission hearing for the operational review of Green Hills, the CEO
for Green Hills, Ray Frew, told the planning commission that he was well aware of the impacts
that the Mausoleum would have on the Vista Verde complex prior to its completion. While the
evidence of this statement wasn't included in the official minutes from this meeting, the evidence
still exists on the videotaped recording of that meeting.
In a Daily Breeze article Rey Frew admits that there are substantial problems created for the
Vista Verde complex and even states that he's open to "a buyout of the most affected units."
This is an admission that the impacts to the adjoining residents are so significant that buying
their properties may be a reasonable solution. (attachment L)
Multiple certified mail letters that were sent to Green Hills prior to completion of the Mausoleum
in Area 11 and all of them were ignored. These letters expressed Vista Verde residents'
concerns about the adverse impacts that their structure would have on their properties.
I urge the City Council to adopt all of the planning commission's resolutions and to initiate a
CUP revocation hearing.
Regards,
Matthew H. Martin
Public Correspondence - 31
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Part 2 of my Letter is attached
Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com>
Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:29 PM
Doug Willmore; CC
Letter for November 17th Green Hills Agenda Item Part 2
NOVCCLetterPart2.pdf
Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------This message and any attached
documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected
by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
1 Public Correspondence - 32
Attachment A
2/27 /07 Staff Report Available on line at
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media .legistar.com/rpv/2007 02 27 Planning Commission Agenda/RPVPC
AG 2007 02 27 03.html
Conditional Use Permit Portion is Italicized
Public Correspondence - 33
TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
DATE:FEBRUARY 27, 2007
SUBJECT: CASE NO. ZON2003-00086-(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; CONDITIONAL USE PE
REVISION B, AND GRADING PERMIT
PROJECT ADDRESS: 27501 WESTERN AVENUE -GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETER.,
PAGE 793, H & J-7)
APPLICANT:J. STUART TODD, INC.
ATTN: BARRY BOUDREAUX
2919 WELBORN
DALLAS, TX 75219
PHONE: (214) 522-4033
LANDOWNER:GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
ATTN: JOHN RESICH, RAY FREW & DENNIS LANE
27501 WESTERN A VENUE
RPV, CA 90275
STAFF COORDINATOR: EDUARDO SCHONBORN, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
STAFF COORDINATOR: EDUARDO SCHONBORN, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: REVISE THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN FOR GREEN HILLS
MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL GRADING, IMPORT OF
FILL, ADDITIONAL MAUSOLEUM BUILDINGS AND GROUND BURIALS FOR BUILD-
OUT OF THE CEMETERY SITE OVER THE NEXT 30-TO 50-YEARS.
RECOMMENDATION: OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, TAKE TESTIMONY, AND
DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
APRIL 24, 2007 TO TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.
REFERENCES:
ZONING: CEMETERY (CEM)
LAND USE: CEMETERY
Public Correspondence - 34
CODE SECTIONS: 17.60, 17.76.040
GENERAL PLAN: CEMETERY
TRAILS PLAN: NIA
SPECIFIC PLAN: NIA
CEQA STATUS: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ACTION DEADLINE: MAY 21, 2007
P .C. MEMBERS
WITHIN 500' RADIUS: NONE
BACKGROUND
On September 25, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 93,
allowing the construction of a new 16-foot high mausoleum building and lawn crypt interment
area with 7,900 cubic yards of backfill at Green Hills Memorial Park cemetery, known as Park
View Terrace in Area 12 of the attached Master Plan map. The mausoleum building, however,
was not constructed and the approval expired. Subsequently, on July 12, 1988, the Planning
Commission approved Grading Permit No. 1129, allowing 13,300 cubic yards of grading
necessary for new lawn crypts in the cemetery.
Based upon these experiences, and to avoid future incremental projects as deemed necessary for
a cemetery use, it was determined that a master plan was a more efficient tool to allow a phased
development of the cemetery site over an extended period of time. As such, after submittal of
Conditional Use Permit No. 155, on August 14, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a
Master Plan for a portion of the site development and the entire grading plan for the Green Hills
Memorial Park cemetery site. The approval was appealed by the applicant citing concerns with
several conditions of approval relating to phasing, setbacks, and placement of a proposed
mausoleum expansion. Thus, on February 19, 1991, the City Council upheld the appeal, thereby
approving a Master Plan for the entire Green Hills Memorial Park property.
The Master Plan called for development of the cemetery site that was contemplated to occur over
the next 100-years. The Master Plan allowed 194,340 cubic yards of grading with no import or
export, and re-grading of the remaining 45 undeveloped acres of the 120 acres cemetery. The
Master Plan also allowed construction of2.44-acres of mausoleum buildings, 11.87-acres of
burial sites, 27.21-acres of ground burial sites and 3.72-acres of roads.
On March 28, 1995, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Revision "A" was approved by the
Planning Commission. Revision "A" modified a condition of approval regarding mausoleum
building height, thereby increasing the maximum downslope building height from 25' -0" to 30'-
0". On March 10, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Revision "B" to allow the removal
of three underground fuel tanks that were not anticipated in the original approval of the Master
Public Correspondence - 35
Plan. Although there have been requests to amend the conditional use permit, there have been
several approvals granted for projects at Green Hills that have not required revisions or Planning
Commission hearing because they have been deemed consistent with the Master Plan. Table No.
1 below provides a summary of the grading operations and projects since approval of the Green
Hills Memorial Park Master Plan.
Date of Application/Project
Approval
08/13/1991 GR No. 1568 -7'-0" high retaining wall
(location unknown)
12/19/1991 GR NO. 1608-Lawn crypts, wall crypts and
restroom bldg. At the Garden of Reflection
01/20/1992
03/13/1995
05/12/1995
06/29/1995
08/13/1997
03/10/1998
08/18/1998
Parkview Terrace
GR No. 1799 -Retaining wall adj. to Pacifica
Mausoleum
GR No. 1798/CUP No. 155, Revision A --
Parkview Terrace mausoleum and lawn crypts
GR No. 1828/SPR No. 7598 -Dawn family
room crypt
GR No. 1798, Revision A-3.16' high retaining
wall and backfill
GR No. 1987/CUP No. 155, Revision B-
Removal of fuel storage tanks
GR No. 2050 -Remedial grading at the
southern portion of the cemetery site
Amount of Grading
Cut = 222 cu. yds.
Fill = 222 cu. yds.
Cut= 0 cu. yds.Fill = 441
cu. yds.
Cut= 38,000 cu. yds.
Fill = 38,000 cu. yds.
Cut = 70 cu. yds.
Fill = 0 cu. yds.
Cut= 12,000 cu. yds.
Fill= 7,900 cu. yds.
Cut = 179 cu. yds.
Fill = 117 cu. yds.
Cut = 0 cu. yds.
Fill = 43 cu. yds.
Cut= 42 cu. yds.
Fill = 97 cu. yds.
Cut= 31,670 cu. yds.Fill
= 36,669 cu. yds.
Import = 4,999 cu. yds.
Sometime shortly after the City's original approval of the Master Plan and commencement of the
first phase of grading, Green Hills encountered contaminated soil in the southwesterly portion of
the site (Areas 5 and 6 on the attached Master Plan Revision map). Green Hills subsequently
worked with the appropriate State and regional agencies to develop a plan to remediate this
condition over the next few years, culminating in the completion of a draft Remedial Action Plan
in December 1996. The draft Remedial Action Plan was refined and finalized over the next
Public Correspondence - 36
eighteen (18) months and received final approval from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) in July 1998.
Green Hills subsequently requested permission to import material to the site as part of the
remedial grading to "cap" the contaminated area in accordance with the finalized plan. On
August 18, 1998, the City approved Grading Permit No. 2050, allowing remedial grading to
commence. As a condition of the approval, the total quantity of import was limited to 4,999
cubic yards.
During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999, the City received complaints from nearby residents
regarding noise, dust and other impacts related to the remedial grading operations. Eventually,
the City became aware (through Green Hills' own admissions) that the remedial grading had
exceeded the scope of activity approved under Grading Permit No. 2050, and a "STOP WORK"
order was issued on October 27, 1999. After a meeting between City Staff and Green Hills, the
"STOP WORK" was lifted with the understanding that Green Hills would do only minor grading
to complete the remedial buttress fill that was necessary to properly complete the remediation,
would not import any additional material, and would properly apply for a master plan
amendment. In response to unauthorized grading, additional "STOP WORK" orders were issued
between 2000 and 2002, but were ultimately lifted based upon continued assurances that an
amendment to the master plan was forthcoming. Ultimately, on February 19, 2003, Case No.
ZON2003-00086 was submitted, a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan.
Since submittal of the revision, the applicant has modified the request. Although the application
remained incomplete for some time, the applicant was able to better quantify the amount of
grading necessary to construct each of the future proposed mausoleum buildings. Nonetheless,
upon submittal of all information, Staff deemed the project complete for processing on
November 22, 2006. After the project was deemed complete, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
assess the project's environmental impacts. On February 6, 2007, the City mailed notices to 339
property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, and subsequently published
the notice in the Peninsula News on February 8, 2007. On February 6, 2007, Staff also circulated
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to all applicable public agencies. Further, Staff
sent an electronic mail to all parties registered on the City's "listserver" for the Green Hills
Master Plan Revision project, which contains 71 registered recipients, informing them of the
proposed Master Plan Revision and the pending public hearing.
Lastly, on February 6, 2007, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was forwarded to the
County Recorder for a posting and comment period of at least twenty days (as required by
CEQA) prior to action on the MND. However, the County Recorder returned the document due
to insufficient funds necessary to post the document. As such, Staff addressed the issue and
resent the document to the County Recorder on February 14, 2007 for a new posting period.
Although tonight's hearing will be conducted within the required 20-day posting period, by law,
formal action cannot occur until the 20-day posting period has been completed. Because Staff
believes this project may take at least two Planning Commission meetings due to the nature of
the project and the many area residents that may be present at the Planning Commission meeting
wishing to speak on the item, Staff felt that it would be best to still conduct the hearing on this
item to obtain public input and Planning Commission discussion on the merits of the project.
Public Correspondence - 37
Thus, Staff is recommending adoption of a formal Resolution to occur at a future date, when the
minimum posting period will have been met. Lastly, the City Attorney has confirmed that
conducting tonight's meeting does not pose a conflict with CEQA requirements.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Green Hills Memorial Park cemetery is located off Western A venue in the very northeast corner
of the City, bordering the City of Lomita, the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and an un-
incorporated area of the County of Los Angeles. The cemetery property measures approximately
121-acres in area, and is a privately owned and operated cemetery facility. The cemetery
operates Monday through Sunday, from sunrise to sunset, and it consists of ground burials,
mausoleum buildings, an office building, mortuary, chapel, flower shop, and a maintenance yard
and related buildings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose and intent of a master plan is to account for the orderly development of a site over
time. The original Green Hills Master 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 (i.e., 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. While the purpose of the original Master
Plan was to address build-out of the cemetery site over the next 100-years, unfortunately, it has
been plagued by an underestimation of grading quantities necessary to construct the mausoleum
buildings and preparation of the ground interments throughout the cemetery site.
The proposed project involves a revision to the approved Master Plan, in an attempt to better
specify the areas of development and the grading quantities necessary for ultimate build-out of
the cemetery site. The Master Plan Revision includes the following:
1) acknowledge that the actual quantity of grading that has been conducted between 1991
through 2004 is 288,814 cubic yards (cut and fill), which is 89,475 cubic yards more than
originally approved by the Master Plan;
2) allowing a total of 643,259 cubic yards of additional grading, which includes 97,964 cubic
yards of import for all the various 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, which will be phased as follows:
a. Inspiration Slope (Area 2) will be constructed in a minimum of three phases over a period of
5-to IO-years (as funding and budgeting become available), with the initial phase commencing
in 2007. The construction will require adequate backfill to keep the adjacent ground burial
section at a consistent level. Cumulatively, upon completion, the project will have produced
53,000 cubic yards of grading; however, each phase will require between 10,000 to 15,000 cubic
yards of import. Thus, it is estimated that 40,000 cubic yards of import fill will be required for
construction of the entire Inspiration Slope project.
Public Correspondence - 38
b. Reflection Mausoleum expansion (Area 3), which would not commence until completion of
the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, will include large excavations. Since the project will be
phased and there will again be a need to import backfill for construction purposes, it is estimated
that 14,000 cubic yards of imported fill will be required for this project.
c. Areas 7 and 11 will not require import of fill since the amount of excavation far exceeds the
amount of backfill necessary for these mausoleum buildings. Thus, the excess dirt will be placed
and compacted in Areas 5 and 6 of the master plan (i.e., the southern and southwestern portions
of the cemetery site), where development is not expected to occur for another 30-years.
d. The final project that would require substantial imported fill would be the mausoleums
proposed for construction in Area 6. The project will not be constructed for at least 30 years into
the future, and excess dirt from the ground burials and other mausoleum buildings will have been
placed and compacted at this location. Thus, it is anticipated that approximately 34,000 cubic
yards will be imported for construction purposes and backfill.
3) Clarify that the number of additional ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorial Park is
13,589 Double Depth Burials (27,178 interments), 388 Single Depth Burials (388 interments),
and 408 family estates (4080 interments);
4) Area 6 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Southwest Mausoleum): allow 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 measuring 23,653 square feet at a location that is approximately 300-feet
farther west than approved in the original Master Plan;
5) Area 3 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Garden of Reflections Mausoleum): allow a
new 75, 131 square foot mausoleum building to the west of the existing mortuary, whereby 9,871
square feet will be above grade and 65,260 square feet will be below grade;
6) Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Memorial Terrace Mausoleum): allow 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) Area 7 of the Master Plan Revision, and known as Southwest Terrace Mausoleum: reduce 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.
The daily cemetery operations include ground burials (a.k.a. lawn crypts), and these areas must
be graded and prepared for such uses. While some ground burials will be created by the backfill
adjacent to the mausoleum buildings, some areas in the Master Plan Revision call-out for ground
burials only. The ground burials may include family estates that are evident by low garden walls
around their perimeters to enclose these burial estates, or more elaborate tombstones that are
built above-ground. Nonetheless, the typical method in preparing these ground burial sites
Public Correspondence - 39
includes grading an area by excavating up to 8-feet below existing grade (depending, if these are
single or double depth lawn crypts), filling a layer of sand for erosion control purposes,
constructing concrete encasements where coffins are ultimately placed, then a layer of the
previously excavated dirt is filled to match pre-excavated grade. Excess earth material resulting
from the burial sites will be transported to Areas 5 and 6 of the Master Plan Revision. It is
approximated that 137,000 cubic yards of fill will be necessary for these areas to raise the grade
to accommodate mausoleum buildings and ground burials, and appropriate drainage to the
roadways. This quantity includes ground spoils from throughout the cemetery site, excess cut
material from mausoleum projects in other areas, and import of additional fill material.
CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENT AL ASSESSMENT
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff
prepared an Initial Study of the project's environmental impacts (see attached Environmental
Checklist Form). Although CEQA identifies a number of categorical exemptions that would
exempt a proposed project from the preparation of environmental documents, the Initial Study
and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared since the proposed project
did not qualify for a CEQA exemption and since a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared
for the the original Master Plan. As a result of the Initial Study, Staff determined that the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment if appropriate mitigation
measures were incorporated, resulting in the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to all applicable public agencies on February
6, 2007. As indicated above, the document was forwarded to the County Recorder on February
14, 2007, for a posting and comment period of at least twenty days prior to action on the MND
(as required by CEQA). Since Staff is recommending adoption of a formal Resolution at a future
date, the minimum posting period will have been met. Nonetheless, a public notice was also
mailed to the 339 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, and a
notice was published in the Peninsula News on February 8, 2007. Further, Staff sent an
electronic mail to all parties registered on the City's "listserver" for the Green Hills Master Plan
Revision project, which contains 71 registered recipients, informing them of the proposed Master
Plan Revision and the pending public hearing. In response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Notice, on February 12, 2007 Staff met with several residents from the Peninsula Verde
neighborhood community, which is located to the north of the cemetery site.
As shown in the attached Initial Study, the project will not result in or create any significant
impacts, or have less than significant impacts to Agricultural Resources, Biological and Cultural
Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public
Services, Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities and Service Systems.
However, it was identified that the project may create potentially significant impacts to
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and
Water Quality, and Noise, unless mitigated with appropriate measures. These potential impacts
and the associated mitigation measures are discussed below.
Public Correspondence - 40
Aesthetics: It was identified that the project may result in an aesthetic impact with regards to
creating a new source of light or glare. The potential aesthetic impacts have led Staff to
incorporate mitigation measures that prohibit lighting of the roadways within the cemetery, and
require that building-mounted lighting be arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination
of the surrounding property and prevent visibility of the light source. Incorporation of these
mitigation measures will result in a less than significant impact upon aesthetics.
Air Quality: It was identified that the project may result in an air quality impact with regards to
exposing sensitive receptors to pollutants. Residences are identified as a sensitive receptor, and
exposure to dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities was identified as an impact.
However, this potential impact has led Staff to incorporate mitigation measures that require
regular watering of construction areas; discontinuing certain activities during high winds to
prevent dust clouds; and confining fill to certain areas of the cemetery. As such, by incorporating
these mitigation measures, there will be no significant adverse impacts upon air quality.
Geology and Soils: It was identified that the project may result in an impact with regards to soil
liquefaction since expansive soil is common on the peninsula. Although mausoleum buildings
are not habitable structures, there will be visitors to these buildings. Such potential impact has
led Staff to incorporate mitigation measures that require submittal of a geotechnical report that
must be reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to issuance of a building permit,
unless the City Geologist deems it not necessary. Further, any recommendations or conditions
resulting from the geotechnical and soils reports must be incorporated into the building design of
the structure. Incorporation of these mitigation measures will result in a less than significant
impact to geology and soils.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: It was identified that the project may result in a potentially
significant impact with regards to the release of hazardous materials into the environment,
specifically in regards to the southern portion of the site due to its previous contaminated soil.
However, a remediation effort was completed in 1999 that resulted in the site being removed
from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List. Nonetheless, to
ensure that the proposed mausoleum buildings in Area 6 do not disturb the previously remediated
area, a mitigation measure has been included requiring review and approval by the State of
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control, prior to obtaining a building permit.
Incorporation of the mitigation measure will result in a less than significant impact.
Hydrology and Water Quality: It was identified that the project may result in an impact with
regards to wastewater discharge and drainage patterns. The potential impact has led Staff to
incorporate a mitigation measure that requires preparation and approval of a Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit for
any mausoleum. Incorporation of the mitigation measure will result in a less than significant
impact upon hydrology and water quality.
Noise: It was identified that the project may result in impacts with increased noise levels as a
result of construction activity. The potential has led Staff to incorporate mitigation measures that
limit hours of construction and the queuing of construction vehicles. Incorporation of these
mitigation measures will result in a less than significant impact upon noise.
Public Correspondence - 41
As such, Staff has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be approved for this
project since mitigation measures have been incorporated to result in a project with less than
significant impacts.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The purpose of the Cemetery Zoning district is to provide for the permanent interment of human
remains. All new uses within the district are subject to approval through a conditional use
permit. Since the original Master Plan was approved through a conditional use permit (CUP No.
155), a revision is necessary since modifications are being proposed to the master plan that
includes additional mausoleum area and grading. In considering a conditional use permit
application or a revision to a previously approved conditional use permit application,
Development Code Section 17.60.050 requires the Planning Commission to adopt the following
six findings in reference to the property and uses under consideration. The Code also allows the
Planning Commission the discretion to grant a conditional use permit (or revision) with
conditions and limitations as necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare.
(Development Code findings are shown in bold text, followed by Staff's analysis in normal text.)
1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all of the yards,
setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by this title [Title 17
"Zoning"] or by conditions imposed under this section [Section 17.60.050] to adjust said use to
those on abutting land and within the neighborhood.
The subject property measures approximately 121-acres in area and currently operates as a
cemetery. The cemetery was established prior to annexation of the area to the City, and has been
in continual operation since then. Since societal, cultural and environmental changes naturally
occur over time, and with land being scarce, the efficient use of existing land and demand has
steered the cemetery industry in the direction to provide mausoleums as an alternative to ground
burials. Although there were mausoleum buildings constructed at Green Hills prior to
annexation, Green Hills had plans to ultimately construct additional mausoleum buildings
throughout the cemetery site. To ensure an orderly development of the cemetery site over time,
Staff requested that Green Hills develop a master plan for all development throughout the
cemetery site for consideration through a conditional use permit, which led to the approval of a
Master Plan in 1991 to regulate development of the site over the next JOO years.
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 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. Further, the heights of the buildings will not be taller. The Mausoleum buildings in
the southern portion of the site (in Area 6) will have a better design than the original Master
Plan since there will be 5 buildings distributed throughout the area that will be one-story above
grade and one-story below grade. Further, since the improvements will be conducted over a
period of 30-to 50-years, the impacts will be minimized. Thus, the setbacks and heights of all
proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established by the prior Master
Public Correspondence - 42
Plan as approved through Resolution No. 91-7 (attached), and the conditions contained therein
will remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified by this Master Plan Revision.
With regards to the ground interments (ground burials), this Revision clarifies the areas and
acreages by specifj;ing the areas for ground interments. Although the original Master Plan
(attached) illustrated general areas and acreages, the acreage areas devoted to ground burials
was not clear or properly calculated. Thus, this Revision provides clarification in regards to the
areas dedicated to ground burials, while ensuring that these areas continue maintaining the 8-
foot setback requirement for ground burials from the north and south property lines.
Through this revision, Staff has incorporated a number of new mitigation measures and
conditions as a result of the Initial Study to mitigate potential impacts. 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 regarding condition no. 2b, which states "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 ... " 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-feetfrom the north and south property lines, and included condition no. 2b to ensure no
above ground 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.
Therefore, Staff finds that the site is adequate in size and configuration to support and
accommodate the proposed project. For these reasons, Staff believes this finding can be made
and adopted.
2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and
quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.
Access to the site is provided directly via Western Avenue (State Highway 213), where there are
two points of ingress/egress, one that is a controlled traffic signal. The City's Public Works
Department has reviewed the plans for the proposed project and concluded that the proposed
Public Correspondence - 43
project did not necessitate a traffic impact study, since Western Avenue is a State highway and
the project is a long-term venture. Staff also forwarded the iriformation to the California
Department of Transportation (Ca/Trans) and subsequently forwarded the initial study to them
for comments. Both requests for input resulted in no response from Cal Trans. Lastly, according
to the 1993 International Traffic Engineers (ITE) data, Cemetery land use produces a maximum
4. 73 weekday average daily trips (ADT) and a maximum 7.62 weekend ADT per acre. The
Master Plan Revision does not include a larger physical cemetery site; however, it calls for 2.17-
acres of additional mausoleum area, which could be considered additional acres per the
calculation of traffic impacts per the ITE. Based upon the ADT figures from ITE, Staff estimates
that upon build-out, the additional 2.17-acres of mausoleum will result in up to 10.26 additional
trips per weekday and up to 16. 54 additional trips per weekend. The resulting increase in trip
generation is less than significant since build-out of the cemetery would occur over the next 30-
to 50-years. As such, it is concluded that the trips generated by the project will have negligible
impacts to roadways within the City, and the project site relates to the streets and highways
sufficient to carry the type of traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, this finding
can be made and adopted.
3. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect
on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof
The proposed project does not include new uses to the cemetery site or changes to the existing
cemetery operations. Staff believes that the uses and operations are consistent with the land use
designation and zoning, and continues to be a compatible land use. 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.
As indicated in the attached Initial Study, it was identified that the project may create potentially
significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. However, an environmental assessment of
the proposal found that the proposed project would not create significant adverse affects with
appropriate mitigation measures. As such, for these reasons, there will be no significant effect on
adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, and this finding can be made and adopted.
4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
The proposed Revision includes additions to the approved mausoleum buildings in the Master
Plan and additional grading and import to accommodate all uses on the site, which are
consistent with the General Plan's Commercial Retail land use designation of the site, and with
the types of land uses permitted within the Development Code Cemetery Zoning District.
According to the General Plan, commercial zones are designated to accommodate services while
preserving the character of the Peninsula. The General Plan states that commercial activities
comprise approximately 1. 7% of the total land area within the City. Although the subject
property is not a traditional commercial activity, the cemetery will continue to operate with no
apparent retail activity. The site will also continue to have an open space ambience due to the
size of the site and the location, proximity, architectural design, color, and other improvements
associated with the mausoleum buildings and the Master Plan Revision. Therefore, Staff believes
Public Correspondence - 44
that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and this finding can
be made and adopted.
5. Jf the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by
Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title [Title 17 "Zoning"}, the proposed use
complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter.
The subject property is not within an overlay control district. Therefore, this finding is not
applicable to the project.
6. Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning
Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been
imposed [including but not limited to]: setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular
ingress and egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaping; maintenance of
structures, grounds or signs; service roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will make
possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in coriformity with the
intent and purposes set forth in this title [Title 17 "Zoning'].
With regards to the items listed within this finding, Staff believes that the proposed project has
been designed and conditioned through appropriate mitigation measures incorporated in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program (see attached Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program), and
through appropriate conditions incorporated in conditions of approval (see attached Draft
Conditions of Approval). Said mitigation measures and conditions have been based upon the
requirements listed above so that the proposed project will not cause an impact to the health,
safety and general welfare of the site nor surrounding residents. For these reasons, Staff believes
that this finding can be made and adopted.
Therefore, Staff believes that all relevant conditional use permit .findings can be made in a
positive manner to warrant approval for the proposed Master Plan Revision.
GRADING PERMIT
The purpose of a grading permit is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare
while preserving the natural character of an area consistent with reasonable economic
development. A grading permit is to ensure that development occurs in a manner that is
harmonious with adjacent land so as to minimize problems of flooding, drainage, erosion, earth
movement and similar hazards, while maintaining the visual continuity of the hills and valleys of
the City.
Pursuant to Section 17. 76.040 of the Development Code, the City requires a major grading
permit for grading activity that will involve the following:
---, excavation, fill, or both, in excess of 5 0 cubic yards in a two year period; or
---, cut or fill more than 5' in depth or height; or
---, excavation or fill encroaching in or altering a natural drainage course*; or
Public Correspondence - 45
-, excavation or fill on an extreme slope (35% or more)*.
*notwithstanding exemptions in Section 17. 76.040.C
The proposed Master Plan Revision clarifies the grading quantity necessary for development of
the cemetery site, and proposes import fill for construction of the mausoleum buildings. A major
Grading Permit is required since the Master Plan Revision includes 643,259 cubic yards of
grading. This quantity includes 97,964 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, which is projected out to be at year 2057. 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.
Since the total grading quantity is over 1,000 cubic yards and part of a Master Plan Revision,
the proposal is subject to review by the Planning Commission. Section 17. 76.040.E of the
Development Code establishes criteria that the Planning Commission is to use to evaluate,
review and act on major grading permit applications. The following Development Code criteria
are discussed below (Development Code criteria are indicated in bold text, followed by Staffs
analysis in normal text).
E.1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.
The subject property is located in an area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a CEM
(Cemetery) zoning district. According to the City's General Plan and the Development Code, the
purpose of the cemetery district provides for the permanent interment of human remains.
Further, the Development Code conditionally permits, as a primary use of the property,
interments and mausoleums. The original Master Plan proposed to balance all on-site grading,
so no import or export was required. However, it was realized that the amount of backfill
necessary for the mausoleum buildings could not be obtained within a reasonable time frame
from only ground spoils, and that import is necessary for ultimate build-out of the site with
ground interments and mausoleum buildings.
As indicated above, construction of the mausoleum buildings will be conducted in phases, and
the related grading and any necessary import will be conducted at the time each mausoleum is
constructed, which would be conducted over the course of up to 50-years. Further, the daily
cemetery operations include ground burials (a.k.a. lawn crypts); however, these areas must first
be graded and prepared for such uses. While some ground burial areas will be created by the
backfill adjacent to the mausoleum buildings, some areas in the Master Plan Revision call-out
for ground burials only. The ground burials may include family estates that are evident by low
garden walls around their perimeters to enclose these burial estates, or more elaborate
tombstones that are built above-ground. It is approximated that 13 7, 000 cubic yards of fill will
be necessary for these areas to raise the grade by up to 35-feet in some area to accommodate
mausoleum buildings and ground burials, and provide for appropriate drainage to the roadways.
This quantity includes ground spoils from throughout the cemetery site, excess cut material from
mausoleum project, and import of additional fill material.
Public Correspondence - 46
Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed grading quantity is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot, and is necessary for the ultimate development of the mausoleum buildings
throughout the cemetery site and site preparation for ground interments over the next 30-to 50-
years, on a cemetery site that encompasses over 120-acres in area. As such, the proposed Master
Plan Revision complies with this criterion.
E.2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with, nor the views from the "viewing area" of neighboring properties. In
cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this
finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the
building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to
17. 02. 040(B) of this title, is lower than the structure that could have been built in the same
location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade.
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 baclfzll 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 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. Further, with the exception of the Inspiration Slope mausoleum building, the
existing Master Plan limited the heights of buildings, and this Revision does not modifj; nor
requests to modifj;, the previously approved heights.
The residences to the south of the cemetery are at the same grade elevation as, or slightly lower
than, the cemetery and do not contain views over the cemetery site. The residences to the north,
in the Peninsula Verde area, are at higher elevations that allow for views of the harbor over the
cemetery site. Although the original Master Plan proposed mausoleum buildings at Inspiration
Slope (Area 2 on the Master Plan Revision), the exact corifiguration and height were not known,
thereby resulting in a condition (condition no. 34, in Resolution No. 91-7) to not impair views
from Peninsula Verde. Modification to this condition is not part of this Revision, and Staff will
continue to work with Green Hills to ensure that the mausoleum on Inspiration Slope does not
impair views from Peninsula Verde.
With regards to the grading being conducted for ground interments, the proposal calls to retain
the existing topography. The exception is in Areas 5 and 6, which must be filled due to the
existing concaved topography of these areas. Nonetheless, these are areas along the southern
portion of the cemetery site, where there are no views over or through this portion of the
cemetery from nearby residences.
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.
Public Correspondence - 47
E. 3. The nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours
are reasonably natural.
As previously mentioned, the grading is to prepare the subject property for the construction of
mausoleum buildings and ground interments throughout the cemetery site. 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 gradingfor 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.
E.4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope
into natural topography.
As noted in the previous finding, the majority of the grading is proposed to blend the mausoleum
buildings into the natural slopes that exist throughout the cemetery site. Furthermore, the Master
Plan Revision uses land-sculpting techniques to blend the proposed slopes and grading into the
existing topography. Thus, the project has been designed to respect the natural contours of the
site to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, Staff believes that the Master Plan Revision
complies with this criterion.
E.5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible
with the immediate neighborhood character.
The proposed project does not involve a new residence; thus, this criterion does not apply.
E6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and
introduction of plan materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and
minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas.
The proposed project does not involve a new tract; thus, this criterion does not apply.
E. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading
alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside.
The proposed project does not involve street construction; thus, this criterion does not apply.
E.8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.
No wildlife habitats have been identified on the subject property; thus, this criterion does not
apply.
Public Correspondence - 48
E.9. The grading coriforms to the following standards for: grading on slopes, height of cut/fill,
and retaining walls.
According to the City's Development Code, grading and construction on slopes over thirty-jive
(35%) percent is not permitted if the lot was recorded and legally subdivided after November 25,
197 5. Further, no finish slopes greater than 35% shall be created; no fill or cut shall occur on a
slope exceeding fifty (50%) percent; and that exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls
cannot exceed 8 '-0" and 3 '-6" high, respectively. Lastly, except for the excavation for a
basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of 5j'eet at any point except where the
Planning Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or
other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary.
Staff has reviewed the proposed Master Plan Revision and has found it to be consistent with the
aforementioned criteria, with the exception that the depth of cut and height of fill will exceed 5-
feet for construction of the mausoleum buildings. However, these are issues that were reviewed
during the original Master Plan and the Revision includes making some of these buildings
larger. Staff believes there continues to be circumstances that make such grading reasonable and
necessary.
Development Code Section 17. 7 6. 04 0 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide
reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the
area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining
properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan." Due to
the operations and 121-acre size of the cemetery, the amount of grading and related cut and fill
is necessary to accommodate the proposed built-out of the cemetery site, which Staff believes is
not an excessive amount of grading; is consistent with the existing and continuous use of the
property; 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 since appropriate measures and conditions are proposed
to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant. For these reasons, Staff believes that the
Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion.
As noted in the preceding discussion, staff believes that the Master Plan Revision complies with
all Grading Permit criteria. As such, it is staff's opinion that the Grading Permit can be
approved for the Master Plan Revision.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
During December 2006, the applicant conducted two neighborhood outreach meetings at Green
Hills to present the proposed Master Plan Revision and to solicit input from adjacent
neighborhoods. Invitations were sent to the homes located within a 500' radius, and the meetings
were conducted at 7:00pm on the evenings of December 11 and 18, 2006.
Staff attended one of the meetings to hear the presentation and hear the issues raised by the
public. Following these meetings, the applicant provided Staff with a list of items and issued
Public Correspondence - 49
raised by the neighbors, and a response to each. The issues are as follows (issues are italicized,
followed by Green Hills' response in normal type:
1. The dirt movement throughout the cemetery was questioned with regards to the locations of
the fill, the finish grades of the fill, and the dust that is created by the dirt movement.
The digging of graves and the subsequent surplus of dirt is inherent to the nature of cemetery
operations, and so while the applicant acknowledges that there will continue to be dirt movement
within its borders, Green Hills has formulated a plan to mitigate some of the adverse effects of
the excavation and placement of grave dirt and top soil. Existing fill operations include all of the
site along the south property line, as these areas require the greatest amount of fill to return them
to their original grade elevations. Green Hills will consolidate this effort within a more confined
area that will then be surrounded by a minimum 8-foot high chain link fence with green screen
cloth. This will allow the cemetery to increase dust mitigation measures within a smaller area
and will more easily screen the fill area from neighbors. As this smaller area is brought up to
finish grade, the operations would move to the next area designated as fill and the same screen
and dust mitigation measures would be placed at the new location. Green Hills has also worked
with a local landscape company to formulate a new perimeter landscape screen that will further
reduce the dust that is created by the fill operation. The cemetery will utilize its water truck to
keep the dust to a minimum within the smaller fill area.
2. The condition of the perimeter landscaping along the north and south property lines was
discussed by several residents.
As mentioned in the item above, Green Hills has consulted with a landscape architect to
formulate a revised plan for the landscape buffers along these areas. A problem in the past has
been a knee-jerk reaction to the various desires of the homeowners along these property lines.
Some neighbors desire a full hedge to completely screen the cemetery from their view, while
others prefer to have no landscape screen whatsoever, while still others desire something as a
compromise. The new landscape plan will contain a variety of plants in a more random
arrangement so that a softer feel is realized as well as creating the opportunity to provide more
flexibility within the layout. In this way, more individual needs can be addressed without
sacrificing the overall design intent.
3. Some residents expressed that the noise from boom boxes and mariachi bands was at times a
nuisance.
Green Hills strives to keep noise within the property lines to a minimum for the sake of its own
users and will ask people to turn down the volume of boom boxes if they are aware of the
problem. The use of mariachi bands as a part of funeral services is quite common within
Southern California cemeteries. They will play during funeral services, which are limited to
daytime services, generally in the middle of the day. The master plan calls for an internal
perimeter road along the south property line to help keep the sound further away from the
neighbor's homes. The perimeter landscaping will also help to soften any noise impact. Green
Hills would also like to examine the possibility of constructing a uniform, perimeter wall along
Public Correspondence - 50
the property lines where they abut the residential areas. This would go a long way in reducing
sound and dust transmission.
4. There was some discussion about the trash that accumulates in the drainage swale along the
north property line.
Green Hills has indicated a willingness to utilize its maintenance crew to keep trash from this
swale. If there is an accumulation of trash in the swale, neighbors were encouraged to contact the
administrative office of Green Hills Memorial Park. It should be noted that the cemetery is not
responsible for all of the trash in the swale.
5. There was some discussion about rodents that have appeared in the area.
Green Hills Memorial Park endeavors to maintain a safe operation, and as such, maintains an on-
going effort to control unwanted rodents within the cemetery boundaries. The natural setting
around the reservoir along the south corner as well as the horse trail that runs along the west
property line create environments that provide areas for rodents to nest and there is little that
Green Hills can do to prevent rodents within the surrounding neighborhood. On-going
construction in the surrounding areas plays a large part in flushing rodents from their homes.
6. There was some discussion regarding security within the cemetery.
Green Hills already has a very comprehensive security program in place. There are grounds
personnel at the cemetery from 6:00am to 4:00pm seven days a week, an armed security guard is
on duty from 4:00pm to 1 O:OOpm (or until closing, if earlier), and a security guard is present on
weekends and holidays from 9:00am to lO:OOpm. Burials occur within the hours of7:00am to
6:00pm, and the park is open for visitation 6:00am to dusk.
7. One neighbor questioned the garden walls located within Area 4 along the north property line.
The master plan calls for the entire area along the north property line to consist of in ground lawn
crypts and family estates. The family estates are surrounded by a 30" maximum height garden
wall constructed on decorative masonry or stone. The original CUP indicated an 8-foot landscape
buffer along this property line and an eighty-foot setback for structures. It is Green Hill's
interpretation that these 30" decorative garden walls are not "structures", and therefore, the
garden is in conformance with the original CUP. Additionally, over half of the garden walls
along the landscape buffer would serve as a retaining wall, and the top of wall would actually be
at grade or just a few inches above grade.
Although it is the applicant's interpretation that the 30-inch high decorative garden walls are not
structures, Staff considers these walls to be above-ground structures as discussed in Finding No.
1 of the Conditional Use Permit section above. Further, Staff believes that the intent of the
condition was to ensure that only ground burials with no built-up structures (including walls)
were located within these setback areas.
Public Correspondence - 51
As of the writing of this Report, Staff received three letters in response to the Notice. The letters
express concern primarily with the behaviors of some visitors that frequent the cemetery site and
the length of time in which music is played. Further, the letters express concern with dust and
noise that is produced from the cemetery site. With regards to noise, Staff has included
conditions that limit both live and amplified music during visits or funerals to no longer than 30-
minutes. Lastly, with regards to dust and noise, Staff believes that appropriate mitigation
measures have been incorporated to address these issues, which would be reviewed annually by
the Planning Commission.
As indicated above in this Report, the prior Master Plan was approved through Resolution No.
91-7 (attached), and the conditions contained therein will remain in full force and effect unless
specifically modified by this Master Plan Revision. However, to ensure that all conditions are
clear and applicable, Staff has reviewed the previous conditions contained in Resolution No. 91-
7, and believes that combining the applicable conditions into one document is more efficient.
Thus, Staff has deleted some of the previous conditions that are unnecessary, obsolete or no
longer applicable, and the attached Draft Conditions contain the new conditions, mitigation
measures, and previous conditions that are still relevant and necessary.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, Staff believes that the conditional use permit findings can be made
for the Master Plan Revision; that the Revision complies with the Grading Permit criteria; and
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be certified. As indicated in the
"Background" section above, Staff is of the belief that due to the size of this project, the
Planning Commission may take two meetings to hear from the public and discuss the project.
Thus, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take
testimony, discuss the merits of the project, and continue the public hearing to April 24, 2007 to
take final action on the application.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration
by the Planning Commission:
1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant
with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain for
discussion of these issues; or
2. Deny Case No. ZON2003-00086 and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next Planning
Commission meeting with the appropriate Resolution.
Please note that in the event that this item is continued beyond the May 21, 2007 action deadline,
the applicant must agree to a one-time 180-day extension of that deadline, and extend the time
limits of the Permit Streamlining Act.
Public Correspondence - 52
Attachment B
Master Plan Revision Booklet Submittal
Public Correspondence - 53
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
SUBMITTAL PACKAGE
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
IMNCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
JAN UARY 29, 2007
J.STti,\llTTf>l>Jl IS<:.
At tU ll"ll::l ~rtlU ·:
l ''T El{lt11i'i
l't .:\NSl,°'1'
l.\,11.\C \l'I;
RE CEI VED
fEB 2 0 1007
PLAH~INO. DullDJHO '
CODE l!.H'ORCEM EHT
Public Correspondence - 54
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
Master Plan Amendment
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
January 29, 2007
INDEX OF SHEETS
General Development Parameters
I -II Narrative
Ill -V Area Descriptions
M -·A Master Plan
M -B Cut and Fill Plan
M ·-C Dirt Movement Chart
M -D Grading Chart
M -E 1991 Approved Master Plan
Area 1 -Pacifica Development
1 -A Building Elevation
1 -B Floor Plan I Inventory Count
1 -C Schematic Site Section
1 - D Site Photos
Area 2 -Inspiration Slope
2 - A Overall Building Elevation
2 ~ B Not Used
2 -C Street Level Site Plan I Inventory Count
2 -D Garden Level Site Plan I Inventory Count
Public Correspondence - 55
2-E Schematic Site Section
2-F Not Used
2-G Site Photos
Area 3 -Garden of Reflections
3-A Building Elevation
3-B Street Level Site Plan
3-C Upper Level Site Plan
3-D Schematic Site Section
3-E Site Photos
Area 4 -North Terrace Drive
4-A Site Plan I Schematic Wall Section
4-B Site Photos
Area 5 -Ground Burial Section
5-A Site Photos
Area 6 -Southwest Mausoleum
6-A Building Elevation -Buildings A, B, C, D, E
6-B Ground Level Floor Plan / Inventory Count
6-C Schematic Site Section
6-D Site Photos
6-E Site Photos
Area 7 -Southwest Terrace Mausoleum
7-A Building Elevation
7-B Phase One Floor Plan / Inventory Count
Public Correspondence - 56
7 -C Schematic Site Section
7 - D Site Photos
Area 8 -Valley of Peace Reflections Garden
8 -A Site Plan/ Inventory Count
8 -B Schematic Site Section
8 -C Site Photos
Area 9 -Valley of Peace Estates Garden
9 -A Site Plan / Inventory Count
9 -B Perspective View
9 -C Site Photos
10-A
10-8
10-C
11 -A
11-B
11 -C
11 -0
11 -E
11 - F
12-A
Area 1 O -Cremation Garden
Site Plan
Schematic Site Section
Site Photos
Area 11 -Memorial Terrace
Building Elevations
Floor Plan / Inventory Count
Schematic Site Section I Central Mausoleum
Schematic Site Section I West Wing
Schematic Site Section
Site Photos
Area 12 -Court of Devotion Addition
Site Plan
Public Correspondence - 57
12-B
12 -C
Schematic Site Section
Site Photos
Public Correspondence - 58
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
The latest Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1991. Prudent cemetery development acknowledges the necessity to
periodically update a master plan to adapt to changing market conditions,
resources, and restrictions. Although every effort has been made to maintain the
original acreages set forth in the approved master plan dated 1991, many areas
of the original master plan have been refined in scope and size. In all cases
where the revised plan differs from the original, design of the structures has been
revised to mitigate the impact on the cemetery and surrounding environment.
The new design parameters for Green Hills Memorial Park call for a unified
design palate for both materials and scale, creating a campus effect throughout
the remaining undeveloped areas.
Green Hills Memorial Park performs approximately 1500 burials per year, with
the majority of burials consisting of ground burials in pre-cast concrete burial
vaults. Mausoleum interments comprise approximately twenty percent of the
burial activity at Green Hills. Utilizing these average numbers and assuming a
consistent death rate, the Master Development Plan as submitted includes
adequate ground burials for twenty-six years of development and includes
adequate mausoleum spaces for fifty years beyond that time. Further, it is Green
Hills' strategy to emphasize long-term development toward mausoleum
development as a way to reduce the amount of land used each year as the
cemetery exhausts available land resources. lnurnment numbers (cremations
that are memorialized within the memorial park) are difficult to predict and
therefore the plan assumes that current cremation percentages will remain
constant. If percentages increase, the square footage impact is relatively small,
and the Master Plan provides ample ability to retrofit most mausoleum buildings
and garden areas with additional niche and niche vault inventory. Additionally,
visitation associated with inurnments is less intensive and assumed to be a minor
impact on the overall development plan. The Master Plan will be implemented in
multiple phases over many years and "area numbers" indicated on the plan are
for reference only and do not denote a hierarchy or priority of development.
Building heights are calculated based on building frontage being the elevation of
the individual mausoleums that faces the internal cemetery road system. Heights
listed on the color elevations conform to the requirements listed in Condition No.
34 in resolution No. 91-7. The dimensions are shown for the overall height of
each mausoleum as measured from the average adjacent grade (not to exceed
20'-0") and the overall height of each mausoleum as measured from the lowest
adjacent grade (not to exceed 25'-0").
The excavation for a typical double depth lawn crypt has been calculated as 5.3
cubic yards of cut, which would be transferred within cemetery boundaries
(ideally to Areas Five and Six on the Master Plan). Excavations for mausoleum
developments have been calculated including over-excavations and assumes a
Public Correspondence - 59
forty-five degree cut where physically possible. Where this forty-five degree cut
is not possible, shoring will be utilized to achieve the necessary cuts.
The quantity of fill required to develop Areas Five and Six necessitates a phased
approach, including excavated dirt from ground burials (approximately 80 cubic
yards per week) and the remainder from imported fill. The fill would be imported
at the time of construction of each of the phases of the mausoleum and would be
located at the time of development, and fill and haul routes would be in
accordance with applicable local and state codes and ordinances. It is not the
intent of Green Hills Memorial Park to maintain an on-going importation of fill
material unless it is directly related to the construction of a mausoleum or the
development of a garden. Based on calculations performed for this submittal, the
original 1991 estimate for ground interments was obviously flawed and possibly
may not have taken into consideration multiple dirt movements within the
cemetery. For example, this report calculates the dirt movement for ground
burials as the sum of dirt removed from the excavation for the vault, that same
dirt moved and placed as fill in another area of the cemetery, and that same dirt
again moved when excavated as required for mausoleum development. The
proposed overall density and development of Green Hills Memorial Park is
consistent with the 1991 Master Plan and consistent with local trends and
competition with the Rancho Palos Verdes area.
Prepared By: J. STUART TODD, INC.
Architects and Planners
2919 Welborn, Suite 101
Dallas, Texas 75219
214.522.4033
214.522.7988 fax
II
Public Correspondence - 60
AREA DESCRIPTIONS
AREA1
AREA2
AREA3
PACIFICA DEVELOPMENT
.27 Acres Total Development
One story addition to existing Pacifica Mausoleum
768 crypt spaces I 260 niches
(Pad -6096 sq. ft.)
Maximum Building Height not t exceed high point of
existing Pacifica Mausoleum (18'-0")
Ground Burials with feature fountain
136 Double Depth Burials
Sidewalks and landscaping (.02 acres)
INSPIRATION SLOPE
2.05 Acres Total Development
One Story Mausoleum
2800 crypt spaces I niches to be determined
Building height per Resolution No. 91-7
Ground Burials
388 Single Depth lawn Crypts
1720 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
48 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
GARDEN OF REFLECTION
2.45 Acres Total Development
Combination One I Two story Mausoleum extension of
existing Garden of Reflection Mausoleum
7633 crypt spaces I niches to be determined
Building height per Resolution No. 91-7
Ground Burials
1047 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
38 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
Ill
Public Correspondence - 61
AREA4
AREA5
AREA6
AREA7
grade)
NORTH TERRACE GARDEN
3.2 Acres Total Development
Ground Burials
2921 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
200 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
LAKE VIEW GARDEN
5.0 Acres total Development
Ground Burials
3440 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
58 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
LAKE VIEW TERRACE
6.95 Acres Total Development
Three level Mausoleum Development (One level at grade,
two levels below grade) I 2.75 acres total building footprint
Five separate buildings
7812 crypts/ 4680 niches total interment count
Building height per Resolution No. 91-7
Ground Burials
3120 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
SOUTH WEST TERRACE
1.63 Acres Total Development
Two level mausoleum (One level at grade, one level below
Mausoleum to be constructed as five separate phases
1248 crypts in each phase/ 6240 total crypt count
Building height per Resolution 91-7
Ground Burials
510 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
IV
Public Correspondence - 62
AREAS
AREA9
VALLEY OF PEACE REFLECTIONS GARDEN
.32 Acres Total Development
Cremation Garden
86 Cremation Estates
1160 Cremation Niches
456 Column lnurnments
VALLEY OF PEACE ESTATES GARDEN
.30 Acres Total Development
Cremation Garden I Ground Development
56 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
95 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
8 Garden Estates ( 1 O -20 capacity)
6 Cremation Estates
560 Cremation Niches
560 Cenotaph Plaques
AREA 10 ENTRANCE GARDEN
.73 Acres Total Development
Cremation Garden
800 Ground lnurnments (Natural Rock Memorials)
600 Wall niches
AREA 11 MEMORIAL TERRACE
1.39 Acres total Development
One level Mausoleum at grade
6870 crypts / 1500 niches
Building heights per resolution 91-7
Ground Burials (located on top of mausoleum)
360 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
v
Public Correspondence - 63
AREA12 COURT OF DEVOTION ADDITION
.31 Acres total Development
One level mausoleum at grade
(1464 crypts/ 860 niches)
Addition to existing Court of Devotion Mausoleum
Building height per Resolution 91-7
Ground Burials (located on top of mausoleum)
240 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
P:\2004 PROJECTS\04739 Greenhills lnsplral1on Slope\Admlnistralion (Nora only)\Masler Plan Amendment 9-11-06.doc
VI
Public Correspondence - 64
J, SJ'l',\l<l'TlllllJ IN<:.
.\ln .ll l'I M 'll'lll :
l\'ll!RIUl\'1
l'l·"'l\l•
l .\~IJ!t<.\l 'h
MASfEA OEVELOPMEN'I' PLAN
GREE N MILL S MEMORI~ PA RK
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALlfOAN IA
JNILIMl1'H0,.~~
MASU!lPl.AN
M-A
Public Correspondence - 65
J .. 'i"l'l ',\k'f"Ttll">n lNt :.
AllU U'rnt "ll'ltl<:
INH:HIOM 'I
ill o\.\1'1.\'C,
l .\M ~~Wtt
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ORE EN HILL S MEMOHIAL PARK
11ANCHO PALOS \/EADES, CALIFORNIA
~RY ff:~
CUT AND Fill PLAN
Public Correspondence - 66
DAILY CEMn~RY OPERATION PROJECT IMPACTS
J. ;.Tt ':\HT Tl JI H) f'\{ :.
J, sn·.\H l'TO!l(l l:'\C,
,\!\(HI ft,t 'I\ JH~
l"<itl:l\H>Jt')
l'[.\_\\l:".l,
U\,l1v.-w1;
MAS rt;H OEVEl.OPM!;NT PLAN
GREEN H!US McMORIAl. PAHK
RANCHO PALOS VEflllE'S, GAUrDRNIA
'•NG11<{>(f, All (\l!!\lJW(lf/tl_}\l/'! l!M!f ?</OQ Af.,JJ 1<'#-'0l1'f0 ~•I i.11\frPllf:\l~")\.f.;_ Y.\J'!'lf!YH.tll
!.(if{ Ale 1Vt6um~; til•U•~lllt> (:\Jl?·G VNltl~
MASl!iR DEVELOPMENI PLAN
OHHN rnu.s MfiMORIA\, PAUK
HANCl!O PALOS VEfiOES, QAUFOHNlA
,,,._.!;UA'\Y .l'~ ~i~
IJIHl MQVEMENf GllART
M-C
GRADING CHAAl
M-D
Public Correspondence - 67
J,S'Tl li\ll'l''l'Ollll IN<i.
.\In 11 rn:t:1rn c
I N'I KIU Oll~
111~\'.'ti .... INlo
l .\NU~.\\!ff
MASTE R DEVELOPM ENT PLAN
GREE N HILL S MEM0 111Al PARK
flANCMO PALOS VEHD ES, CALIFORN IA
JA~nvo~~
EXIST INO MASTE R PLAN
M-E
Public Correspondence - 68
J.S'l'llt\lfl''l'<JIJU INt :.
Allt:l ll Tl\l :rl 'IO:
IS'l1ilU Oll\
l 'l ~\:"i ... 1·'(·
l.·\~1 )1,(:,\l't(
J .. '(l'l 'Alfl''l'<llJU INl:.
Alll .11111~1:1 11 11{
l'HJIJUllK\
l'l .\\'"l:"i(t
l .\'l t\(~\l'I!
MA STER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GREEN HILL S MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VEAO ES, CALIFORN IA
JAAUAltYtt~~
---.
. -
WI STER OEVELOPMENl" PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMOHIAL PARK
llANCllO l'AlOS VEl10 ES, CAl.lFOAN lA
~~"o.~~
Ml\STER l'LllN AREA 1
PACI FICA MAUSOlEUM
1-A
MASl'Efl l'LAN Al1 EA I
PACIFI CA MAU SOLEUM
1-B
Public Correspondence - 69
5GHJ:MATIC 51Te 5EC.TION
J.S l'l ',\l('l''l'tJ l>l> l ~C .
,\Ul..lll'l V.t:'l li lll~
l't;ll,klUk.\
11.\.\,\IN(,
l .\."i l l~~\l'l(
J.!'nt:i \lt'l'TOIJ l>I NC:.
,\II( 11111'.l:'rlKI\
IVll'JtlOO\
l'l .\'lr(~I '«•
l ~\,\ll.'t4'.\11i
MASTEH DEVELOPMENT Pl.AN
Ol1EEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCflO PALOS venoes, CALIFORN IA
Jlo~R'l'lt=~
MASTE l1 DEV ELOPMENT Pl.AN
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANC l,IO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
.11\.~UNIY"M~~
MASTER Pl.AN AREA I
PACIFI CA MAUSOLEUM
1-C
MASTrn Pl.AN AREA I
PACIFICA MAUSOLEUM
1-0
Public Correspondence - 70
J. ~l 'l ~1\lfl ' 'J'lJIJll JM :.
\Jll ·11111tL~n ·1m
1 ~1 '1!.10 01\'i
Pl .\\.\INli
l.\.\ll'iC,Wli
MASTER OEVELOPM ENT Pl.AN
GR EEN HILJ.S MEM0111Al. PAHK
RANCHO PALOS VEl \O ES, CALWOR NIA
JNril.lo\ll'fH.2CO/
~"'
MASlEH PLAN AREA 2
IN SP IRATION SLOP E
2 ·A
Public Correspondence - 71
J.!fn .\H l'T(HHl !.\'(:,
\l\(Jtlll;illHI 1:-.·11.urow ..
l'!,\'\\.j\l·
l.\l\IN \1'1-.
MAsn:n l)EVELOPMENf PLAN
GHEEN HILLS MEMOf!IAL PAHK
flANCHO PALOS VEflDES. CALIFORNIA
;J\.\)i\']'l'N,,'(IC)r
Wl.')
MASTEi~ PLAN AREA 2
INSPIRA HON SlOPE:
2-B
Public Correspondence - 72
.J. ~IT,\HTT<Hl!l !'.\<:,
\lt(llllU'll'l!I
!\IUlltlll'i
l'L\,":i~l'\lt
l,\"\ll\f'\l'l:
J,~T!'\!rl'.ltlllll l:'>iC
\!l.( 1H!J'.{'tt Hh
''1rnu1n'I
Pl,\'\'\I'\(,
l,\"ol.1\r.\I'/-.
MAsTrn OEVELOPMEN r PLAN
GHl:EN HILLS ME:MOnlAL PAHK
f1ANCHO PALOS \1Hl01~$, CAUFOHNIA
I XliiflNOGlM[f[llYllO/\D
MASTER OEVHOPMf,NT PLAN
Gf!LUN HILLS Mf.MOMIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VEnOLS. CAUFOHNIA
MASIHl PLAN AREA 2
INSPlf1ArlON SLOPE
2-C
MAS!Ell Pl.AN AREA 2
INSPIRATION SLOPE
2-0
Public Correspondence - 73
J .S'J'l 'Alff''l'tJIJll l~l :,
,\\lllJrl l:t 'llllOI.
l'>l't.M!ltit'i
l'l .V~'i l \:1,
l ,\S l 1'<~\l •I~
J, STl'Alfl' 'l'OUI) INC.
1\IU 'l ll'I Jl.L'.'ll'kV.
I N'I B!OtJH~
11.\.'ISINt.
IA'i l N ,\I'~
OV1Lhl:OF ~
OCISTINOOHAU!; \ •11=·=··=··,,,·· ... ··=.-=========l
-~~····
ecHEMATIC SITE SECT ION
MASlF.A PF.VEl.OPMENT PLAN
OHEE N HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PAI.OS V ·110ES, CALIFORN IA
JAMJAAYN:,O~
MASTEll DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANC liO PALOS VERDES, CAll~OANIA
~UNIYl9:~
MASTER PLAN AllEA 2
INSP IAAI ION SLOPE
2-E
MASTEll PLAN AREA 2
INSPIRATION SLOPE
2-G
Public Correspondence - 74
J, STllA\ff T U IJIJ l'.'ri C,
.UU 'lllTl:f :'lltlll\
l\;l'IUUIHI °'
l 'l.\.\;.~l ~V
l .\~1 1;\(~\l't-:
MAS TE R DE VELOPM ENT PLAN
GHEE N fllLLS MEMOHIAL l'ARK
RANCHO PALOS V ~ROES. CALIFORNIA
~'llt.l(IOI
1M1>0
MASTER PLAN AREA 3
REFLECT ION MAUSOLEUM
3-A
Public Correspondence - 75
J,.'iTl".\!ff"lOllf)I;'\!:,
\HI Ill !l'J"l\'!ll
!\llHlfll{'>
l'L\\.\l\b
L\\!l'lt\111
J.;"il'l',\lr1··n1001~c.
\li(Ulf!-:i'fll!I·,
i\Tl'Jll!ll~'i
!'!,1.-.M."-O
l.\'111\f'..\l'E
-lltllll' -' .
'
AflflOYO IJAIVE
\': u
II II II !I 'f
MAsrrn IJEVHOPMENT PLAN am:rn lllU.S MfiMOl11AL PARK
HANCHO PALOS vrnm:s, CALif'OflNIA
MAS!l'fl O!iVHOPMENT PLAN
<lREEN HILLS MllMOAIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS V!'.ROES, CAllf'OflNIA
,-,.111\\ll'IYl<~~;;~
.,,
<''( .'\ //
,_..,/;;?~
""
(
'
///
/
//,/
/
,../'
/
/
/
,//
,/'
/
//
/ Jt~T~Fl.Q?lt'\-l'li ,,,,,,.._
MAST(ll PLAN AREA O nrn ECTION MAUSOl.OUM
3-B
/
MASTER PLAN AREA 3
REFLECTION MAUSOl.EUM
3-C
Public Correspondence - 76
I.fin \1n·n)1n11~<'.,
,\l\111rtl.i'l!!\l
J'\11:1\ICIH'i
!'J,\.'\\I'\(,
1.,'\Jl\!"\!'1'
OUll ~'IL (J!
f-)(1~!11/'i<lClftAOf
SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION
MASTEH llEVfilOPMENT PLAN
011EEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
11ANCHO PAI.OS VEflOES, CAUFOHNIA
JA/,UAl!Yn:>r:<;f
r,-.1},f)
MAS mr PLAN AREA 3
GARDEN OF RU'l.ECTIONS
3-D
Public Correspondence - 77
J, S'l'l'i\lt'l''J'OllU IN<:,
,\11(111 '1·v.1:n11t\
ISTt!JUlllllt
l'l .\.'lriN l'lriO
1 .. \:io.1 ~~~\I'((
MASTER DEVELOPM ENT PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFOflNIA
JW..WW1'o:~~
MASTER PLAN AREA 3
REFLECTION MAU SO LEUM
3-E
Public Correspondence - 78
:i rtr-_--: ------=----~ ~ .:. ::-::-----:r -=~-=----~iH ---------~ I . . --,. .. -,---
! i ·I ' I I , Ii
PHOTQOfWJJlf'fQIJNl)EH
Wlil tfllH~,._ltFf'l ,tmt'IN
J.S'l'llAlt'l'T<>DO lr\t :,
:\lillJrllJ:'llllll{
l:\flilUOk!i
l'l o\N/\INO
!.\.~!™.' l'I\
: b
I
I
MASTE l1 DEVELOPM ENT PLAN
GHEEN HILL S MEMORIAL PARK
llAN CHO PALOS VERD ES, CALIFOl1NIA
J>,MJAA'(~~~
MASIER PLAN Al11iA 4
4·A
Public Correspondence - 79
J .. "1 1'l !1\l\'l''l'Ul>ll l/\'(:,
\l ll:lll'I U.'llTJU\
1 1'~1t.:ll llHl't
l'l .\N M~(.
I A.,.I N \11f.:
MASTER DEV ELOPMENT PLAN
GREEN fl ILLS MEM0111Al PN1K
HANCHO l>ALOS VERD ES, CALIFORNIA
.li4l'IUAHVtl.H01 .,,,.
MASTEll PLAN Al1EA 4
4-B
Public Correspondence - 80
J,S'Tl l/\lfl''J't)!lfll/'lr:(!,
AlU 'lllH:r'l'l 'IU\
tVlt'J\l!Jlt'I
l'l ~\!'o:-0.I SO
l .. \M t\t':.\I'~
MASTER DEVELOl'MENT Pl.AN
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA LIFORNIA
JA.'AWftH.1W1
'""
MASTER PLAN AREA 5
GROU ND BUIUAL SECTION
5-A
Public Correspondence - 81
J, S'l'\11\ltTTOUll INt :,
.\llUll'll!t 'l l 'Mlt
l\rP.IUUll'
l'f .\,\,~I Nf,
l.\.'ilN :\llf.
MJ\STE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GREE N HILL S MEMOfllAL PARK
HANCHO l'ALO S VER DES , CALIFORNIA
JNf..IAMY lt.1«11 tMne
MASTlH1 PlAN AREA 0
SOUTHWEST MAUSOl.EUM
BU ILDINGS A, 0, C, D, E
6-A
Public Correspondence - 82
J, ~TUltT TOil!) INC:,
\UtlltH.1 llllf:
l\ll-:1111111"
!1U\\l\1,
LV\h\C\l'j;
'"··
LI
)
MASfl'H fJEVEl.OPMENI PLAN
UHHN HlU $ Mt:MOfllAt PAHK
HANCHO PALOS VUlotiS, GAUHlRNIA
,4'1·.~'111 n ·~~P
c.ir.~
SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION/6UILJ?INcSS A,6,Cp,E
J. ST! .\l\TT(l!Hl !'.'\('
\IUIJITl:!-11 !It
l'\ll:kUlR..,
l•J.\\\l\I(, r. \\ll~l' \l'I.
...,,. ....................
MASTEH DEVF:l.OPMl'.Nf PLAN
GHEEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PAI.OS VfJlOts, CAl lf.Of1NIA
£,l~~!~'i'~'+\!tif)
--~ --. --
-~ .. ~-==
111~rfr1t~w;;;u
P~OOR P~AN
1'1•'0l·>,~ l~~fl ~t <Kl<!>'1Ni ;,.-1=.:vt1j
<%t\U,H<lf>}t,1J1A\,,
MASTER Pl.AN AREA 6
SOUTHWl'ST MAU SOLE UM
(UUILOINGS A, B. C, IJ, Ei
6·8
••. ~ .
. h··.· ... ·.··.•.·•· ...
'. l ,,
. ;· ·~' "... . '.'' . . . .......-.:----:
; I
. .
'"·-·' ("",: / - -. ;
MASH:H Pl.AN AHEA 6
LAKtVIEW H:flHACF,
6-C
Public Correspondence - 83
J .. •ff(l,\M,'l''l'f>IJll l!\'t :.
/•ll(lll'J'l .t:-ll'IU:
1:-0 ll'JUOMS
l 'l .\'\~l 'l:l1
l .\.~1 1~\l'V.
J, N'l'l'i\lt'l'TOI JI> l~t:.
,\HU IJI EC'lllf{f.
11\lliKIUICi
11 .·\.\MSl•
l ,\,ll~:A l't:
MASTER OE VELOPMENr PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMOfllAL PARK
RANCllO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
~ff.tOG1
~"'
MASTEn DEVELOPMEN T PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCflO PALOS VERDES, CAUFORNIA
~":,0~
MAS 'IEll P ...... AREA&
SOUTHWEST MAUSOLEUM
(BUILDIN GS A, 0. C, 0 , E)
6-0
MASl EA PLAN AREA 8
SO UTHWEST MAUSOLEUM
!BUILDIN GS A, 9, C, D, E)
6-E
Public Correspondence - 84
J .'I!\ \Tri rolHll"i
MASTf:H PLAN NU:A 6
AREA PLAN
lAKtVlf.'.W Tf..~HJ\Cf:_
6-F
r.~An !TH PLl\N AHi:~\ (l
SlfE Sl:GtlON::>
LAK.f:.Vil;W TEHHACf:
6-G
Public Correspondence - 85
J.Sl'llr\lfl'TUIJU IM :.
,\l\C "llll"[(Tl'IU !
INlllM/1111"'
l'l,\,\MM·
\,\\11..C :WU
J.S"l'l ',\lff'l'UllU INC .
,~\ll l'fl.t'll 'ltl ,
1\11\MlllM"i
'"·''"''' l .1,,\1 1"14 '.\I'~
0
0
MASTEl1 llEVELOPMENT PLAN
GREE N HILLS MEMOlllAL PARK
111\NCHO PALOS VERD ES, CAL IFORNIA
~Ho:':
0
n -I? 0
MASTC:ll 061/GLOPMENT PLAN
GREE N HILLS MEMOl1 1AL PAHK
RANCllO PALOS VERDES. CALI FOflNIA
JAAt.Wtr~~
MASTER Pl.AN AR EA 7
SOUT>IWEST TER RACE MAUSOl.EUM
(PHASE I OF ~ PROPOSE D)
7-A
MAS1EH PLANAHEA 1
SOUT HW EST TERRACE MAUSOl.EUM
(5 PllA SES PROl'OSEDl
7-B
Public Correspondence - 86
v
SCHEMAT IC. S ITE SECT ION
J. STPAlrt' 'l'Ol>IJ l~C .
,\1«.11nl:4 .,11 1m ,,-nao11k11
l'l.\\\IM ,
l.\.'it 1'('.,\l!I!
J,STll1\lfl'TOl)J) INC ,
.\lll .l ll'l'l:<:1t'lll1:
l.\l'l(M.ltlH'I
11 ,\N"t l~t•
l.\"l l >'l(:O\llt!
MASTEl l DEVELOPM ENT PLAN
GREE N HILLS MEM011 1AL PAHK
FIANCllO PALOS VERD ES. CALIFORN IA
.W..WlY "'t!IOl
'""
MASTER DEVELOPM ENT PLAN
GRliE N HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
~M'H.JW
~ ...
t
MASl Ell f>LAN AREA 7
SOU THWEST TEAllACE
7-C
MAST Efl PLAN AREA 7
SO\JT HWEST TERRACE MAUSOLEUM
IS PHASES l'flOPOSEO)
7-D
Public Correspondence - 87
i...v.•••"••""·" •
l .......... ,11,.11 ........ l .~ .. .. , ........ ,.,,
J.NTl'.\ln'TtllJO IN<:.
\l«..IU'l tX:"l tm.r.
INTmm1K'(
11.\.\N l ~lo
I.\ lrriil1~1C1\l'r.
J,!>i"l't l1\lt'l''l'l>lll Jl ,'il :,
\1«111·11 :1t 11m
,,11:1tu11t."l
l'l .V"~""''' IA"'l ~~\l'M
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GflEE N Ii ILLS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VE ROES , CALI FOR NIA
~~llYH.MI '"m
MA8TEl1 DEVHOl'l.4GNT PLAN
ORE EN HILLS MEMOl11AL PARK
llANCHO PALOS VERD ES, CALIFORN IA
.IANM'tn~~
MAS TliR PLAN AREA 8
8-A
MASTER PLAN AR EA 8
8-B
Public Correspondence - 88
J,S'l't'Alrl''l1 >UU If\'<:.
\Rt lll'rl:Ultllm
l!'\l1UUl1K'i
l'l ,\. ... SINc..
l .\~li'tf.~\l•t<
j .S'l'l'1\lCTTO l>IJ l;o.C.
.~111 .lll'l t·:t :'l l'lil:
t:"r'lmm.m '
l 'I .\.'\~"(•
l ~\\l l\(~\l'I :
MAST ER DE VELOPMENT Pl.AN
GREE N lllLLS MEM011IAI. PARK
RAN CHO PALOS VEtlOES , CALIFORNIA
~11.lCOf
!M l •
MA STER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PAl1K
RANCHO PALOS VERD ES, CALIFORNIA
.IAAUAA'ftt-:r~
MASTEl1 PLAN AREA 8
8-C
MASlEA PLAN AREA9
Public Correspondence - 89
J,Sl't !r\K'l''l'Dll l)IN'C.
.\J U lll'l1:1:"11!M li
l'tl'l!IHIJll"
l'L IM•ilN(1
I, I"" 11.\i(.~<\l'I~
J,S'l'l '1 \lt'l'Ttll>I> l ~t:.
\kl.I U'l l«~H Hli
l,\11UU!Jll.'j
i'l.\NN l'\'li
l ,\"'l &~\J'I·:
MASTER DEVElOPMF.NT PIAN
GREEN HllLS MEMORIAL PARK
R/\NCllO PAI.OS VE HO ES, CALIFORN IA
JAM.i4.HY~~~
MA STER DEVELOPMENT PIAN
ORE EN fllllS MEMORIAL PARK
RANCHO PAlOS VEHOES , CALIFORNIA
~llY'9:~
MASTER Pl.AN MF.A 9
9-B
MASTEll PLAN AR EA 9
9-C
Public Correspondence - 90
I
J, S'f'll,\lfl' 'f'Ulll'l INt:.
i\IU HITtle.:'ll'llR
1.\~l l'JtlUR\
l'I A·\NNIM1
, ___ _
t.\l\U.\C.\l'li
J.S'l'l li\Jff'l'UUO IN(:.
,\M<.1 111 ~~~I l 'kP.
l\~l lffil Ok\
l'l .·\~..._1 ~.
l ,\SI N ~\litt
S}.<?";":1-~
1~~u1.:·· ... "';:o~ /)
c1;i.ll:T~P..~· •: P<'J :,i\U~y L
~ ~..U. W~rrJl •IGI """"-" l <f'l'" II)
MAST El1 OEVHOPM ENT PLAN
GllEEN l llLLS MEMDfllAL PAHK
AANCllO PALOS VERD ES , CALI FORN IA
J,f,."'1.JIU«n:,:
MAST ER DEVE LOl'ME Nr PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMOR IAL PARK
11!\NCHO PALOS VERDE S, CALIFORN IA
JAAUAAVH,fOQ'I
~,.,
I
·-,~
MASTE R PLAN AREA 10
CREMATION GARDEN
10 -A
MAST ER PLAN AllEA 10
CREM ATION GARDEN
10-B
Public Correspondence - 91
J .S'l'l l,\lt'l''l'O Ul11 .~c::,
All< lll rnC:~l'l 'l lll
l\'l hWOll\
lli.\\~1"il+
l .N..:lh>C ~\l't!
J.ST\!.\Jfl'TU l>l l INC.
.\111111·1m :11 11t1t
li'i l'l:IUllK\
Pl .~Nl'lit •
l ,\N ll'lt ~\l't:
MASTER OEVELOl'MENf l'LAN
GflEE N H,_L S M<MOfilAL PARK
RANCHO PALOS VE HO ES, CALll'OANIA
.IAAIJNll'Ho!':°~
MASTER DEVELOPMENT l'LAN
GREE N lflUS MEMORIAL PARK
llANC llO PALOS VERDES, CALIFOR NIA
JA.~RYH.lflOI
"'"'
MASTEll f>LIW AllEA 10
CREM AT ION GARDEN
10-C
MASTEU PLAN All6A 10
MEMOAIAL TERR ACE MAUSOLEUM
11 -A
Public Correspondence - 92
J. ~d"l .. \If!' ·1 ( ll )JJ l:\t:.
\lt(IHtl'Lfl l!I
J\IHUO!t'>
!'!.\\ \l\~,
t.\\ll~nn:
MASTEH Dl:VHOPM£-.Nr PLAN
OHHN HIU.S Ml:MOAIAL PAHK
llANCHO PAl.OS VEflOES, CAUt:OHNIA
SCHEMATIC 51TE SECTION I CENTRAL MAUSOLEUM
J.SI 1.\1\T lC)!ll) J;.;c,
\1\1111!1! !l\U,
!\IU!l!l"'I
\'l,\'-;\l.\(1
L\\lt\C:\l'I:
MASIU! DEVU.OPMEN r PLAN
GL1EEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
HANGHO PALOS Vtnm:s, CALWOHNIA
MASTIC:A PLAN AHEA 10
MEMORIAL rrnRACE MAUSOLEUM
11-B
,~ C411J,Ml~JM'.S/\
!-lt.J/M~;llt'Jll
MASrErt Pl.AN AREA 11
MEMOfllAl. TERRACE MA!N 0Ull.O!NO
11-C
Public Correspondence - 93
C~Mt f Hl'f HOAOWA'f
6CHEMATIC SITE SECTION I HEST V'llNG
.L1i!T.\lfl"l'ODJJL'\C.
\!<( 11rt1.cn ltl
l'\!l'!ll!U\'t
l'l.~\'\l\1,
~.\\ll'>f: \\II'
MAX flUILOJN{) 111
b
~.
MAS rm DEVElOPMCNT PlJIN
OFH:tN HILLS Ml:Mon1At PAHK
flANCHO PA(.OS VEHOE.$, CAUfOHNIA
NEWGHAOF..
MAS IUl Pl.AN AflEA 11
Mf'.MOBIAL ·rt:nnAct: WI.:$T WINO
11-D
~~·--~----~----~ \ ____ _,
···-OUfLINE OF MAUSOLEUM
f: XIS TINO GllAOt
J,,'iTl'.\lff'IOlll) !SC,
\!\!lllf/Jlll!I
1"in:trn111'>
l'L\,\I\!,
l,\'\IJ'l!'.\t'I•
MASn~n OtVf.:LOP~WNr Pl.AN
OHHN HILLS MtMOf11AL PARK
HANCHO PALOS VE HOES, CA,UFOHNIA
MAS rm PLAN Alll'A 11
MEMORIAi. fl'RHACE fiAS f WING
11-E
Public Correspondence - 94
J, S'l'l 1i\lff 'l'O Ull 1N(:,
.ui.1 11 rm 11 111 1\
l ,\l '~MI O ll.lri
l'i ,..\\NIM1
l.\."'i H1rit :.Wll
MAST ER OE VELOf'M ENT PLAN
GllE EN fllll.S MEMOfllAI. PAllK
Af\NCHO PALOS VE ROES, CALWOANIA
~J!V tt~~
MEMOR IAL TE RRACE DRIVE -----------~ ----------------
,/ I EXISTING PARK VIEW TERRACE
';< ., ~~~-~~-~·~ GROUND BUR IAL " "" I DEVELOPM ENT
(j!> UPP ER LEVEL· • • ~
1464 CRYPTS/ "', , EXI STING ,
e&o NICHE S@ I COURT OF \
LO WER LEVEL ' ·~e vOTION ~
~-::'
J .~n :A 11 r ·1 t>1JDl ~l :.
UU 111 l t:t ~l t ll H
l\ll.IUt lll'I
11.\\\l'\C ,
l .\"1~~\l •I.
MASTER OEVELOf'ME NT PLAN
OllEEN HI LLS MEMOH tAL PAllK
llANCHO PALOS VEllO ES , CAUFOONIA
JA/tUU!Yn.:,:
MAST El11'1.AN Al1 EA 10
MEM0111AL TEfll·lACE MAUSOLE UM
11 -F
MA STE11 l'l.AN Al1 EA 12
12-A
Public Correspondence - 95
H(CllCl lM l\:t4;A I O.•!~ --
J.S"f'l ,\lff'J'()l}I JI~<:.
\H<llll t:t 'llat1:
1.'n:111n~.,
l'l.\S'i"''
l ,\\l ~~\1'1-i
J,!fl'l '1\lfl''l'OIJ IJ INC.
W.lll'n:t .llMK
11\l'l~IUOM\
"'·'·'''~'· l.\\lt'tl,:,\l'H
-
$CHEMAT IC S ITE SECT ION I COURT OF DEVOTION ADD ITION
MAS TEA DEVELOPM ENT PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMOR IAL PARK
HANCHO PALOS VL;flOES, CALI FORNIA
.Jo\.'f.WlY1tt!~~
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GREEN HILLS MEMOlllAL PARK
A/\NCHO PALOS VERDES , CALIFORNIA
JNM!Wr\'f::r
MAST EHl'LANAREA 12
count OF DEVOTION
12-B
MASTEll PLAN AAEA 12
12-C
Public Correspondence - 96
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Matt Martin < matthewhmartin@yahoo.com >
Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:31 PM
Doug Willmore; CC
Letter for November 17th Green Hills Agenda Item Part 3
NOVCCLetterPart3.pdf
Part 3 of my letter for 11 /17 /15 meeting
Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------This message and any attached
documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected
by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
1 Public Correspondence - 97
Attachment C
Letters from 1991 residents
Public Correspondence - 98
To: Members af Pl•nning CGmmls•ian
City o.f Ranci10 l'alo.!i Verdes, California
From; He1Hy c • .:ieffdes
2110 Palos Ve(des Drive North ttlOl
to.mi ta, cal Uornia
May 22, 1990
:;i: am one of·40 owner!\! in a 25-unit c(lndomioimn Jrno"ln as Vist,;;i,
Verde, whi;h i1 located Ju•t •crass the northern city limits
of Rancho Palas Verde~, within the city of Lomita, Thl1
condominium, unlike mo•t, Is 100% owner-occupied. On the western
edge of our prope[tJ i• 8olling Hills Covenant Church ln the
city of Rolling Hills Estates. Across our back yard fence sits
Green Hills Memorial Park.
Tonight, this Planning Cornmi•slon is meeting ta consider the
environmental as1e1sment of a Conditional U$e Permit and Variance
Plan beln9 proposed by the Green Hills M•norlal •ark. This hearing
is· to revililw two a1pect1 of the plan 1o>1hi.·i::h are of vital interest to
all of the ho~eawner• in Vista Vetde.
(l) The Green Hillij "Ma•ter Plan" call• for the construction
of a Chapel and a parkln; lot on the northwest corner of
their p1operty. Thi• corner ie im•edlately adjacent to
the co~mon property area of Vista Verde.
(2) AOditlonally, Green Hills is re~ye1tln9 adminlstratlve
relief f~om R&ncho Palos Ve roes' IV!<'lltida.t:ory 40-foot set:ba~k
~anln9. This •one co•pletely encircles t:he Park. Thls
40-loot "buff~z» iarie prevents the Memorial Park from
utllleing thl5 •rea for any con$tcuctlan wbat$Oever.
Public Correspondence - 99
Toi City Cpuncil, ,-.omit<i; California
From~ Henry c. Jeff(ies
ThQ President/Chief Executive officer, a Vic•·rresident, and a
cani>ultant:1 employed by Green Hills fecently,, visited our ~ondo
~lnlum and met with ~any of the awnefs to 41scuss varlou1 elements
or th•lr plari• and th~ pending hearings.
WQ wer~ informed that the "Master Plan~ is a 100-year plan which
includes the construction or a chapel and a parking a~•• to support
the cbapal ln "Phase 4», defined as accurclng in approximately 70
to eo years, inferring that the proposed site will lay dormant un-
til th~n, In !act, though, the area ls not dormant, A recently
constructed addition to an existing mausoleum structure on the
Park's weste~n boundary hes generated excess dirt which has been
dumped into the subject corner are•. Th• dirt has been ~raded by
scrapers into• fai1ly level area. Additional dirt Crom intern·
men·t throui:rhout other arel'l!'l of th"' p,arl>• h<1r; r·<>9..,,l.:irly beam 1pl<11ce,O
into thi• same area over the last yeac or so. When a1ked by us
about thi• •ct1v1ty. the Preildent of Gre•n Hills, Ks. A(lene
Gleich, stated that the buJlain; cont(actor had placed the con-
struction residue In this area ~unnoticed 0 by the Green Hllls staff
and that,. ln order to trim costs, Green Hills' manageme~t was nat
9oln; ta pur~v~ holding the contra~tor to removing the dirt.
Public Correspondence - 100
ioi City council~ tomlta. C1lifnr"'• rrom1 Henry c, Jefrrles
Let me at•this paint in time give you some·idea of bow duch dirt
was moved ~unnoticed• • the area is epproxirnately 80 feet in
width and uver 100 feet ln length and the level hal been rais•d
approximately 5 feet • that's 5 H 80 x 100 = 40,0QO cu ft or
almost lSOO cubic yards of ~aterlal that's been moved into this
"dormant• area. Appcoximately half o! thl$ dormant a(ea ls included
within the 40-foot s•tback aiea. Granted, they didn•t build
anything ar bury anybodr in th•t acea, but they su~ely didn't
respect any "bvffera aon•.
~Y the w~y. •ll of the movement of mat~rlal that has been
tii'u;:"'""'"'"· ovs,1.~ th• l;;i~t '/f!?O. i: .:m<-1 i:.1 h11lr has been done without any
du•t•control methods being employed. probably in violation of
~o~e cityt county, state, or fed•ral ordinances or regulations.
;i;t al$o see.ma to bl!! a rather unu$1.li.'ll coincidence that with the
~unnoticed~ plac•rn•nt of 1500 c~bic yards af dirt, the northwest
corn•r of the Park now sits at exactly tho aame level as th~ Cloor
of the mausole\lm. With the potential for relief from the 4>0~foot
~•tback ~onlng, it is the belief on the part gf many of the owners
of our condominium that Groen Hills, rather than wait 70 years to
canatruct a chapel, in fact plans to expand th• size ar the ~re$ent
mausoleum by extending tho pr~sent structure into this freed~up
area. Thl1 mean6 that a back w•ll of the espanded mausoleum
could be e!!(!Cted immediately adjacent tQ our pi;oputy line.
Should this structu~e be located next to our common pcoperty llne,
th~re will be two impacts on Vi$ta Verde. The w•st end of nur
building will be surrounded on three sides. ln$tead of two, thereby
[educing air circulat&on. Hawev•c~ of !!!Ven mare significance ls
that the currently unrestricted view frg~ Vista Verde to the Los
An9elu Harbor ~ould l?e inhib'Hed by a 2-0 foot~hiqh wall.
Public Correspondence - 101
Ta: City council, Lomita, Califacnia
F~orn; Henry c. Jeffries
p, 4 of S
In t~e meantime, if the mausoleum ls not to be con~t(ucted im-
mediately, inte~nmenta could prg;eed within the freed-up buffer
zone. I am a veteran and have attended D number of graveside
services far other vetecana. A rifle salute i3 1 traditional
metbod of showing respect fo~ a 1!11.l len co1nude th.at 9oe1 ba.;;k
hund~eds o! years. A rifle salute and a bugle being played 25
fee!: f i:-om ,ffliy bed room window i :\I mH wh11 t I a9 r·eed t;o when I
purchaaect my home in Vista Verde 10 years ago.
The alternative, H we believe in t;he published plan of O~nn
Hilla, pose~ a similar lmp•ct on our vlew • the construction of
a chapel of some a$-yet un(ief:lned size 1niJ shape and a parkin9 lot
to accomodate ,sQme unknown numb•~ of c;;iu, We all knew when we
pu:rcha:!!e«i:l. and 111oved into Vii$till vetde that 1ui w·1:;u,1~0 be serirnaded
on Sunday mcirnin9s :by the hell!! of the cl'HH"Ch next door and the
nol!ie attenda.nt to the slammin.9 of doo~s i1nd st1 n:dng of w"toi:s
of two hundred cars fco~ the we1t end of our property. With the
possibility of a chapel to be built on our south !iide, we could get
the noise' of bells and pa,klng lots from a &econd side, and at
~nptedictable times.
z would add that In Green Hills' piesent conflguratlon, the clo11est
a cllr (.]oiH i;l,a;mming to any bedcoPm windo\11 in Vista Verde is abovt
100 feet. The cat woyld be parked at a random spot on a road, not
within the confln~s of e to-be-developed de~1gnated parklnq area.
Public Correspondence - 102
To: City Cauncil, Lomita, California
from: Henry c. Jeffrie~
To anyon• even remotely involved with real ••tat•,•• either a
pui:cht.uer .Qr seller, it is 11.Kiomat.io that: the most impottant
oo~pon•nt of value of a prop~rty ifi location, ln Vista Verde1•
ten year• oE existence, an unobstructed view of the harbor and
ocean has been a majai: component in its value. To replace thls
vl9w uf water with a view or a white stucco wall or a chapel will
rlil!o:luce thi;i pr·ope$-value tor each of the units affeete<:I by a
signi(ieant amount ~ $30000, $50000, we won't know un~il one of th~
units goes on the ~arket. IY then of ocu,s• it's too late.
This h•aclng tonight centers .around the pos1lble impact that
approval of ~he Ma~t•r Plan and/or administrative relief fro•
tb• 40-foot setback ••Y create. Ne of Vlsta varde •re very
concerned about the pot•ntlal impact upon the value of our
prapectr that a blockage of our GG•an view,. th~ addition· of
noise •ource~, a~ well as the. di~ruption in air circulation
that could occur if ANr above-ground structure3 are built in
close proxl•it~ to our ho•es. ~herefore, we ace oppQ8ed to
th~ 1 Ma1ter Plan• and its chapel/parking lot and even more
12mphaticl\l!ll.f {Ire opposed to th!!! granting of ad1uinistre1tive
relief from the current tO-foot setback requirement.
l th~nk you for allowing me to ~peak before this Ccmrnlssion tonight
Public Correspondence - 103
From: Rlcllar<;l and Dr. Lisa Pierion
211Q Palos \/efdesDr.iN<;i. #114
Lomita. Ca. 90717
Phone; (2B) 833·9217 Night
375-2467 Day
333·7365 Day
To: Rc?ln~ho Palos Verde<> Plannin9 Commission
May 21. 1990
Sllbject: ENVIRONMENT Al ASSESSMENT NO. 60t CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
155, GRADING NO. 1442, AND VARIANCE NO. 266, 100 YEAR MASTER
PLAN FOR GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
Dear Planning Commiss4on,
As owni#rs of a condominjum In the Vista Verde condominium complex which I
borders the Green Hills Memorial Pilrk we stifongly urge that no alterations take .
affect to modify in anyway the40' setbacl< limitation whi<h $buts our condominium
complex. We understand that a 10' enm>ad1ment has afready been made Jnto ~he
west setback :zone. We want to make sure that no encroo\lchment occurs in their
north s.etba<:k zoM. The Green Hills Memorial Park's 100 year p!an which woufd
encroach ontQ this 40' setback zone t;hould not be allowed for $everal .reasons:
1. Th<:>re would be a definite visual imeairment on our vHiw if a building wern to be
o\lllow<:>d in the 40' setfau;k :i:one7"lfus complex is (Onsturcted in sl.l(h a way as tQ
permanently obstrnct alt views to the north, east and west, If the Green Hi!ls
proposal ls accepted we would have no view at all This would leave u~ whh a
very daustrophob1ic erwironment. ~
.2. Th<:> gr~actor is extreme!:; important to cons-Ider. As proposed, Green Hills
hope~ to buHifa7hapel along with a parkirlg lot whkh woufd r,;reate additional
noise from v-ehi(fes and a violation of our privac:y due to ~he increased number of
people s.o c:;lose to our property line.
3. Green Hifls ha$ added a great de.al of Wf dirt to a strjp of land just on the o~her
side of ovr property line. This hl'!S already resulted in i:in increase in drainage run\
off onto ol.4r property. W~ .;intii;.ipate r.n&ordrafmrige prob~em~ if .;i heavy rain \
were to occur since the dirt brought down wJtl'ii tl'le rainwater could clog our
dr.;iinage system.
4. U th<140' i;.etbild< l$ not uphtild the adverse virnal impact along wlth the iMasion
o1 our privacy would definitely ~!ilt~reas.e the v11due of e~2.ro2ert);.
Public Correspondence - 104
Please review the proposlJ'd plan pres.ented by Green Hills Memorlal Park very
c;an?fvlly and tilke approprJ.!He action to insure that the air $etba<;k 11rn1tat1on
r~m;J1in Jnt~d and riot be modifi·ed Jn o;"1y man1Hu.
Than I< y.ou for ·~our support.
Public Correspondence - 105
Attachment D
Photos of Pre-existing Grade then After
Public Correspondence - 106
Public Correspondence - 107
Public Correspondence - 108
Attachment E
Pictures of View, Noise, and Privacy Impacts
Public Correspondence - 109
Public Correspondence - 110
Public Correspondence - 111
Public Correspondence - 112
Attachment F
1990 Public Notice (properly discloses building plans)
Public Correspondence - 113
Mll_~r M&YIN W. HUl!IHS§
flhl)'Qf' Plo ~ JOHN C. r®TAG!ll\~T
Oo11nctlmon OOUGLAS M. HINctlUl'lf'E
Ootul<:llm~n R08tml' E. RVAF>f
CoullPJllWQm,on JACK! iAOHAAACH
PUBLIC NOTICE
PROPOSED
NJ\101\TlVE DBCI,ARA'l'ION
The city of Rancho P~los Verdes hereby gives notice that pursuant
to the authority and. criteria contained in the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" i and the CEQJl.I Guidelines of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Director of Envir·onroental
Services has analyzed the requ.eet for Environmental Asseaament No.
601, Conditional b.ee Permit No. 155, Gradin9 No. 1442 and Variance
No. 262 for Green Hills Memorial Park located at 27501 s. Western
Avenue, aancho Palo$ Veriles, CA 90732.
The projeat is briefly described asi A !OD year Master Pl~n for
tht,i development of Green Hilh Memorial Park Cemetery. The Plan
inchdes 194,340 cubic y.ardlill of grading with !lQ import or export
and r.c;19:radin9 of tne r1u11aining 45 undeveloped acrtui of the 120
<1.cre cemetery, DeveloPJ!lent includes the oonstruc::tion of 2. 44
acree of bu:Udingr, 11.~.1'7 acres of "garden" burial site~. 27.21
acrfi!a of ground bu.rial siteltl and 3. 72 acres of roads. The project
ia divided into 5 pha:aes proposed to be developed through the year
21-00.
After reviewin9 the lnit.ial Study and any applic.rtble mitigating
mei:.uaure3 for the project, the Director of Environmental Services
has determined that this project will not have a significant
el.feet on the envir<:inment, Accordin9ly, a NEGA'l'IVE DE;CLARATION has
been prepared •
.f!'ublic comments will be received .by the City prior to final
approval of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION C1nd a~tion on the project,
:for a period of at lea et 21 days, throQ9h MQy 22. 1. 990.
A public hearing will be held to d:i.scusl/il the project, including
the proposed N~GATIVE DECLARATION, on May 22, 1990, at 7:30 p.~.
at the City Council Chambers, Hesse Park:, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard, Rancho Palos Vet'd·es.
A copy of al 1 r.elevant rnatll!rial. including the project
specificat.ions:, Inithl Study, and the NEGATIVE DECLA~ATION. :is on
file in the offices of the E;nvironrnental Servioea Department,
30940 Hawthorn~ Boulevard, Rancho PalQ:s V@rdes, CA 90274. The
Initial study will be available for publi(~ t•eviE:!w on May 2, 1990.
Pl ease contact r,.aur ie B. .Jester at ( 213) 3 i' 7-6008 for further
information.
Public Correspondence - 114
Mayor MELVIN W. HtJGM!ffi
M~r Pro T•rn JOHN C MeTA.GGAITT
CQu!IOlrlT!an OOUG!..AS M. HtNCHLt.FFE
~"10i!mll!ll ROBERT e. RYAN
OO~nQilwomM JACKI i!ACHAAACt-1
(,~ -
• RAro-o PALOS VERDES
April 26, 1990
NOTICB IS HEaEBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Col!lmission of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public heartng on May 22. 1990,
at 7;JO p.m. at the Hefl!lile Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard, Rancho Palos Vei"des to oonsider: Environmental
Asses!l.lment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No.
1442 and V;u:·iance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the
development of Qr.een HUls Memorial Park Cemetery. The
Conditional l1'1Je Pe.r•tli.t is a.re required for the Master Plan and the
Grading Application is required for the proposed 194,340 cubic
yardE! of earth movaroent. The va.riance is required for the
expanding of the fl!:<istin9 Pa·cifica Mausoleum which would match the
setba.r:;:k of the existing building which encroaches 10 feet into the
required 25 foot setback frcm1 the weat property line. The
Environmental As!i!easment addrEHUll!!!fi the entire project.
LocatiQn: 27501 s. Western Avenue
Applicant: Green Hill$ Memorial Park
Ail int~n·eated parties are invited to E!Ubmit written comments and
to attend and give te111t.Lmony. Applications and plane are on file
with the Environmental services Department at City Hall, 30940
Hawthorne Boulevard. Conta(!t La.uri·e B. Jester for further
ir1format ion.
Public Correspondence - 115
!! ! ! l 1! I :Q
!!2'.!!~!
NOO'ICE .I$ HEREBY GIVEN 'l'HAT THE Planning CQlmllis11ion of the
City of Rancho Palo1 verdea will conduct a public hearing on
TUt:Ulday, June .26, 1990 at 7; 30 p .• 1111. at the HesH Park
Cooounity Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos
Ve.rd,es, to ·con.sider~
Environment.al Aaseaament No. 601, Conditional U.ee Permit No.
155. Grading No. 1442 and Variance No. 262 to all ow a 10.0
year Mast.er Plan for the development of Green ffills Melll.Orial
Park Cemetery. The Conditi.onal U;l!le Pennit is .required for
the Haster Plan and the Gnding Applieation is required for
the p~poaed 194, 340 cubic yArds o.f earth rnove:ment. The
Environmental A1aesament •ddresaes the entire project. The
Variance is required for the following items:
1. A 10 foot reduction to the rQquired 25 foot setback
f·or all above ground tlltructures adjacent to the weat
property line. (abuttin9 Rolling Hills covenant
Chur<lh and the reservoir>. This would leave a 15
foot setback from the propei-ty line.
2. A 32 foot reduction to the required 40 foot $etbac·k
for below ground interments and "garden~ burial
!lites .adjacent to .all property line.$. Thi.$ would
leave a 8 foot l!letback .frOIJll the property line.
Location: 27501 s. Weatern Avenue
Applicant; Green Billa Memori.1\1 Park
All intere11Jterl parties are invited t.o submit written eommenu
and to .!\ttend •nd give teati.mony. Appli.cation1 and plans arf!!
on file with the inviromnental Serviees DepartD1ent at City
Ball, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contaet I,.auire P. Jester
fo:r further :triforma.tion at 37?-6008.
Robert Denard -
Director of !nvironmental Services
Public Correspondence - 116
J! .! ! ! .i I R
!!2t1 .£ .!
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVIN THAT THE Phnning CommiBBion Q( the
City of Rancho P.aloa Verdes will eonduct a public hearin'iJ on
'l'ue111d,ay, June 26, 1990 at ?;30 p.m. at tht:t :Ue:ase Park
C·ommuni ty Buildin9, 29301 Hawtho.rne Boulevard. Rancho PaloQ
Verdea, to con•ider;
Environmental A&Beaament No. 601, Conditional Uae Permit No.
l SS, Grading No. 1442 and Variance No. .262 to allow a 100
year Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial
Park Ce~tery. The Conditiond IJae .Permit is required .for
the Muter Plan and tbe Grading Application h required for
the propoaed l!J4,340 cubic yards of earth movement. The
Environmental Assess~ent addresses the entire project. The
Variance is r~q!Jired for the foUo"1ing items:
1. A 10 foot reduction to the required 25 foot setback
for all 4bove ground strueturee adjacent to the west
property line, (abutting Rolling Hills Covenant
Chur·ch and the reraervoir). This \!i'ould leave a 15
foot eetback from the property line.
2. A 32 foot .reduct.ion to the :required 40 foot flletback
for below ground interments and "garden• burial
sites adjaQent to ill property lirHUh Thia would
leave a 8 foot 11etback from the property line.
J.ri::>cation~ 27501 s. Western ,II.venue
Applicant 1 Grell!n ffilla Memo.rial Park
.All interested p.iu;tiea are invited to submit writ.ten comments
and to 'Attend and give testimony. Applications and plans are
on file with the Environ~ntal Services Department at City
Hall, 30940 aawthorne Boulevard. Contact Laui:re a. Jester
for further information at 377-6008.
Pleue publish in the Palos Verdes Penin~uh News on
Thur~day, J"ne 14, 1990.
Public Correspondence - 117
Attachment G
2007 Public Notice (Inaccurate and Incomplete)
Public Correspondence - 118
RECEIVED
MAR 2 'I 2007
RANCHO PALOS~~:::
H /IN'l1NG, B'ULDN3, &·COGE ENFCRCEMENT
February 6, 2007 FILED
~~Wf~ .. 2.0 7 FEB202007 """'" ~ 1!.l!LW PUBLIC NOTICf;
UNTIL ,.MAR 22 ZotJZ PROPOSED coNNY.,;,,~~7;(ci.mK
JllQISTRAi:REOOHl)EWCClJN'lYQ.lilm MITjGATED NEG.ATIVE DfCL:ARATION M.iilR OiPIJTY
The Clty of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and
criteria contained ln the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEOA'') 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
Gr·eEm Hms Memorial Park Cemetery. located al 27501 Westem Avenue, in Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA 00275 (Thomas Guide: Page 793, H & J-7),
The project is described as:
Amend the originally approved Mastef Plan for the Green Hills Memorial Par!<; that
addresses build-out of the cemetery site over the next 30· to 50-years. The originally
approved Master Pian and subsequent Master Grading Pian included 194,340 cubic
yards of grading (97,170 ou. yds. of cut and 97,170 cu. yds. of fill) to be balanced on
site (i,e,. 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 origJnaHy 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 originaUy approved by the Master Plan;
2) allowing up to a total of 643,259 cubic yar<ls of grading, whicti includes 97,964
cubic yards of import for the proposed mausoleum buildings. and all cut and flll
associated wlth ground burials throughout the nemetery site for the llfe of the
Master Plan. The impo.rted fill material will be conducted in phases as each
mausoleum buUding ls constructed over an extended period of time over the next
30· to 50-years;
3) ciarlfication that the total number of ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorlal
Part( to be ·13,$89 Double Depth Burials (27, 178 Interments), 388 Single Depth
Burials (388 Interments), and 408 family estates (4080 interments);
4) allowing a reconfiguration, relocatfcm and additional area to the previously
approve<I 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
ot; 0024232
~~·'H '' Ho;.v "ltJ~N: tJ1·m i 11.o\N;Hu f>l:n~ vrnces. Cl\ ;,>;J21s·~3m
1~j·/f'f!f'K~'::rn :L r 41'~(1RCLY4flH \3101(1•14,.'.1,':i!(!/8lJl/Jf'iO 1~11m 2W···lb\l0 /,'.:',~;;'."if r.t\X (3~0) !J.44·~9J,/ F'M.l\t ?L->.rt'H'tG~iPVCOM
Public Correspondence - 119
PUBl..IC NOTICE
ZON2003-Q0086 (CUP, GR & EA>
February 6, 2007
Page 2
measuring 23,653 square feet at a IOC(lltion that Is approximately 300·feet farther
west than approved in the orlginar Master Plan:
5) allowing a new 75,131 square foot mausoleum building to the west of the existing
mortuary, whereby 9,871 square 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 buflding
footprint to a 33,666 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 net increase of 2.17 acres (I.e., 94,525 square
feet) of mausofeum footprint area.
After reviewing the Initial Study and any appUcable mibgating measures for the project, the
Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has determined that this project, as
mitigated. wm not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepti:!red.
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 dfscuss the proposed
project, including the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, on Tmu;day. February 27,
2007, at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park Community BuUding, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho
Palos Verdes.
A copy of all relevant m(lterial, including the project $pectficaUons, Initial Study, and the
Mltl9.i:ded Negetive 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 20111 , but before 12:00 noon on Monday
February 2e, 2006, will be given to the Planning Commi1Ssron on the night of the meeting.
The Commlssfon will not consider any written comments that are submitted after the Monday
(February 26 111 ) noon deadline. However, any late correspondence will be distributed to the
Public Correspondence - 120
PUSl.1¢ NOTICE
ZON2003-00086 (CUP, GR & E.A)
F&bruary 6, 2007
Page2
Commission as part of a future agenda packet, provided that the item is continued to a later
date.
To receive a copy of the fnltlaf Study, or for additionar information, please contact Senior
Planner Eduardo Schonbom, AICP. at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at eduardos@rpv.com.
$TAf€ GQVEJU~l~H'I' CODE SECTl.QN ~~If you challerign ltil,. "I>Plir.ruion in e1311rt, you may la
Umit.d to rai&lng Qllly thoso Issues you or tPmoono else ral1111d attn. publtc hearfng dffllrlbed In this notice, or in
written corr&Spondenoe doll\1of\4KI lo the City Qf Rancho Pii,ios Verdf:llli at. l>if prlor to, the publl~ hllli!ring.
Please publish in the Pen.insufa News on Thursday, February ff, ?007
Public Correspondence - 121
Attachment H
1991 CUP Map
Public Correspondence - 122
Legend Clearly states
RED -Above Ground Structures
GREEN -Below Ground Burials
I
I . .I :.1.1
"h. t I J, . '. ,• .r
, .
Public Correspondence - 123
Attachment I
The Original 1991 CUP (Approved on appeal to the City Council) -Resolution 91 -7
Public Correspondence - 124
RESOLUTION NO, 91-,.l.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCRO
PALOS VERDES SUSTAINING IN PART THE APPEAL OF AND APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 155, VARIANCE NO, 262, ANO GRADING
PERMIT NO. 1442, AND ISSUIN°G 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 t~e 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 t~timony and present evidence; and ·
WHEREAS, on Aug~st 14, 1990, the Planning Co111111ission adopted
P, c. Resolution No. 90-43 approving a portion of the master
development plan, th~ entire site grading and setback reductions
for the pacifio'a Maus\:ileum; and :-
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the de~i ·on of the Planning
Commission and, after nptice pursuant to the evelopment Code; the
City Council held publ~d hearings on Septem r'l8 and October 16,.
1990, and-pursuant to re-notice, reopened~and conducted additional
public hearings on January '1~ ~nd February 19, 1991, at which time
all interested parties were given th'if 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: ...
Section l!.. 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
implementan'ion of the mitigation measures contained in the Negative
Declaration for Environmental Assessment No, 601, which have been
incorporated into conditions of approval in Exhibit "An, attached
hereto and made a part hereof,
Section l.J__ 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 - 125
Section 31 That the subject site is a~equate in size and shape
~ accomraodate-the intended use, subject to the conditions of approval
ontaiped in ~:xhibit "A", attaohed hereto, ·
•\·
Section !.L That the site is serviced by Western Avenue, the
:raffic capacity of which is adequate to serve the site and subject
lse without sufferin9 significant impacts to its level of service.
Section 5: That the subject use will cause no significant adverse
effect ·.on ad.jacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the
condit1ons of approval contained in E)l:hibit "A", attached hereto,
which include modification of grades and landscaping to control
erosion and visual ai;iJ;learances, proper equipment stora9et placement
of structures which minimizes view impacts, limited hours of
construction, landscaping and dust control.
Section §..;.. ~hat 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
t~e 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 ~he 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 suchj!~riance is necessary for the ~trva~~n
and enjoyment of a subs ial property right o he a pl'can , w ich
r~g t is pos essed y other proper y ers un er like-con itions 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 cities·
and the expansion of the Pacifica Mausoleum will only·~ill 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
adj~cent uses with landscaping and screening.
.,,..,,..lution No. 91-7 -;;
Public Correspondence - 126
That the grading is not excessive beyond that
primary permitted use of the lot since the cemetery
.s over 110 acres in size and it is necessary for the use to create a
1ently sloping site with roads with minimal percentage grade, and the
1radin~ is balanced on site.
Sec · 1: That the grading and construction do adversely
iffect visual relations s w , nor , neig oring
iit · e gra es complement the topog~aphic features
:):f adjacent sites, the finished grade of the northern side of the
site will not exceed the grade as existing in 1983 and above ground
atru~Qat~d to minimize view and visual impacts. _
Section ~ 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 1l.l, 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 lQth day of February, 1991.
ATTEST:
/S/ JO PURgELL
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ss
CITY OF RAMCHO PALOS VERDES
(SI POIJGT1M M. RINCHI.IFFE 1
MA'l!OR
, ..
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No.
91-.1.. 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
·l .
li.,· 1 ..
t:
'' i
, .
;
i
!
I r
Public Correspondence - 127
. .-
·' " EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 155, VARIANCE NO, 262,
GRADING PERMIT NO. 1442, ANO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO, 601
~NOITIONAL ~PERMIT, VARihNCE, ~GRADING· PERMIT gONOITIONS
~ DEVELOPMENT
Thi• 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
pel'Jllit applications, a Master Site Plan, consistent with the
approved Designation Plan, including landscaping and irrigation,
shall be submitted for approval by the O.irector of Environmental
Services.
a. Setbacke for below ground interment sites, "Garden" burial
sites and roads shall be as follows:
North and South -8 1 (except the northwest corner betwe~n the
western property line and maintenance
yard, which shall be 16')
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 Mausolewu setbacks are as follows:
West -15' existing I 5' northwestern addition
North -40' • <~expansion northerly along the eastern etlge 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 .io 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 >
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 - 128
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 •
. ~
6. The applicant shall submit a. complete sign program for review by
the Planning commission no later than April 30, 1991. The program
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 t.he southwest corner
of the property or as otherwise designated by the Director of
Environmental Services. Screening of this area shall in no ·way
impair views.
8, The location of any temporary construction storage or trailers
must be approved by the Director of Envir·onmental 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 stor~e or trailer
shall be maintained clean and painted at all times.
!!Q.!,!R§ QI CONSTRUCTION
9. a. Construction and gra9ing 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
day.time working hours (7100 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.l on weekdays
on-ly.
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.rn. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
on Saturday, Sunday, and National Holidays.
Public Correspondence - 129
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 •
. AQING liliQ 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 elevation~ 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
prope-rty line 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 Divii~on 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 res~ored 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-Ap»il 1983 wn1ch~are on file in the
Department of Envir al rv~ion of finished
e submitted to the Direc or~l
S rvices or review an --· roval. After cer 1 cation, the
irector of nv nmental Services shall estab~ view....sorrjdors
over this area which shall not allow future view impairment.
Public Correspondence - 130
~he fill material removed from this area shall be relocated in
accordance with Condition Nos, 40 and 41. A temporary'eroaion
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.
LhNDSCAPING
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 9racl1ralong the
northerly property line <see Condition No. 14), and shall mairttain
natural vegetation in all undeveloped areas. When such vegetation
requires removal or cutting as required by eithei: .. 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 t!1e applicant's property on the south
property lfoe adjacent to the rear yards on Avenida Feliciano shall
be pruned and maintained so it does not exceed the height of the
chain·~ink fence, which is B feet tall, and existing and future
screen planting in the B-foot setback along the northern property
line shall be maintained no higher than the fence height,
SEWERS AND ~
22. Any new fa~ilities must tie into local main line sewers. The usage
of the site may be limited by the size and type of sewage system
th~t ~~n lP.Qallv be installed.
I'
Public Correspondence - 131
The site shall be served by adequately sized water system
facilities as determined by the L. A. County Fire Department.
All L. A. County Fire Department requirements sha~l 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 1 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.
BOORS Q.[ OPERATION
27. Bour~ 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.1117 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 de.Neloped 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, 1948,
"Certification and Declaration of Dedication of Cemetery ?roperty"
recorded in Book 27781, pages 265 and 266 of the Official Records,
County of Los Angeles, California.
) )
Public Correspondence - 132
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 conaents to all
conditions of approval.
MITIGATION MEASURES -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BUILDING JiEIGHT
33, Buildings designated on the Master Site Plan referenced in
Condition No. l 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 c~rtified at the applicant's expense.
34. The family mausoleum on Inspiratiop 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 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 minirnum of-S-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 qu«ntity necessary to provided safety. Lighting shall not be
placed on the side of buildings adjacent to r~sidences. 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 bNQ DRAINAGE
38. All gr~d~~g for site development within 100 feet of a residential
··' ---~"'"'"' "'"M "'Ooroval bv the City Engineer and
Public Correspondence - 133
from the Building and Safety Division for all grading operations,
within 100 feet o~ a residential area excluding 9£ading for
interment excavation only. Drainage and erodon 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 ~11
structures except small, one story, "Storageft structures less than
120 square feet in area and less than 12 feet in height with no
plumbing or electricity, such as family mausoleums. ·
1. 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.
1, 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 (maximUJll 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 f)'ORI the southern
and western property lines, except for overnight storage of
interment soil.
2. Finished grades shall not exceed 3:1 slope. •··
\NDSCAPING
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 - 134
. r another similar variety as approved by the Director of Public
Works and Director of Environmental Services •hall be used in all
new lawn areas.
lili'MICALS
l.
i·.·.· ...• 5.· •.The applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of this application, copiea 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
46.
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.
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
recollllllendations. Verification of these activities is required to
be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
.GEOLOGY
~'47. Pr
1
ior"to i'ssuance of building pennits, the developer shall obtain
c earance for construction from the City Geolo9ist and s~all 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 (bl or the appropriate current section.
·PERf'!ITS
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 miti9ation 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 - 135
Attachment J
Powerpoint Presented in August 2014 to the PC.
Details uncovered CUP violations (later confirmed) by Green Hills
Public Correspondence - 136
G een Hills Area
11 Mausoleu
Presentation
Public Correspondence - 137
Green Hiiis 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 western
property line and maintenance yard . which shall be 16'·0")
East and West: 0'-0'
There are currently dozens of below ground Internments within the
required l 6'PO" setback area
How does Green Hiiis Propose to Fix this Compliance Issue?
Public Correspondence - 138
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 in~iate revocation procedures for th is permit, which shall include a
public hearing . Notice of said public hearing shall be published and provided to owners of
property within a 5001 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 - 139
Below Ground Internments within 16'~0" of Property Line
Public Correspondence - 140
Public Correspondence - 141
MASI En OEVElOPf.U:llr PWI MASTER Pl.AN WA I
GREE N llJU.S MEMOl!W. PARK PAC"K:ll MAUSOl.EliM
IW«:llO PAlOO VEllOES, CAklFOflNJA
Wl#tl'°'': , .. s
16'-0" Setback Shown
Along with Note
Below Ground Burials
Stop at the 16' Une
Public Correspondence - 142
Internments In Mausoleum violate Condition 6
Public Correspondence - 143
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.)
17.60.050 Fondinos and cond 1Uons .
A. The p nn1n9 co~n. may grent 1 condeionat use permd, only 1f 4 f"1dt .
1 Th at the so is adequate 1n size and thape to accommodate the proposed use and for at of lite yards , setback$. wa fences . IOndS<:aPW19 and other
leeturn roquno by lltis telt or by cond4JOns "'llOHd under this section to Wltegrate Hiii use wch those on od;ocent land and wChWI the nelghborftood ,
2 Th at tne stte fo r the propoud use relOtn to s1ree11 and highw ayt sufhcltnt to cony the type •nd qu ent«y of traffic generated by lite subject use ,
~ Tna t. 1n •PPrO•lnO the subject uu at tht apec.fiC IOcatJon thtrt w l b« no t19n1foc:1nt adverse effect on ad)lcent property or !ht permitted uu thereo f,
Tha t tne proposed use is no t contrary to the venerol plan ,
hat, 1! the H e of the pro~ed use is wt111n any of !ht oveney control distncts nlab hed by Ch •plcr 17 40 (Oveney Control Dis tricts ) of tnis lllt. the
proposto use compits w«h II appablt requremtnta of tntt chlpttr. and
6 That conocions regord1ng any of the roquomtnts led 1n tn11 paragropn . which the l)llnninv conmssion finds to be necess ary to protect the neath, u fe ty
and genere t welfare , nave bttn ll1'4'0Hd
a Setbaeb ond buffers ,
D. Fences or w alls .
Lign 11ng:
veni<:uoar Ingres• and egress ,
lloise . >!Orat ion . odors ono omoar ell'lst10ns :
Landscaping ,
I 11nten1nce of Jtructuru. grounds or signs ,
Servi<:e ro ods or alleys ; and
Su"1 otner coM110n111 w• moke pntlDlt oevolOpment of tne ~in en orderly ono efhclent manner and in conformry wtn tne intent ano purpous
HI fo"h In tilis tCJe
As a result, the CUP Revision wasn't In compliance with City Code
Public Correspondence - 144
These are quotes about the Revision complying with the RPV
Municipal Code for granting a CUP. Quotes are dlrectlyfrom 2/27/07Stmt
Report
"With approval of the original Master Plan , adequate setbacks for mausoleum buildings
and ground Interments were established. These setbacks wfll not be modified or reduced
with the additional mausoleum buildings." (In reference to compliance with section 1 of
prior slfde)
"The additional bufldlngs requested through the revision include additions to the already
approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However, they wfll continue
to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site. rather than along Its
perimeter" (In reference to complfance with section 1 of prior slide)
"Thus. the setbacks and heights of all proposed Improvements wfll be consistent with
the requirements established by the prior Master Plan as approved through
Resolution No . 91-7 " (In reference to compliance with section 1 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 cemeterv site." (In reference to compliance with section 3 of prior slide)
Public Correspondence - 145
The First photo ls the Orlgtnal Resolutlon 91-7. The Bottom as Revised
b. S tbaeka for ·~b~ve ground t
to mauaoleUJDe (except the :a!~~~~!e:, inc11udin9 but not limit d
b a follows: au 0 um} and crypta shall
North -80' l · . wh1'~ho! no ~ o1er than the northern perimeter road ...... v r u greater. · /
South -40'
E at • 25'
Weat -S'
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 :
South :
East: 25'·0 '
West: 5'·0 '
The setback change lnvalldated the CU P's compllancewlth City Code
Public Correspondence - 146
RED Ar e a s: A bov e G ro und Stru c tures . G REE N Ar eas: Be lo w G round Int e rnments
No above Ground Structure Approved Jn Front of Vlsta Verde
In 1991.
Vista Verde Property Llne
40 '-80 ' Setback
Be low Ground Internments Above Grou nd Structu re
Public Correspondence - 147
Summary:
-Green Hllls Is currently in 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 gives the 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 (In direct reference to compliance
with RPV Codel7.60.0SO(A) 1-6) that "setbacks weren't being
modified or reduced" with the Master Plan Revision were
Inconsistent with the subsequent setback change to
condition 7 (80' to 8 '). This directly vlolates section 1 and
section 3 of RPV Municipal code for issuing a CUP. As a result,
the CUP permit wasn 't issued in compllancewlth City Code.
(Grading permit may not have been In compliance either)
Public Correspondence - 148
Public Correspondence - 149
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Matt Martin < matthewhmartin@yahoo.com >
Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:33 PM
Doug Willmore; CC
Letter for November 17th Green Hills Agenda Item Part 4
NOVCCLetterPart4.pdf
Part 4 of my letter for the 11 /17 /15 CC meeting on Green Hills
Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------This message and any attached
documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected
by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
1 Public Correspondence - 150
Attachment K
Powerpoint Presented in October 2014
Details CUP Violations for Height and Incorrect representation by Green Hills
Public Correspondence - 151
What was approved by the
Planning Commission isn't
what was built ...
Public Correspondence - 152
Building and Grade elevations per
Blueprints at the City of RPV ...
Public Correspondence - 153
The Mausoleum is 5. 0 Sft higher
than permitted per COA #3 8 of the
CUP
• COA # 38 states the following :
"With the exception of the mau soleum bu i lding on Inspiration
Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20-feet in height as
measured from the average ele vation of the fini s hed grade at the front
of the building to the highest point of th e 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 Grad e at front of structure :
(l 94.00 + 189.82)/2= 191.91ft
• Highest Point of Structure per Building Height Certific at ion : 216.96fy
• 216.96ft -191.91 ft =25.05ft(Maximum of 20ft allowed per the COA #38)
• The Mausoleum is 5.05ft higher than allovved per condition #38 of the
CUP
:.~--~/ "
Public Correspondence - 154
M2 5' from lowest point of
adjacent grade to
highest point of mausoleum"
Cf"-!• fHW ROJ\l)WAV
SCH EMAT IC. SI TE SECTION I li'IEST JllllN$
J '11 .\Jff I OIU J IM
ut(lil i H fl lC I·
j'l,fl.klOR ..
'"~'''!\(,
l ,\\ll'U ""
•-·--.
' .
MAS f Eft 06 VH .o r,,,, ·Nr Pt AN
ClR6 6N fl LS !IP.MMIAI. PARK
111\NC liO PAL OS VE RDES , CAllFOl\NIA
A ..uf\'H XQo' .
MAS IEfl """ AllEA 11
MFMOR1Al fl;HA..Ce w esr WINO
11 ·D
4
Public Correspondence - 155
Mausoleum is 2. 1 4ft higher than
allowed per Master Plan Revision
Booklet
• Lowest point of adjacent grade: 1 89.82ft
• Highest point of structure per building height
certification: 21 6.96ft
~ 216.96ft - 1 89.82ft = 2 7 .14ft (Maximum of
2 Sft according to Master Plan Revision
Booklet)
• The Mausoleum was built higher than allowed
according to this measurement as well
Public Correspondence - 156
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
6
Public Correspondence - 157
Exi sting Grade shown as dotted line .
Mauso l eum Height doesn't exceed it
I True Existing Grade
NJWAV
SCHEMAT IC S ITE SECTION I li'ICST l'lllNcS
) 1otll \KT 1 nun 1 ~'(
\M( 111 111 II #I
l \fl'tll1'\ .. 1;ii ,"'"'" 1,\\IN \11
MASI ll tlhVkl.OI Nf PIJ\N
Rr, N IHlLS MEMOAIAl,PARK
11ANCHO ''Al.OS vono s, C/1Llf011111A
JIM'r»,...,
W<.0
No retaining wall here
MA S rrn PIAN AJ1£A "
Mf RIA L fFARi\CPWE81 W1 N\l
11 ·D
7
Public Correspondence - 158
Notice height of Mausoleum
doesn't exceed existing grade -.
True Existing Grade
MllX . BUIL OINO ll T.
.•
EXIST ING GR AD -
~ .· ~,·
SC.HEMATIG S ITE SECTION
NEWGRAOE
.·
.·
- -OU Tl INE OF MAUSOLEUM
/
8
Public Correspondence - 159
The western pre -existing grade was extremely
misrepresented in the 2007 Master plan revision book l et.
It wasn't 40ft tal l with a 45 degree slope ... not even c l ose!
Pre -ex isting grade was FLAT in
front of Vt ta Verde
Grade was raised b y at least 1 4 ft
west of Mauso l eu m
9
Public Correspondence - 160
Master Plan Revision Booklet Incorrect ly states a "net cut" grading plan
West of Mausoleum . Makes It appear as If Mausoleum was being bu i lt
into an existing hill
Tons of
Dirt
brought in .
Land raised
by approx .
14ft i nthts
areal
10
Public Correspondence - 161
Row of internment s placed too close
to property l ine
Grade wa s raised by approximately
l 4ft to the west of the Mausoleum.
Pre existing grade was level with
the road -------
Mausoleum al so was bui lt higher
approved by the Planning
The Mausoleum wasn 't built into
a Hill
II
Public Correspondence - 162
Attachment L
Ray Frew's Quote from Daily Breeze Article Published on 7 /30/14
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20140730/lomita -condo -residents -object-to-new -rooftop -
burial -ground -at -green -hills -memorial -park
Public Correspondence - 163
Frew said he is open to discussing the possibility of the cemetery buying out the condos that are most
impacted by rooftop funerals, but that an outright ban "would be like taking an asset that I built vdth (the
dty's) permission and saying I can't sell it."'
Public Correspondence - 164
Attachment M
Letter to PC date Aug 61h, 2014
Public Correspondence - 165
From: Matthew H. Martin
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,
August 6, 2014
Based upon research into the 2/27/07 and 4124107 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
~· A copy of the 2/27/07 Staff Report as \Nell as the videos from both meetings are
available on the RPV \Nebsite. 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 wlll 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:
h. Setbacks for ab~ve ground structure . l . I to mausoleums <except the Pacifi ~· inc1 uding but not limited
be as follows: ca auso eurnl and crypts ahall
North -80' or no lo th h , •. ~iIT:,=.:r::·m '· ::; ... :~ ..... " ... "'"···" ,,... .
Shown below is a photo taken from PC Resolution 2007-32 which was passed on 4/24/07:
1
Public Correspondence - 166
7. Setbacks for bove gro und structures , includ ing but not lim ited to mausoleums (exc ept th e
Pacifica Maus leum and th e Mau so leum shown in Area 11 of th e Master Plan Rev isi on)
and crypt s shal e as follow s:
North :
South :
Eas t :
West:
8 ·-o· or no close r than th e northem perimeter road, whichever is grea ter
( -o· fo r the western -mos t portion of th e Mauso leum shown in Area 11 ).
40'-0"
25'·0"
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 cemeterv 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 lin e. 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 :
2
Public Correspondence - 167
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 1991 Master Plan"
doesn't seem to be consistent with adding a 25' tall 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 - 168
Research into this subject also uncovered the following condition in Resolution 91·7 (attached)
·rhe fill rnaterial 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 Bu~ld~n9
Official if any grading occura between October 15 to April 15.
This condition 'NaS 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 'Nasn'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
4
Public Correspondence - 169
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 offamlly 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 llne (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 /Ines, and included condition no. 2b to ensure no above
ground 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 artiflclal/y 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 along 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?
5
Public Correspondence - 170
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 2127107 Staff Report:
"In regards to significant impacts to views from neighboring properties, Staff
believes that the grading will not adversely Impact anv 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 cemeterv 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 cemeterv site that
can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums
being constructed on knolls or hll/tops within the cemetery site."
The Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11was built almost completely above the existing
slope (which may have been illegally raised by 5 feet in the 1980s). The following photo was
6
Public Correspondence - 171
included in the Master Plan Revision submittal on page 11-F. Note that the area is incorrectly
identified as Area 10 on the plans
J \11 '~I 11•1 >1 11'1
1*1111"1!lllt
''"''""'' ...... , ........
1.1\!Nll't
IAUTCflOf Yt:l()lltA .trN.AN
0.f\UNlllLUl l,IL...0.llM,i'AfllC
IWICMOflA lOlvr noo.CAl.f-O'ltl~ __ ,,, ..
11 -F
The bottom right picture in the above figure shovvs the existing grade of v.tiere 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 v.tlere 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 .
7
Public Correspondence - 172
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 w/11 not signiflcantlv adversely affect
the visual relationship nor the views from neighboring properties, and the Master
Plan Revision compiles with this criterion. 11
"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 wll/ retain the existing topographv and wl/I not raise these
areas, with the exception of Areas 5 and 6, which w/11 be fl/led to raise the grade to
be similar to the adjacent grade. However, these areas upon completion wlll retain
a naturally sloping topography common to the other areas of the cemetery site.
Thus, Staff belleves that the Master Plan Revision has been designed to account
for the necessary grading, minimizes disturbance to the natural contours of the
propertv. and ensures that finished contours are reasonably natural. As such,
Staff believes that the Master Plan complies with this criterion. 11
Staff stated that the grading operations for the Master Plan Revision conformed \Nith 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, respectlvelv."
In 2009, planning clearance was given to build a 12' high retaining wall in Area 1/Area11 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 80dBa (this is according to the
Federal Highway Transportation Authority and multiple other resources. I've also measured
80dBa+ 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.
8
Public Correspondence - 173
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 rlghts-of-wav or from other residences. Lastly, the proposed grading
activity wlll 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 .
9
Public Correspondence - 174
-------, .i=;;;;;:::r=\'-;::::===========;::;::=:;;;;;;i:::;;;~I I
I~~~( \
I
I
\
As is shown in prior correspondence for the staff report, Green Hills has many sing le and double
depth internments that are currently placed in violation of their CUP.
According to G ree n Hills Maste r Pla n 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 .
6. Setbacks fo r below ground int erm ent s sites, "Ga rd e
fo llows:
North and South :
Eas t and Wes t:
a·-o· (except the northw est corner betwe e weste rn
property line and main tenance yard , whi ch shall be 16'·0')
0'-0'
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 - 175
M-A
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 1Nestern property line and the maintenance
yard .
11
Public Correspondence - 176
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-B of the Green Hills Approved Master Plan Amendment Submittal from
2007 .
12
Public Correspondence - 177
'~~ ''"'"""''""" 1.1M;1rn1~1,\NAm111
PACH:()/\ MMl.'l1)( UJM
1-8
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 shom where those internments are located
within the Mausoleum in Area 11.
13
Public Correspondence - 178
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 \NOUld 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 4124107 minutes, Schonborn told then -commissioner Jim Knight that
the height of the Mausoleum 1NOuld be measured from the roadway.
Commissioner Knight discussed the plans for the new ma usoleum . He noted that
curre ntly the silhouette shows the ridge line below anything that will block a ·View. His
concern, however, was that as th e grading behind was raised, a new benchmark wou ld
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 cond ition dictates that th e mausoleum not
impair a view, no matter what the height of the structure Is . He stated that the height
wou ld be measured from the roadway , since that Is something that will remain constant.
He stated that would be addressed thoroughly when staff receives an applicatio n and
plans for th e construction of the mausoleum .
14
Public Correspondence - 179
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 ridge line (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 20-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 17.80.090.
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 - 180
Kindest Regards,
Matthew H. Martin
Attachments:
Resolution 91·7
Letter from Henry Jeffries
16
Public Correspondence - 181
Attachment N
Letter to PC date Nov 3'd, 2014
Public Correspondence - 182
From: Matthew Martin 11/3/14
To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commis sion :
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 t he approx. 13ft hill which was created directly west ofthe
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:
1
4
------, ;:::;;;;;;;;~--:;:::::==========~~~:::::;.~! I
~~~( \
...........
I
I
\
The area west ofthe 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 oft he 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 - 183
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 - 184
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
13ft tall hill that was built.
Below is another quote from the
2/27 /07 staff reoort:
retammg wau ana graamg acuvny
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 ofthe building and the 13ft
tall retaining wall.
Public Correspondence - 185
Preexisting grade ...
Another quote from 2/27 /07 staff
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 - 186
j ,,\'T t '\lt rTOl)I) l ~C .
,\ktl trl l1 'Jl Ml-:
1:-0.:IUHOll'-
l'l.\i\\I\(,
l ,\.'ltl">t '.\\>I .
MA TE A Pl.AN AA GA 10
ME MORIA L TQAA ACE MAU SOLEU M
11 -F
As you can see, the preexisting grade
was nearly flat and level with the
road. A 13ft hill exists there today.
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 ofthe 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 - 187
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 - 188
Attachment 0
2003 CUP Revision Application Filed by Green Hills . (Incorrect information provided)
Public Correspondence - 189
RANCHO PAlDS VERDES
APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR:
(Name): _ :J'Ott-,..J ~\<..\...._
(Address): 2-15:b t ~. VJ~pa.~~Address): '"2.-JSO \ "::.· ~!E=JZ..N +,ietJtJ<.
~Mc.\\u 'PA\()S. Vv&P Cc.... '(02.1{"' 'Ren e.be '"'?.~fo::. Vfblrk-i, Cc.... 'lo2-1r-
Phone : Work: ('$1q ~3\ oil\\
Home: (~~ S-3"1. -z.r.1a
Project Description : --'-A-'tl\_,~=.c~==d.,.,""~e.y'"'l.--__ lc'--=e>'--Mr>s-'-"'~'-'--'-CL=-><i>LLl""'~""'.:-i~-------
Lot & Tract Number:----------------------
Current Zoning: ---~~"'"~c:~n~a._"1_,__Vs,.?.. _______________ _
I
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.
Square footage of lot or parcel.
4 . Square footage of existing lot coverage [line 1 + line 2].
5 . Percentage of existing open space . (100% -(lino 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 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD I RANCHO PALOS VERDES , CA 9027 5·5391
PLANNING /CODE ENFORCEMENT: (310) 544 -5228 BUILDING : (310) 541-7702 DEPT. FAX : (310) 544-5293
PR INTED ON RECVClEO PAPER
Public Correspondence - 190
8. Square footage of proposed new floor area.
A. First Story =
B. Second Story=
5-ee ".\~ 9. Square footage of proposed new structure footprint.
P.~C.\\-11 0
10. Square footage of driveways and parking areas.
11. Square footage of new lot coverage [line 1 + line 9 + line 1 O].
12. Percentage of new open space [100% ·(line 11 divided by line 3)].
GRADING INFORMATION
Are any of the following conditions proposed? _:6_ 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 thH project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right·of-way or
public drainage structure? __ N_o _________ _
If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
construc:tion permits.
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development:
Burden of Proof Statements
1. E:xplain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use.
Public Correspondence - 191
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.
3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no
significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use
thereof.
___ e,,:;::;~:..;:_:, _ _;_r-_-=o=-...J--..!.:tJ'--'~""\"""""S\.\C'-~J_:!L=-.._> ------------------
4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
Jk~:>c: _ _::>e<. l'...l."'tz? !il< ~IL 5e.11,......_,t\eJ l\e.ru.Wdt
-------·-------------------------------
REBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials
s m' ith this application are true and co
of Applicant/Contractor
Dated: ~J.J.f.v.~-----
and
CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL:
I UNDERSTAND that in order to perform work in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, a business license must be obtained from the City's Finance Department
prior to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division. __ _
(initials)
Staff Signature
W:\Forms\Plng\apps\Condilional Use Permlt.doc updated 7/01
Page 6
Public Correspondence - 192
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has complied 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 perlodlcally. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.S(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
RWQCB CASE STREET ADDRESS CURRENT Use FORMER USE CASl!NO, STATUS
3860 CREST ROAD FAA radar site Same R·13308 Closed
5656 CREST ROAD Demolished Unocal service station !·06500 Open
5837 CREST ROAD Cai. Water offices Same R-0!~395 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 l-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 & Chevron service station R-14832 Closed
32508 Seawolf Drive)
6600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Partially demolished Marineland and Texaco R-01409 Closed
service station
31200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Unocal service station Same H:l074 Closed
27501 WESTERN AVENUE Green Hills Memorial Park Same R-12803 Open
29421 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 lli2!; contained on the Cal/EPA lists,
please certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied 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 I Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275·5391
Planning & Code Enforcement Divisions: (310) 544·5228 I Building Division: (310) 541-7702 /Department FAX: (310) 544·5293
www.palbsverdes.com/rpv
Public Correspondence - 193
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT
If the development project and any alternatives proposed In this application S!@ contained on the CAL/EPA lists, please
complete the following statement.
1. NameofAppllcant: G<~ ..... ~ll~ ~w-.i;v..J\ 'rML1
2. Address: Z.1~~\ S,. \J-t<V>\..Ji.-.. A111 1<f J
3. Phone Number: Day~ -.S3'L '2:;C...lf'. ____ EvenlngL.J-___ _
4. Address of Sit<: (Street name and number if available, and ZIP code):
'2.,')~\ <, I l>J.o.-i~ ~A_
5. Local Agency (City/County): _L.._o_'> _k-.'-'---NV-+--l e_>'----"G.,=-.,.__\:::_,-\1 __ :h-"'-'>t..c.'-'--
6. Assessor's Book, Page, and Parcel Number: ____ • ____ •
7. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962. 5 of the Government Code:
8. Regulatory Identlflcatlon Number: __ ?-~~' U0 __ 9 __________ .
(Signature) (Date)
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
I have consulted the lists complied 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.S(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.S(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\Plng\mlsc\Hazardous Waste & Substances Statement.doc
Public Correspondence - 194
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDr
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING A VICINITY MAP AND Pt<OPERTY 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 pmpared by a Title
Company or other professional mailing list preparation service. The malling labels must be certified as accurate by the
agent preparing the malling list. Attached Is a list of firms that provide services in preparation of vicinity maps and certified
malling 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) 544-5228.
VICINITY MAP
The purpose of the vicinity map is to clearly show all properties within the required radius of the subje1ct 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 <m 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 W' 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 no! provide this service. The
Assessor's office located at 500 W. Temple Street, Room 205. Los Angeles. CA 90012. Office hours are B:OO am to 4:30
pm Monday-Friday. The telephone number is (213) 974-3441.
Assigned Lot l.D. Number
Property Owner Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
W:\Forrns\Plnglmlsc\V\cinlty.doc
SAMPLE M ILING LABELS
[
~a~ld Jackson ~alcolm Hill . J
773 Graylog 4117 Greenwood Meadow
-~~02?5 Torrance,<~,~~
SAMPLE VICINITY MAPS
"Adjacent Properties"
Public Correspondence - 195
Map Makers, Ownership Listing Services & Title Companies
that may prepare radius maps and mailing lists
1. Angeles Planning Group
5515 York Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90042
(323) 259-3573
(Ownership Listing Service}
2. Blue En13rgy
P.O. Box 3:305
Palps Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
(310) 465-1825
Attn: Natalie Kay
(Ownership Listing Service}
3. G.C. Mapping
711 Mission Street, Suite 'B'
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(626) 441-1080
Attn: Gilbert Castro
(Ownership Listing Service}
4. Kimberly Wendell
P.O. Box 264
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
(562) 431-9634
(562) 431-6175-FAX
(Ownership Listing Service}
5. Nieves & Associates
115 S. Juanita Ave.
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:IFormslPlng\mlsc\MapMakers,OwnershlpLlstlngSrvs,Tllle
Companies.don (Updated 9/17102)
7. Westcoast Mapping
5147 W. Rosecrans
Hawthorne, CA 90250
(310) 973-4619
(Ownership Listing Service}
8. Commonwealth Land Title Company
801 N. Brand Blvd
Glendale, CA, 91203
(818) 552-7000
Data Pro
Attn: Michael Higgerson
(800) 568-7104
9. Southland Title Corporation
7530 N. Glenoaks Blvd., 2nct Floor
Burbank, CA, 91504
(310) 603-0191
10. Lawyers Title Company
251 So. Lake
Pasadena CA, 91101
(800) 347-7800 x395
11. JPL Zoning Services, Inc.
6257 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 101
Van Nuys, CA 91401-2711
(818} 781-0016
Attn: Maria Falasca
Public Correspondence - 196
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\Plng\misc\Certlficallon of Property Owners' Mailing List.doc
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD/RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275·5391
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT: (310) 544-5226 BUILDING: (310) 541-7702 DEPT. FAX: (310)544·5293
PRINTED ON RECYCt.E:D PAPER
Public Correspondence - 197
APPENDIX H
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To be Completed By Applicant)
Date Filed:
General Information
1. Name and address of developer of project sposor:
e;.,5a\i.,J 1-h\\:.. M!l/I.\.• n...10.·.\.. ?M,,'"-
2. Address of project:
z.-r.<;,.a 1 s. w~f!;;(\,.J ~-..Je:~..;11...
Assessor's Block & Lot No. ---------------------
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be conta ted concerning this
project: ;Ji> 1\-\<.~ c.. "'$tu ~-z...... ~ '2..b \B 8'!. I c.l i;1 l
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains:
Otl~
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.~t"'A---11r-----------------
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):
Q..<v.\~k'-\ -~Q.;~1,. c<'-twM.:fll,_j &iMt'l1"1~
Project Description
8. Site size. 12..\ + -A..<:...~
9. Square footage.
10. Number of floors of construction.
11. , Amount of off-street parking provided.
' 1
Public Correspondence - 198
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).
Yes No
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches,
or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours.
v
22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas v'
or public land or roads.
23. Change in patter, scale or character of general area of project. V'
24. Significant amount of solid waste or litter. L
25. ChangE1 in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. V'
26. Change in ocean, by, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, V'
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. L
2
Public Correspondence - 199
29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammables or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire,
water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially Increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oll, natural
gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Environmental Setting
33.
34.
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.
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 c rect t the st of my
knowledge and belief.
-z,\ '~ Io"")
Date
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for
initial studies.)
W:\Fonns\Plng\misc\Environmental Info Fonn -Appendix H.doc
3
Public Correspondence - 200
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 - 201
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.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
-
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation 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 th1~ 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 potentlally significant effocts (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.
2
Public Correspondence - 202
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-spedflc 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
mea.sures 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 al 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 list 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,
3
Public Correspondence - 203
lssuas and Soppenlnu 1n11rmau1n saurcas SDDICDI Potaadaltv PlleBUallV lHS'lllBB No
Slanmcant s11nmcan1 Slanmcant Impact
1na11 Dal au Impact
MldUIUID
1nuraorated
1. UIMD lllSE AltD PUIMNllllll. Wlllllld U11111r1111ml:
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 ager,cies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be Incompatible with existing land use In the vicinity?
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)?
2. PIPllATIDll AllD HDllSlllll. waolll lhD PrBllHBI:
a) Cumulatively exceEid 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?
3. GEOLOGIC PROEILEMS. Would the proposal result In or expose people to potential Impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking? I I I
4
Public Correspondence - 204
1sso111 llDd so11111R11nu lnfrsnnaUH saarc111 sources PDIGDdallJ PalaadallV lunlban No
Slanmcaat lluamcant l!anmcant Impact
llllDS BnlDll llllPlCl
Nldaadan
1nca111aratad
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
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 I I I I and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c) 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
body?
5
Public Correspondence - 205
Issues and S11pp111rt111111n1111rm11111n seurces SOllCH Pa1t1U1llv r11oau111v lHSTIIH No
s11amcan1 s1uamcan1 s11amcan1 Impact
llSIH lfDIDn 1m1act
llllUIBl!Dn
lncamorated
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water I I I 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 rrom 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 I I I volume of storm water runoff?
I) A significantly environmentally harmful Increase In erosion of the project
sile 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) Harm to the biological integrity or drainage systems and water bodies?
6
Public Correspondence - 206
Issues and s1111111nt1nu 1111111rmat1en smurces SDBrcus PGIHUlllV POIOllllUV lea1b1n No
111nmcan1 111amc1Rt 11unmcan1 Impact
1a111 u111a IOIUBCI
llllUallllon
1aca111aratad
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 I I I I 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 I I I
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7
Public Correspondence - 207
1ssu111 and Supp11ru1111 1n1111rm111U11111 Sources saarcas Pt!HUDllV PallldlllV lOlllllaR No
s1uu111can1 Slanlncant s1un1nc1n1 Impact
llldDS Inion 1111UCI
Mldaallld
1nco111ara10d
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
birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. i1eritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? I I I
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be 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,
chemicals or radlalion)?
b) Poss Ible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
8
Public Correspondence - 208
ISSHS and SllPPllH'llD!l lnfcmnauen Sllll'HS SIDICBS PDIOBURllV POIODUlllll lOUTblD No
s11nlftcan1 s11alftcant ll11lftcant Impact
IUIBI Ualau 1a1pac1
MIUDaUan
1nca111aratod
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health I I I I I hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health I I I I I hazards?
l I I e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass l I of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? I I I I I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? I I I I I
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or 11ltered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? I I I I I
b) Police protection? I I I I I
c) Schools? I I I I I
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?. I I I I I
e) Other governmental services? I I I I I
9
Public Correspondence - 209
Issues and Suppartlnu lnfarmauen SGUrces soarces Pateauanv POl8DUlllV lonnan No
11unmcan1 s11nmcan1 stanlncant Impact
lnaas IDllU 1muc1 wnuaauon
ldCD!llD!aled
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? I I I I I
b} Communications systems? I I I I I
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? I I I I I
d} Sewer or septic tanks? I I I I I
e) Storm water drainage? I l I I I
f) Solid waste disposal? I I I I I
g) Local or regional water supplies? I I I I I
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? I I I I I
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? I I I I I
c) Create light or glare? I I I I I
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? I I I I I
b) Disturb archaeological resources? I I I I I
10
Public Correspondence - 210
IUHS &nd SDl!IP11111lng IDllllmtllllliln S111r1:111s Smcos PataadallV POIOBlllllV l3d1llon No
s1unmcan1 s11amcan1 s1a1mcan1 Impact
Issues In Ins llDUCl
lilldUDllDn
lnc1111ar11od
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 p1·oposal:
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 - 211
1ss11111 and s11pp1ru11u 1111ermaue11 Smuraes soarcas PDIHdDllY PDIODUlllY IOUlblD No
111nmcan1 Slantneant s11nmcan1 Impact
Ina as 1n1ass Impact
MhlaadDB
IDCD!llGlllad
---
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 prc!:Jable future projects)
·-· Explain htire ·-·
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 15063 (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 projecl.
12
Public Correspondence - 212
Issues and su1111111rt1n11 lnl11rm11111n s111urcas Searces PDIGDdDll» PllGDdlllV lUITblD No
s11amcan1 SIDRIDcanl s11nincan1 Impact
ISSDBI URIHS IDIDICI
MldURdDD
IDCllDOf818d
-·· 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 1s complete; material may shift forward and the
Header may be needed---
W:\Forms\Plng\misc\Environmenlal Checklist Form -Appendix I.doc
13
Public Correspondence - 213
STO" M WATER IPL.ANNIN PROGRAl\11
PRIORITY PROJECT CHECKLIST ~ ~
NCHO PALOS VERDES
P~Nime--~~~-04wloporNime _______ _
(2.<a<a.1--l \-\--\\> -----!~"""-"'=--''-'-'"-'\\-"'~-'~~-=ua..1~L __ <;,~~-----· tojtt\ Dilvelopet Addrm "2--i~"l,:i l S. W<i>>~A.>t-l ~.J <... 'Z. S. oiu.k.,...~L---·-·" ··-----------1
<R~·:,.\,,~ <-'ajo) If u,&,..,, (....._ ~ ... \-. 0 (>~V~J.>.. ~':::::-
chocil/Tl'lictNufl\bel OM'!trPt\On11
'----------------"-1.'~o-'-'&=3~! _o_~~u _____ .......... _________ __,
Part 1 • Type of Project -· Does the proposed project fall Into one of the following categories? Yes No
1) Ten or more unit homes, including single and multiple family homes, condominiums, apartments etp.* v'
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 v --.
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) y
8) Redevelopment projects as defined on back* v
9) Project located In, adjacent to or discharging directlyfo an ESA (defined on back) AND creates 2,500* . v
square feet or more of Impervious surface area ~~~~Jf,i~-K1
If any of the boxes in Part 1 Is checked 'Yes", this project will require the prep~ration 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 propose d project Include any of the following elements? .. ________ , _________
1) Vehicle or equl pment fueling areas (retail or private)
2) Vehicle or equi pment maintenance areas, Including repair or washing
3) Commercial or Industrial waste handling or storage
4) Outdoor handli ng or storage of hazardous materials
5) Outdoor manuf
B}Outdoor food h
acturing areas
andling or processing
7) Outdoor anlma I care, confinement, or slaughter
8) Outdoor hortlcu lture activities
..
·----
-------
-
Yes
,.,...
v
No
,,,
r' .,,,
v
../
.,-'
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 Parts 1 and 2 are both checked "Yes", a combined urban atonnwater plan will need to be submitted.
Applicant Name App/leant Title Date
cc: One copy of document to Public Works
Public Correspondence - 214
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 Area!l (ESAf) means an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either
rare or especially valuable because o their special nature or role in an ecosystom 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 - 215
SlvRM WATER PLANNING PR\J~RAM
, PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
NCHO PALOS VERDES
Project Name IC.zi?eey...I IJ,.\.h_ N..<W O n..w.f P.c.n \ <....
Project Location -~@.ec:,_i l-J.\~-2.,Sl> I S. lllllbfw. ~e I<. P{.
Company Name bi2«"1 Hvil~ ~--·~·
Address _'"::".'":.71 J '> · ~i> • ._! ~..ot
General Project
Certification
Contact Name I Title _1?:.~-~· 'R~.£~------·-
Phone I FAX/Email-~---"°?.~.\ I
A completed original of this form must
accompany all SUSMP 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), ewe§ 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
comp let
Tille Date
Post Construction I 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 wlll 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 Date
gna ory requ remen :
Thie aoctlon •hall be elgnod by the landowner. If the landowner Is not an Individual, the signatures may be from a corporate officer, a manager II the
authority to elgn has been delegated to the manager, a general partner, or a sole proprietor.
Public Correspondence - 216
------------------------------····-----·------.
Plann .. J Best Management Practic .
BMP Name BMP Identification No. Check if to
and Name be used
Car Wash Faclllty SC3, Vehicle and Equipment Washing and
Steam Cl0anina .
Constructed Wetlands TC3, Constructed Wetlands
Control of lmoeivlous Runoff Not aoollcable
Efficient lrrlaatlon Not aoolicable
Energy Dissipaters ESC40, Outlet Protection
Extended Detention Basins TC5, Extended Detention Basin
lnflltratlon Basins TC1, Infiltration
Infiltration Trenche!l TC1, Infiltration
Inlet Trash Racks Not applicable
Landscape Design ESC2, Preseivatlon of Existing Vegltatlon;
ECS10, Seeding and Planting; ESC11, / Mulching
Linings for Urban Runoff
Convevance Channels
Not applicable
Materials Management SC5, Outdoor Loading/Unloading of
Materials; sea, Outdoor Container,
Storage of Liquids; sea Outdoor Storage
of Raw Materials, Products and Bv·Products
Media Filtration TCa, Media Filtration ~
Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing SC2, 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 sea, Outdoor Container Storage of
Liquids; sea, 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 Washini;i. Steam Cleaning, Cleaning; SC4, Vehicle and Equipment / Maintenance, Repair, or Material Maintenance and Re8alr; SC7, Outdoor
Processing Process Equipment ioerations and Malnt.
Storm Drain System Stenciling and SC30, Storm Drain Systems Signs
Sianaae
Trash Container Areas SC9 Waste Handllna and Disoosal
Veaetated Swales and Strips TC4, Bio-Fiiters v'
Wet Ponds TC2, Wet Pond
Please refer to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks for more information.
Public Correspondence - 217
~fVf..\\\tC \~ 'l ?..'iJ'iJ;i ;~~\C\ \)
. \.. . \.'>\\\\_\)\~ ':\
\'\l'<\\\\121, 11-Ci\'.~t.~
'(\_I' t. t.~l'Cl
:!,, r:.,CJ\) • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
GRADING APPRO~ APPLICATIQN
NUMBER# 21o3 -0d()tf~
APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR:
G1~E:§'J t+db l\.~;ew-.oa..tA-~ ~'2.-\c....
(Name)
.,-,--"2:_'.")-'-<;;'2)-= . I I £:. WC'~~te..N ~-J_li?._N-'\)_Q.-'------
(Address)
\<~ o P-R/01 Ve,,.,c&..
Telephone: Home ~IU) li=~ l t.is I 1
LANDOWNER:
Gf2@ev-J l±ll\~ ~M,M.1&=:\ Ge>Ns
(Name)
?... "1 ~'lJ \ ~. (>.;€.) ~ v;y>L. \<.~d... ~ b~ V ~
(Address)
Telephone: Home Work ____ _
Lot and Tract No: --------------~----
Project Location: C,n@.A.. lill ~ Q..esvt,£...
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 - 218
5. Square footage of driveways and parking areas.
B. Square footage of lot.
7. Percentage of existing open space.
8. Percentage of open space after development.
Grading lnformajioQ:
Lot Type: Pad ---Upslope __ _ Downslope ___ _
_____ 1. Maximum depth of cut.
_____ 2. Total cubic yards of cut.
10, oocJ A Under the building (excluding footings).
____ B. Outside of building footprint.
_____ 3. Maximum height of fill.
'3fz:> (
°?iD\
..J//>o.
/
,_;/~
I
,.i(A
I
'f To 1
4. Total cubic yards of fill.
____ A Under the building.
____ B. Outside of building footprint.
5. Total volume of earth to be moved.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
____ A. Under the building (sum of lines 2A & 4A).
____ B. Outside of building footprint (sum of lines 28 &
48).
Maximum percentage of created slopes.
Total average slope of site.
Maximum height of downslope retaining wall .
Maximum height of upslope retaining wall.
Maximum percentage grade of driveway.
Maximum percentage of existing slope.
Page 7
Public Correspondence - 219
Does the project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way
or public drainage structure? t1<> . 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? tJo . 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 qonform 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.
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 to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division.
Dated:
Staff Signature:
Date Received:
W:\Pu1nu\Plng\<l.pp1\GRADINGAPP.doc
6130199
Gne<!N /-h,/(, A{~d fl_\-.
Signature of Landowner
Dated: __ :-{~t_ei+(u~2----
Page 8
Public Correspondence - 220
Southern California Rei.Iona._! O_ffl_ce __________________ ·------
36T1 south Harbor Boulevard Clayton
Suite 260
Santa Ana, CA 92704 ENVIRONMENTAL
(714) 431-4100
Fax(714JB25-o6a5 CONSULTANTS
January 26, 2000
Mr. John Resich
Attorney at Law
840 W. 9th Street
San Pedro, CA 9D73 l
HECEIVED
Eb l q 2003
:'i.1\Nl•JING. flUIUJING,
:" COf)[ FNFOnCEMENT
Clayton Project No. 80-98248.00
Subject: S:.1ecifications to Complete Finn! Cover per Remedial Action Plan
R1~quirements for Green Hills Memorial Park, Rancho Palo1; Verdes,
C.11ifomia
Dear Mr. Resich
Per your request, Clayton reviewed the Revised Remedial Action Plan, Green Hills
Memorial Park, ·:o determine the requirements approved by the Los Angeles County FiJ'e
Department regHding the final grade on the former "East Pit" located in the undeveloped
portion of Greer; Hills Memorial Park. As you may remember this portion of the site was
covered with an impermeable membrane and perimeter drain system to pn:vent runoff
water from running through the soil underneath the membrane.
Page 6-6 of the :.pproved Revised Remedial Action Plan states that "the lirter will be
covered with crnshed concrete or similar site derived material, if suitable, and a 10-foot
(estimated) buffor of clean soil will be added as cover material."
In addition, pag~ 2 of Appendix B (Proposed Grading for Remedial Action Plan prepared
by Smith-Emer:1 GeoServices) of the Soil Remediation Report for the Sout/zem
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,
1 // . A j . :JU .x...-.~-5
!!.. ' arfu'ia
roject Engineer
Environmental Risk Management and Remediation
Southern California Regional Office
llLOSA_NWOI •DAT" IEnr.r•-i;;~.w,;n~~t~~~~~(!.;fulrat,fTri!JJ1Siiion of Clayton Group Servlc0., Inc.
Atlanta • Boston • Chicago • Cleveland • Danbury • Oelrolt • Honolulu • Indianapolis • Los Angeles • Miami
Minneapolis • Ne\\' York • Phlladelphla • Portland • Rockford • San Francisco • Savannah ' Seattle ' Wichita
Public Correspondence - 221
GRJEJEN
~HUJS
MEMORIAL PARK
Joel Rojas
Director of Planning
Building and Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275
February 18, 2003
Re: Master Plan Amendment and Remedial Grading
RECEIVED
FEB 1 9 2003
PLANNING. BUILDING,
.~ CODE EN FORCE MENT
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 footprint s 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 - 222
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 nmoffafter the partial completion of the remediation of the
site. Since I 0 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 - 223
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 ofRolling 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 ofLARWQCB 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 - 224
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Department
Febrnary 19, 2003
Page Four
A Radius Map and Properiy 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 22cpXtubic 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 of220,000 and for Buildings of?0,000 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.
~j?Y~-C/~c~
Chairman of the Board
Green Hills Memorial Park
Public Correspondence - 225
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com>
Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:35 PM
Doug Willmore; CC
Letter for November 17th Green Hills Agenda Item Part 5
NOVCCLetterPart5.pdf
Part 5 of my letter on Green Hills 11/17/15 agenda item
Please confirm that all files were received
Thanks
Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------This message and any attached
documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected
by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments.
1 Public Correspondence - 226
Attachment P
2005 CUP Revision Application Filed by Green Hills. (Incorrect information provided)
Public Correspondence - 227
RANCHO PALOS VERD ES
PLANNIN G, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT
GRADING APPRO ~PPLICATION
NUMBER# /.,/J(}~ -tltJoe0>
APPLICAN T/CONTRACTOR:
'J?A(.l.rZ>-f C,,. pvO~foALJ/(. / _j, ~TJtl-n.:r \ooo, INC..
(Name) I I
'l ct I '1 N t;v~ritJ
(Address)
V f'.l<(A.Kt;. T)? 1 1? 2 l j
Telephone : Home Work 11.:j .1?'2.Z. l-f-0 ?3>
LANDOWNER :
GtJ.e-st--1 ~-l'-L'> fv\cM..or4kt.. .PA-f.2..i<-
(Name)
'l 1'?ol <;. i,.J.:c;rcm-l'l ~~ . (2.~ .. ~o.+-o .Pfln...o<> U..,.ILJ).=-<o U.. lo21s
(Address)
Telephone : Home Work ?lo. b:»I · c.>~Ll
Lot and Tract No: --------------------
Project Location : '21 ?o\ S. W .s-c;. -re-12-i-1 f'..-v 2
Project Description : Ce M e '1'en..l MM"<c:a. P,l..10.....\ ~<::.t.J Dlv\.oiSf
General Information :
"?4.? l 1 .
';o l 2.
So?..1 ot!.l f 3 .
( CD.'l P.(;') -,M !OZ-? 4.
( 8 .1 ~c)
Maximum height of project, measured from top to lowest
foundation wall to ridge .
Maximum height of project above finished grade.
Square footage of project. (Building footprint)
If addition, square footage of existing structure (including any
Page 10
30040 HAW1 HO/ING BLVD. / l~CHO l'l>.LOS VE rmrn. C~\ 90275 ·53fll
l'LANNINL;;C00£ ENFORCfMeNT (3 10) 544·5220/Bl!ILOINU1310) 541 ·7702 / DErT ~AX (310) 544·5293 / E·MAI L PLAl"l'<ING®RPV.COM
Public Correspondence - 228
::'.)1 i;> ,1 PO H''-5.
(I\."\ Ac.)
$?.}o 1 &o ___ 6.
(\'1-Lex-e.)
'-~_a-::,"/.,, 7.
'] (p "/,, 8.
Grading Information:
Lot Type: Pad
t.J/!: 8.
I
t-J /A.
I
9.
_>e •;., 10.
-vAP-\ £;..,,;\ 11.
covered or enclosed patios).
Square footage of driveways and parking areas. ( €"/. 1 '>Ti wGi}
"i>CluA<u.· t=OcsrAC,.;; OF r-->n;;w l-'ot>.0:;;/f"M"-';_1t-.1c , l/,100 5.F.
Square footage of lot. ~
Percentage of existing open space.
Percentage of open space after development.
Upslope __ ~
Maximum depth of cut.
Total cubic yards of cut.
Downslope----·
~?I 41p O· "'( A. Under the building (excluding footings).
Lt?~:+ 8. Outside of building footprint.
Maximum height of fill.
Total cubic yards of fill.
'~ 1.2> 'J..'fj'-'-~ A. Under the building.
-2!±,.~. B. Outside of building footprint.
Total volume of earth to be moved.
(1.1~ lie.-)
311, /o? :j_ A. Under the building (sum of lines 2A & 4A).
12~.t.-~t 8. Outside of building footprint (sum of lines 28 &
48).
Maximum percentage of created slopes.
Total average slope of site.
Maximum height of downslope retaining wall.
Maximum height of upslope retaining wall.
Maximum percentage grade of driveway.
Maximum percentage of existing slope.
Page 11
Public Correspondence - 229
Does the project involve any woLlk, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or
public drainage structure? _. ~ o ··-· If so, you must obtain approval from the
Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction permits.
Does the project require any off-site graping (remedial, contour, utilities, etc.) or
stockpile of excavated materials? N() ... 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
-./ 6_-S __ Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which is 120 --:I square feet or more in size and which can be used as a gathering space
and viewing area (i.e., decks, covered patios)?
' I £;:-2_ ___ 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) ves s)e
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 - 230
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.
0n"fffals) _____ '"~
,.ri~r~· {)
si9'tur j Applicafv~ontra~tcI----
~-(b._1 c. ?~ op.s-y;.. t.K.
Dated: I · 2.c, . '2.o""ic;
Staff Signature:
Date Received:
W:\Forms\Plng\apps\Grading Application.doc
Revised: 06-24-0:J
Signature of Landowner
Dated:------·
Page 13
Public Correspondence - 231
~Q (,d-
~c~ ."/>~ ,.CITYOF. Rf'..NCHOR\LOSVERDES
"'?. 'o ~c;,. ~ )~"' , ~\)'"'i"'~~ PL.ANNING. BUI LDING, &CODE ENFORCEMENT ~G.· o~c -;__ , .,,,,. f1. o / ~~~~ ~~~ CONDI T IONAL U ~PERMIT APPLICATIO~NO. -~--t;V{).; --O()tJo }e'
(! co<J ~'J\S1 <.rJ lb UJf) I $?
APPLICANT/CON TR ACTOR : LANDOW ER:
(Name): DAf'P...1 C ,'&,ucA"-AL>/( (Name): {2.Mt<:N kt-ilA-'> ll-\.;u oti.1A=<.... PM2-l'-
(Address): J .S~T'T'>l':>f), Jr-J C::. (Address): '2.1"'.Je;>\ s. wa .... T e-cyJ Av -:.
"2.'9 \C\; Wa....~ J 'D~o:., Tx. 'l'=>?.l~ ~NC(:fp f'.lw$ ,;;;--f2..0;::;~, QA.. 1o'2.1~
121 + R.1..j fi:<.GW PP....-<i. 10 ""-iJ°"f
Phone : Work : -( J '2f,'2.,4o?3 Phone: Work : ~~tj ~37.. rzc,, l b
Home : ( ) Home : ( ) ____ _
Projectlocation : '2./?1!:>1 S. W ,;..,.T€it.N Av..;;:-Nu\;
HA-'),'1~ s.n~ PLAN ~eND M~
Project Description : Ct"s-'°t'N th LA.$ l!\ WM o/'2,t A-<-PA-P-r
Lot & Tract Number:----------------------
Current Zoning: __ C-e~"'~M~e-T~E~~-+--(_c,..s_.::;_l..A-..,· )1------------
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Development
S '21 o 1G.o '>F 3.
5.
Square footage of ex is ting structure footprin t (including any
covered or enclosed patios and garage).
Square footage of driveways and parking areas .
Square footage of lot or parcel.
Square footage of existing lot coverage [l ine 1 +line 2].
Percentage of existing open space . [100% -(line 4 divided
by line 3)].
Proposed Development (PLEAS E COMPLETE ONLY IF A NEW STRUCTURE IS
PROPOSED)
6.
7 .
Maximum height of project , measured from the highest point
of existing grade covered by the structure to ridge .
Maximum height of project, measured from the finished
grade adjacen t to the lowest foundation to ridge.
~O!l•O H•IW 1 ll Ol~~E ALVO i l"°'NCHO 11\LO~ \ll:~DES. CA !l02 7~·53nl
l'l >\Ni'lli'l( VLOLJL LNrOll\:t'M[N I (:\1 01 MHill U / l:ll!LOINI ;i:i 101 (id l -7702 / otl' I fAX (110 ) b-14 ·~;>!!:! / E ·M~IL l 'LANNlNLi li'lll'VCOM
Public Correspondence - 232
8. Square footage of proposed new floor area.
A. First Story =
B. Second Story=
9. Square footage of proposed new structure footprint.
j]._;Joo Sf< 10. Square footage of driveways and parking areas.
4
Square footage of new lot coverage [lim(y + line 9 + line 'I OJ.
·12. Percentage of new open space (100% -(line 11 divided by line 3)].
GRADING INFORl\/JATlON,
Are any of the following conditions proposed? v/ 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 w_orQ activity, or encroachment in .. the public right-of-way or
public drainage structure? __ ""----~--------~------------
If so, you must obtain i:ipproval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development:
..• \2•(.\i:.?.IJ':l9 _____ ~~ ~-. ..-2..D.ILQ.!:! ___ Q~.£~-~___A~u :. . .6'::...!:L.-
J~t.'\,,.9.ll>L..l'.4a w-;; ~-~~~~ __ i:::,,,0_~~-_____f':2~ ""R:0~J~c...P.
.ltl_1~:l'.~::!!'8.::l..__~:MSo.Tu(~ _ _J3::'? Af::::i....~ ':iTF)VL L....-------------------~
Burden of Proof Statements
1. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommoclate the use.
JJU~''i_J?J:"'-0.fs-;D>:.;,f)_-~.i.~,_ ___ f;;;;'t;:.~tlfu-,_r-.., ~LDf __ ~L"{Il.J:..K..-;,,_~g'l\::'.L\S'.It.'5(1."'(
_us.e:....__~_Lf'?>.M'd:SS;, __ l\tLCJ.._J:kJC.vi:l...:.Ll-6-t.£\;7 -~rn:~L!::L.~L':{QtJ ~_19q \
_ __A{:i.f'J1:0.Y ~ .. __ J0A:::..:1~Y<::::.A.sN · _____ .. _ .. ~ ... --.. ··---~-------· ---~
Public Correspondence - 233
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.
A,. .. <.. r 0.-Ai"'-l"'i~f-w \,:L6.,, ___ J3,_~--~~j';~iot--"ii..1J ST l ~~)_ s4_£lli!'Y-L~
C-c 1\AEJ:~a.9 'i2.ofs-D1~~¥, fAi<?JSl.bL...~~~--A.-t...o ~-~JL1;, \f iJ ~
f>.-•--J r::; N """-' (~~-lL~_tJ_fuAJ_[?__i)~--~_[<.e_: p rµ,_& __ L"""iJ f.% /2--.
¥:un., e---E 1..1 J::r-\-', CA-.1<..Afl-~ c::--r f2.c-<J LA \1 or--l .
3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no
significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use
thereof.
_L£B.:g_~~-S:f?i ... ef.-o__;i", __ <:.:TS_}~f:::E. ___ C;fj.,__::-("5.'J~':', \ aN_~ d ,,~ (51:)'( ~'.':>\I hJS --
-Ct?ME--f.;;:!?:::_}--V>A~~--·-J':Yr ~1_0_0_ oP __ Jk'.:::o 1 09;,__;,____--1\:tl{_) __ ..J::::6:A'T\Jt<,:i.::~
___ \dilJ.,,1~ __i&_v1,1Q\,f;MEIJT~---l\___,_\A \_IS12-~ A;-c '> __ ~<;;;>----~c..-k:'.::'f,___'._I:;> __ _
8 \1., 4
__ (!:-of~;2&:S" _ ____Q__~i:0.f?.y __ ~ tks·; c-,b·' cf"F--6c"C • ------------------~--------·
4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
_f_)E::,,.,_£'? \ ,;.--:Q ___ __,_"r'\p_,u s;r u~o:s. Ag__._:;-__ k:lE: :;_;, i'c21.t::>.S'2;;LJ~_ ~.£.L'--"' P--f:i----6___"-l.(t;:.-''"
W 1'\W CJ~\ili~ _ __(.'.-o JS ·5:e"'A.Lt1'£'>.~lJ'lL_f:'i,~d__,_J~_uf'-.Jj, __ ~_s,-:-__fi __
H-01>1~-1~1~' _j__? ___ fP~f.:lhlt:::_iJ ~::_: ___ Cif!::___~~NC1 _ffi\,touNI_~ .:c,,'i-~"-'ArhL-f
' \, f;[:: l ;:-H~1 ~JLl?-~A':S~~c,~2>J~:~~i:'JL,K:I_1_~t-J s ___ f\t:}_f}_ ____ v_f"o il\T~ __ sr
-y__ I HERE?BY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials
?~i,j,?fu;;;J?:~:• •::,~o:hrre of LaodowoeC ______ __
'f3A-~t C. r&i...-\C*c'i''"rf; jJ-Slup.-P,.---r:-TI>OP, li.J~.
Date a: ~.&f::l\dA.c£y-_2i;;,,r_::l,,9.:-:_s_ Datecl: --------···""·--·-------------______ _
~CTQRS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL:
I UNDERSTAND that in order to perform work in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, a business license must be obtained from the City's Finance Department
prior to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division. --~-----
(initials)
Staff Signature
W \Forms\Plng\0pp~\ComJit1onnl UtH1 Pcrrnll Ooc updriled 7/01
Pagc6
Public Correspondence - 234
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
llANNING, BUILDING, &CODE ENF{lf~CEMENT
HAZARQOUS WJ\STIE A!ilD SUBSTANCE§ iltilt;ME!'IT
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Gal/EPA) has complied lists of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites for the
entire State of Galifornla. 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.S{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
ll=AODRESS CURRENT USE FORMER USE RWQCB CASE
CASE NO, 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 faclllty Same R-12296 Closed
28103 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD Mobil service station Same R-01504 Open
28732 HIGHRIOGE 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 Shell service station R-36348 Closed
Drive)
6124 PALOS VERDES DRIVE Soun; Fire Station No. 53 Same R-12757 Closed
6560 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Two residences (32504 & Chevron service station R-14832 Closed
32508 Seawolf Drive)
6600 PALOS VERDEil DRIVE SOUTH Partially demolished Marineland and Texaco R-01409 Closed
service station
Unocal service station ----· ::losed 31200 PALOS Vl;lR.D!ls DRIVE Wi:sr Same I-11074
31501 !PALOS VllRD!!S DRIVE WEST Point Vicente Interpretive . U.S. Military rine range N/A Open
Center
-:i.1'501 WESTERN AVf.NUf ·------Green Hills Memorial Park Same R-12803 Open
~,.,._.~,..~~r--' _,
Closed 29421 WESTERN fo.Vf.NU!! Chevron service station Same I-15523
-----·-·~ 29505 Wf.$TERl\l AVl'il\IUE Shopping center Mobil service station R-03558 Open _, ___ ~-~--""'"-~
Shopping center Unocal service station--· R-05958 Closed 29701 WESTlliRl\l AVENUE -
!n the event that the project site and any alternatives proposed in the appllc.atlon are filll contained on the Gal/EPA lists,
please certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed In this applic.atlon are illll contained on
l:hese lists.
Public Correspondence - 235
If the development project and any alternatives proposed in this appllcatlon grg contained on the CAL/EPA lists, please
complete the following statement.
1.
4.
,-,),
6.
Name of Applicant:,_ C'1 (-l.'§s'.:;,-1--.\ _:li.U:h-"'>
Address: . rz ,l 00 \ _ s . (/\\ '";"$ r c:: N
Phone Number: Day ( '310) -<i!?3't • 1,<,, 1 'b
' () u 2 M C> t2.1 A:<...,,____ LA41f.-
A..'1.;;;:_~----------------
_ EvenlngL_J-------
Assessor's Book, Page, and Parcel Number: ___ _
J. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code:
8. Regulatory Identification Number: -~& __ .. _\_"2-=b_o~~~----------------
9. Date of List:
tAk'b'~ ~t'u...<, l--J\;;;,-1'\<ifJ-:A;L,
{Applicant)
fOR STAFF US!1 01\11.. Y
(Date)
I have consulted the lists complied 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)'
ls not included in these llsL~.
Is Included In these lists, and the project applicant has completed the statement required by Section 65962.5(1)
of the Government Code.
ls included in these ltsts, 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.S(f) of the Government Code by
letter dated --·-
Revised Mard11, 2004
W:\Fonns\Plng\mis~\Haiardtiu~ Waste & Substances Statement.doc
Staff Signature
Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement
Page 2 of 2
Public Correspondence - 236
CITY OF F<Al'ICHO PALDS VERDES
1-'l/\NNING, BUILDINC\, &CODE ENFOl~CEMENT
App!k:aitk,n{s) ___ JJ\ l\.F"'"i'.':: .. J?~ ..... 1~.~.!::' .. Q.1:'.L~~L----····-·-·-·····-··· ......
App!ica:rat i\larml _ ...... ?\ i:::~~~~-'" __ \.\t.::.::'.' .... M .;_~:?~;_b.b.. ~~----··------···
Not.ice f{aidius Required _. .... -.......... "'-·~·-·-·-·-.. -·--········· .. ···--·-··--.. ····-··-·----·-·····-·-···· .. --.·
Number of property owners to be notified····---···--3 :!0 ____ (. .. €~~-A TI~~--e__:-4 s. 'T)
I certify that the property owners' mailing list Sltbmltted 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 ? <X.) feet of the subject property noted above. I certify that the
property owners' mailing It's!' 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' list that has been prepared
and certified as accureite by a Title Company or other professional mailing list preparation service, and
the project notice will ha\le to be re-mailed.
W:\Forms\Plnglmlsc\CortillcaUon of Property Owners' Malling Lisi.doc
:Hr1 w : ;.\\'\';I Ki1,~1~· H1\'i.i :' l~·\:':nl( 1 1 }\l; .'': \·t 1;r)~.:·. ~ :1.\ •);P 1 ~, ~)J\n
1:.V\t!li'-11;",11,) \'1;1':·;, :·~1 l:~Ul):l·l·>;,,ng1,;:11 ;,·~HP;l]l !;lf"l l-\\[:rn)\'1.li!;?:l,l/l·i'l·\I! r1 \N1'll~(~1.i/'ki'\('(li·l
Public Correspondence - 237
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To be completed by City Staff)
Date Filed:
(To be completed by applicant)
General Information
APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR
J:;2_trZ.'?l:-j c . ~-y, DC2.s;J"rV)(m ___
Name J.' S'T0,c..(4c -f"<:-,ao, J"-ic.
. __ '.[.."!J:i .... ~~2-'::~~-~L-....... _____ -·
Address
'l)~M .. J:~----=1-~~?::J'J ___________ _
City/State/Zip
~1 1J-:~,4~-~ j~~ Cj~'L~-t'.19.23
Home Phone Work Phone
ProjecUSite Information
Case No.
LANDOWNER
___ CaB:-£l2~ __ J:t:i~~--j~~~.<:.r?:-~ f~z..~.
Name
_ _'lTu_L_S __ ,__~-~'iJ:T'C:~i:r::l ___ -~':'~_'. _________ __
Address
12~ c.-1-\-o 0 "''-"'" U .?O-.o~. CJ+ Tu.1-1 r'"
City/State/Zip
_'fiC22.[?J~O ~LL.. _(~ OJ_fil_i~
Home Phone Work Phone
Address of project: ___ _i_::li:>JlL __ $'_,.Jt:,L~J2.!2Jc::l._~-v .:::l')_Q~-------------------···-------
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:
. _:_JAJ\'l.'.lt:"Y'.'; _'?:;i:;}:~-(~~ A.Y\.1§:£!9~":.'-":l':cs:C ....... lt"'::~-------------·
__ :__ ~r1.A9_1t:::c,1 P.o:--r;,,._Ml_T ..Le:J~:J)__ ...
··-·--·---~----------------·----
Public Correspondence - 238
Environmental Information Form
Page 2
Project Description
Proposed use of the proporty (please provide a detailed description):
.c>'i~~"1.y;;:·_·rfil0cc:.f-.. t~LS:'::.1! .. r;; .1 .• !:-:..<!'1 •. S'.r.~.•J. .. "'1 .. 9 .. \~-~!f;;;,;.6..S.'.'ir-~-"'-'Lii:.:......b.~ .. ?~'.b&Jd:.
L'<.f".~9£ .. M.A0.5."-'> .. \.&b1,'\el,,'.:1, ... ~:G-""~'°'-io.·:r.\.'?,0 __ .u;,1 ... w.a,.r::,i_!".'.,1;;:t}I .. -·~i.,,UL ... .B.w.~.1'.A '-· .
Site Size: ~---·-----------·-··--·-·--·------Project Square Footage:
j::).12.,""1"' ?~ l>.L.o"" 0
Number of floors of construction: L.1.:.:!:? __ Amount of off-street parking provided: WM<oTerz...~ 12..,, l><D-S
Proposed Phasing: .. _$ .. ~~ 5-__ 1::r_.;;:_ ... 2c,,e.N ____________ ....... -.................... _
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&~s=\~~~:e::t-__ b1.G.'.:i .. '! "='<::: ... il?.~~-~LmbM"'. N 9.J;!::."!:_i:!if _9:J.J:°l'~-@:.LS..bf1;;,-o
.. J:·Je>. . .'Ak,,£~-:> ... .i;,,,fy::::_ As: •.. 428: ..... -~~&£.:u.i,,1c;;,,i,, .... E~6<'.'.d.1;.lI.LE~-,,,-· ..... . ...... __ _
If this is an industrial project, please indicate the type of project, estimated employment per shift,
and loading facilities:
............. i::l./k
Public Correspondence - 239
Environmental Information Form
Page 3
If this is an institutional project, please indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project:
If the project involves a City discretionary permit (such as Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or
Zone Change application, etc.) please indicate why these applications are required:
.. -------------------
Are any of the following items applicable to the project or its effects? (for any items checked yes,
please describe why on separate sheet of paper)
YES NQ
__ I<'.'.'.~-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.
_ __L__ 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, lal<e, stream, ground water quality or quantity,
or alteration of existing drainage patterns
"' __ J.:C"_; __ 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 - 240
Environmental Information Form
Page 4
10. Sub'stantially 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 polarold 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
belifil. Q }~~~-x-~: ... _-·_ ---~Ci.Ml:~-~T~t ~QB:,\fb_!d_~
6l1&-ii'.tl-J ~ L-L5_ ___ M~"-~~-p Ml-~------------J_:_u.::_'.?:£'.e.2 ________ _
For Date
Public Correspondence - 241
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 lend use /' in the vicinity'! ...
d) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural y/ community conservation plan?
C---------·-·· ..
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established ,...........
community (Including a low-Income or
minority community)?
Comments:
'f'(.Zc>P o<:. ~-o M /\.'I. '\¢"fl.. P-P<N \$ C'.\61'1 ,;;-12.MA-\ 1..1 u, ...:,,"'on.-"<. fl,N CAi'i \,J VT(-\
).,P\'P,,-.1...-1) l"l"\ \ Mi\'i>T..-12.. ~.
-·~'
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: ·-
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or / local population projections?
b) Induce Sllbstantial 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 - 242
Environmental Information Form
Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
d) Displflce substantial numbers of
peoplo, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
f..> fl..,, ,.,,.,.,, \ ci"'O lv\p..')> "'~""-g_, ..... ~ IS
w«tl-t-f"--PPtwJ c.;;() l'lq I "';i..-::,,_,,,-·n ..
3. GEOLOGY ANO 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 earthq~---
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fa ult Zoning Map Issued by the
Slate Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault?
ii) Stroi1g seismic ground shaking? -
,._..
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
includina liquefaction? --Iv) Landslides?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
,/'/
.,.
C\ ...._7·-r--J ~ ... ~~,,..~ 1r-l <-<,'.,\ r'>."°P{l,M/".N c,<;
pv1,.,__;
,....... /
,___
~ . ..--
v/ __ ,___ --·
b) f'<esult Jn 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, latmal spreading, V'
subsldonce, liquefaction or l'allapso?
r---~_,.,__"""·~~. ~ .. ~---. ---,-~.,,_,..~--~""'"~~ t--~~---r---.........,..,.
d) Be located un expansive soil, as
defined in the Uniform Building Code, .---· thus creating substantial risks to life or
property?
.-~·· ---.--~--r .. , --'"~-~ .... --~~·-~-·---~-----------
" ___ . ____ ,,_ .. , . ---------·--·------·-
Public Correspondence - 243
Environmental Information Form
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
"@) Have sOils incapable or adequ;;\ely
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems, where sewers aro not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
.... -~-~-~-Comments:
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
~A$ of' p;;;·V _,,,_.,PM "'N'T Y..)o'"tl4 ( ,...:\ W'-Mi!;-:T\t:O..,,-...., ,;.;t'-<;C 'Su\.\A6t-'>-7
l)O''-l if\-<> f' M <;-µ\ I "-) \<ii'(l,M < '*" 1.112'.a '.)' A-f'l!':'"-l '~q..; < {Z,'3 M.;:: Nf<,
--4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any water quality standard or
wastewater discharge requirements?
--~~
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or areas,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a
manner. which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off
site? --
ct) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or areas
Including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
subst1111tially increase the rate or
arnount of surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding on or off
site? ---·~~.~,..,...___ -·
e) Croato or contribute runoff wator which
would exceed the capacity of existinfJ
or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
-~---~·
No
Impact
--·
v·
-~
Pu/L-
./'
.......
..//
v
---·-
/
-
/
Public Correspondence - 244
Environmental Information Form
Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
-
g) Pia.co 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?
r------
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?
-
"'""~-->e -
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:
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-·--·
,/
./·
.//
v/
/
/
----~~ ---
Po. . ., p,. "'""° l?n...=~iii<:..T'> ""'l~"--'D B.e \)E;'>l<l<N2f0. ,IN f>.~fl.J;>f'.<"C,€: IJJ{Tt-\o "'P.f.11...ll\.~
'S.o )I.'> 'C.;;> ,..~o'"'(' ,w1 P1>-c.1 f>,,f:l -.IAC-t:;>JT 'f'r.. .. p~-·~· 1::ivn.-"t-.SC~ Cc,..IS"ff.4 \! t.."\(cr-\
f"'ltAS<i'>, C..oi-l ii'<>(LMt>.-NC.-.€c· "" '$-COfl-IM lAlt.-r:,~ AFl.1'\.;;M<0N\ Pt2-0 ,,eO ...:ifl-€:!. ,,. .. Q(.(
Q.:? Af) 1*1;:14-""> •
0
----5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
/ contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation? ----
b) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? v,...
... ~--~ --~~--·-----
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project ref!i<>n Is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard /' (including releasing omissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone ;n~~~·w'"' -· -
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a / substantial number of people?
' , ... •-'•" --·-,--~~~~---~ ~<~~~~~-·-· ----~-~--·--··-··-~-·-·--·-·" '"--~~-~-~----------~~---··"-" --~=~---
Public Correspondence - 245
Environmental Information Form
Page 9
l11sues and Supporting Information
Sources
e) Conflict witti or obstruct the
implementation of any applicable air
quality plan?
Comments:
TH£ 1"!<.c Po ~ ;er-() P r'""°' ~ ,,,·c. ·r
Sources
1~ES.
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
NC\ >M fA<.:T A~~ Cf w AL.I 'C'-1
-· '' 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
cumulalivoly, 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?
No
Impact
/
v·/
~·~
/
v,.,. ....
.,,,,,
...--·
-----------~-
f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans.
or programs supporting alternative
~-transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
~ --~-----"~
g) Substantially Increase hazards ClLIO to
a design foature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or ..,.,..,~-·
incornpaUbl<J uses (e.o. farm
equipment?
~~~~-·---~----"~~ ·--Comments: '.f\)€>~<.. ~ PP-<> P~ '"'-o 'PP·~ 1..1~ p..a.:£ I !-\'\ "'12 ,.J M,. ,,.,lfTH t-\0 p,;;;,p ,-r,c~
~c~·~<; p.c 'i<.J ;;;':.\<='"' . ~ '\"~{0 ...l•"'-' ·132-\ ... t'.N [) ,,~fj vS1T>I 1,J 'Tftc
,,_:;-f_,(1-,J kt-Q .. £ {\A ,, 'T<iif '""·1 \:l-.:>M) si S'ft':"\'\.\.
Public Correspondence - 246
Environmental Information Porm
Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result In:
a) Havo a substantial advorso effect,
either dlreclly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policlos, or regulations,
or by the California Department of fish
and Garno 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 Garno or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands, as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ... ),
through dirnct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
----o~~~~-
____ , ·-,__
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
mlgrntory wildlife corridors, or imp,,de
the use of native wildlife nmsery sites
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-
/
v
...-/
/
,,__ -----_,_,
o) Conflict with any local polices l>r
ordinances protecting biological v'/ rosourcos, such as tree preservation
µalley or ordinance? --
t) 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:
ltt'E Pa"O f'o > ..c0 MA. S ,, "":'(<.. f'-1f'r,,:. l ~L<.,u Cl<:,:S \I)'"" '"'-" p A1. €JJT <.lF
6-'{,\. \,Ti "-3 C,, c..; vv.kc""rul '?n-oP~~"t v-.\Ct't+ NO fS\,oL()Q. ~c.~ (2...;::":l.&>v.ll.c.;;:;
1viAP"'-<-T,
Public Correspondence - 247
Environmental Information Form
Page 11
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Potentlally
Significant
Issues
8. ENERGY ANO MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources In a
wasteful and inefficient manner? ·--
C) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally Important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
General Plan, Specific Plan, or other
land use plan?
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
""
-·
·-----~ Comments:
\,-t€; Pn.<>f'<>'>eti MA\ --~""fl..-p~ !N c.....0 r.i.r<; D.N~f'M,,-1-f"( C>F-
GAf.t ~ ,., ,.s c, Ll."i'IM."""'v-J, 'i?n.., P~"T'-l \..,) i \11, ,...io l 1\-\ PAc.I \=
~~ e;12.c, \ 1<N n M 1 ~ ""' A:<.. (4·5. 'il>1..A 12, ·;-<;; ,
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Would tho proposal Involve:
a) Create a sinnificant hazard to the
public or the !lnvironment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous material?
~-~~-·---~
b) Create a significant hazard to tho
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment'!
G) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of and existing or
proposed school?
··--~~~-~ ~-----------
d) Be located on a site, which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government / Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant
hazard lo the public or the
environment?
--~~-----
No
Impact
v ....
\/"""
v,,,.
.........
v'./
.//
/
Public Correspondence - 248
Environmental Information Form
Page 12
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
-
e) For a project localed within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, woL1ld the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanlrnd areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands'/
Comments:
Sources
P=.><;,·c,;T P.,(.LJ;;f>. PF \..l,A~~·<ll> ov<,
'?.,:;,!;;1'.l V'v\ ri\ C\ A\ <ci:l , H11,\,\\0"(.l.... p;,,1>.>l
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
---
--r-----
' N.A'l:l3'i>.1hl... "\ '(,_;·
V\11-I"''-"" S. C\[4<.Jr-> I>
f>.~ • .;c; '\\-h£ \o cl><f, \1-tt:(.l.."'f.>1 HAJ1N ct. ND , M f'~c:r: T"
MArr:e(l .. I /M-C,.
-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 (Jeneration
of excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundlmurne noise levels?
·---~,M'•~' ~~·-~---·
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
tha project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase In ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
--
v
..,/'
v'/
/
\-\/\<;; ,l'<'-(l.<F j\Q'i
r:,,,,12..1 ,,....,., <>N'-'\
"""7-A!U.:>o-i ";.
/
V"'.
~~---------~---
v"
v-·
Public Correspondence - 249
Environmental Information Form
Page 13
Issues and Supporting lnform!ltlon
Sources
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
t1as not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or a public uso
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working In the
projoct 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:
Sources Potentially Potentially LeH Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
v'/
/
\(..\£n.£ \,.>C>\.\'--0 (;!,I? Mc:>i'><'S "'.,,.,,,~ c_, "-ce:'Q ""1-T"\ """' f>.tJ [),k{L.[) CAN ><(l.A) c:1< >
'Pn-Ac1\ l.C'S. \:>vrL.\ N Vi Cc""-bT(l..v <----t '1 ..,,J '<>I'-'Tl~· ~>.oL.<::WMS. w.,_.,,,,-vF
"'fl<\60: WOVk--(;) 6-'I. C.€ f',.\) p.,....,__.,...ikr';,ik-l,..€)/""-~ .
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) Firo protection? ./'/
«~"<
ii) Police protection? v/
-~------------·~,-~ ~--~.~
iii) Schoola? ._...,.,
--~· ------· ~~~--~~----~
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities? ,,_//
Comments:
-~~~ -~~.-
-r 1\-6 C€"M e-·-ce:"-~( l-"-""' ~.;;,) \MPi>-<-T e~ 'It~ ;..f.;;i;:;,~J.:,;, ,__,, 5-c"':'°
'fLJf.?triC.. s,~c\2-if 1 ct;'<;.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable / Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Public Correspondence - 250
Environmental Information Form
Page 14
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
"'
b) Require or result in the construction of
new wator or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could Calise significant environrnental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of wt1ich could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Havo sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
nooded?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve tt1e
project's projectod 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 witt1 federal, state, and local
statures and regulations related to
solid waste?
Comments:
ll-'€' oPar(.l.,,i:>'\lc.N c'i"-\rtt:.
fi.. M IN I M,1\-L-1Mr-of>..<:.,~\
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
, "-
/
v·
(../'
,,..,,,.
~/
v
'"
?iz,, Po h"') C.i;M,€-t"~'(7.1 wc::V'-1) l~A-J:;:
o,.:,. ST<>/2.M., w""-""t~'{l.. fl,.11,,\Nf"-.o,t; P..NC>
':>iPya w1>-l't'€' J>,'S ~"'"' k'-'
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 - 251
Environmental Information Form
Page 15
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
.~~-
d) Create a new source of sl1bstantlal
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area? -
Source11
-----
Potentially Potentially l.ef:ls Than No
Signlflcant Significant Significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated .,
...,,..,/
-·-
~
Comments:
~ A n. c-\--' 1 -i;-.;: c.:-i:-w f"-/\r~-' e:ve ME 1-fT\,, 1-\/><J.C f~~ Des. l c._ 1-1 ;;::f) --C<e> 1-\A'--l _;
;. Mir-Jon. 11vd'l\c-T tit! ~,, v\L-(low r-J P 1 f'-\c{ l) ;;\J ,if q;:. p M ,£'f-.SC'C,, ~ t;,J,._,
~{~Wq. p. '(...i2" ~ l'T1+ I r'\ Al.-<-QvJ/'<8>~ f\'ei \lt,L-l'T S. '>«·'T f-'p fl 'fl.>-1iJ ,!.,-Pf (Lo tl _;--()
~~'O._..r-c '"NI H.M T211--f~. ·--14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change In
the significance of a historical
/ resource as define<! 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?
--i--------~
c) Dlroctly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontologlcal resource or site or ,/
unique geological feature?
_,.~---·---------·----·--"-~-~---... ----~----·---·~----------------------·---.--._ ...
e) Disturbed any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
,_,,..---·
···--·-·-----Comments:
11.\€ fiko po~"'"""' CE AA 'C"C '1;'1(2.1 MA-!. -rce··i<c., p._.~, ~"""y;"_:) L) "--·~ \-l.A,U?
,_Jo t Iv\ PA...e.:r·.
~--
Public Correspondence - 252
Environmental Information Form
Page 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
15. RECREATION.
a) Would tho project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Qoes the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of r1Jcrealional facilities.
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Comments;
~n""' c.<oM I? T..:; n.1 u <;;<? er
Sources Potentially
Significant
lssu11s
'TftC
Fi""'-\4...5. e>(.l, (~ C r,Z.,.i"; f'<-f\,PN ~
fcu:P .5'{L-(7
F,o.C..\1-'.16'>'
--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 lo the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
. -
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultlir<il use, or fl Wiiiiamson Act
contract? ,___. -·-~--~ i-.----'<"~
c) Involve other changos In the oxlstlng
onvlronmont that, due to their location
or nature. could result in conversion of
Farmland, to s non-agricultural use?
-Comments:-·-·--·----··-"'~.,.,.,.,,._-~~-.-.~.· -~-~--~~
Potentially L11ss Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
v/
rt 0Pe7'> """'" LM~Ac...~
/
v<
·-
,,,,...,
-·---
'Dev $'l..O r:-'rV\ EV\' C>e" T\;\2 (\1'{>.':,°[C'P... f>~t>..J acoO-'> t.A\1\(-\1"" 6'f..l""'T1/>..\C\
~ (l-0 p ""--(L:·(.b L-IM \-.:;-~ c.~ C€rk~ M-1 'us / (J.J r\ 1 Ck·\ !-\~( k.j4"-P,,D1 P:,,::.;;-r...l
P.,. l'-T' ().<:> ,J .So'1' 'Fu(.2... t;..<2 M ii: -C "'' (D-1 I,_) ~.:0-r
'
----·----------~=~~
Public Correspondence - 253
Environmental Information Form
Page 17
17, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCS.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce tho
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population t<J
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Comments:
v
ll-16 ~ SLAPM 8'5'1' c)f'-Tl·e MA'>T~f<.. (.:lJMJ l ~-A C...Dl'S\1 NU/.T\ON I
vPOf'T.e cf 'i'l-\b (\/11'.~T"€f'L. P'--.l><N MFa.oJ.2.-r.,,. 1rJ l°\C\ I
b) Does the project have Impacts that are
Individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental affects 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:
11-1£ C-<JM1Jt...Ai'1v_;; G-f'·Fe:;c.:r .s of" -n1e:: ~u~ ~""'-oP<>O MA:;."<:~?fl-
pw..r-l ~ tv\tN il\AM,_A f<-.<: c, r"'144" t ~o, \M..f/\LT o.,N ~ ~Nv;tLo i-lM<OtJT
&fl--nn;· WMIV\v ,.J,-ry,
7,o,,. ~, p.,;;h,~-;~,.,,,,,,,TI--J~
effects, whict1 will cause substantial
/' adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? . ··---~~-~~ ~, _____ -~·----
Comments:
Tl-lt5 Cc.IM. l;i"('l2;[2.1,,\ MA~T<::P.. f'c ......... ~ L.i.M MI ,.._1, M.6,-<._ Gjv1 l""-"r-lM;:;·t-rrA'L..
\M PA "'I.
--
Public Correspondence - 254
Environmental Information Form
Page 18
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
~,.--,..~-2~,--..,.,..,... ...___,_, ________ ~~-~~----~~~~~~-----
1------+----~~-~~~ .. ~~r,_r•~-~~--~r~~~·--·-·-·---------------------~-~-·~----·~A-~~---~----3
~--4---
5 ----"---~~-~-----------------------------_,
w:/torms/Environment<il lnforrnalion Forrn
Public Correspondence - 255
l!»a11rll: il " 'lf'ype (())lJ' !f»rojec!l:
.. Does-the proposecf project fall into oneoTthefOHowing categories?---··---------·~-------YO$ ;;·
·"·--·--.~-·-----· "'~"~----·--···--"~~-·-·------~-~--.------------··~~··----·-----~·-·
·1) Ten or more unit homes, including single and multiple family homes, condominiums, apartments etc.* /
.-2) Ani~duStrlal orcommercial d~~~~_§El~t~~th~~~~~~~~uare feet or more o_f ~pervi~~~-~~~·---~·~-= £ _.
3) An automotive service facility ·4)A retail gasoline outfet-----·--· ·-·-·-·· --------------····-···-·-·-·--····----------------------------
S) A restaurant-~ ------·· ---------~----···---~----------------------
6)A parkln9fotwffh either5~000squirereetoTimpervious surtace orWiiti'25 or morepart<ln9'$paces* ___ _
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*
. -·suareTeefor more of impervious sUifacearea:----------~---··-------
lf any of the boxes in Part 1 is checked "Yes", this project will require the prep~ration of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) along with a
Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back).
'Numerical Criteria will apply.
fl"<rllrril: 2 .. lfl'irojecil: Specitfuc Coltllcerns
0~~~~~:,:!;:::it!:~t~~:1\~:1~1ta!(~Ja~:~J-~~-:w-e;~~e,~me~:\ s~•-1 ----------,-... --.. -.... -_. __ --_-__ ·--.... -... __ -__ .. _ .. _--_---__ -__ -_-_-___ -_-_·-_·_+~s ~i
2)veh1cie.0rec1UiPllleniliialntenanceareas, 1nctudin9-repairorwa-5tifii9-
~ .,-,~. -~··~"~~~<•'<'-•••• ., ~c• ---·-•-••••''~"---~-~----~.~.~-·-~•""' '~
3) Commercial or Industrial waste handling or storage
.. 4j outcio0rtiancifn·9o;·;;1ora9e0filazardous rriatertais ....
5) Outdoor manufacturing areas --6YoUicioofioOCi hand1in9 or prcicesSin9--·-· ----·------·------·-·------
1 ··1)01J1ctooranirTiai care, conftnement,ar'Siaughter-----··········-··· ······ -----·
r-a)olitiloor h0rtlculfu.re-acuv1i\es-------· --·----------· --· ----------·-·---
'-·----~-----·-· ----------·-------~--------------------·---·----------·----· ----------
If any or the boxes In Part 2 is checked "Yes", this project will require the preparation of a Sile Specific Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SSSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transrer (defined on back).
If boxes In Parts 1 and 2 are bolh checked "Yes", a combined urban stormwater plan will need to be submi\led.
cc: One copy of document to Public Works
Public Correspondence - 256
STORI\. t!VATER PLANNING PROGR. J
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
NCHO PALOS VERDES
-Project Name ~~§:tiiN, ~-~--.'<N.Qfi:l'&_f1.':fl:-~ ___ _
Project Location .1:179LS_~'".?~i::\.~ f' _r;., ('~ ___ 1 • '1. 1,r' _ General P ct
Certification
Contact Name / Title . _ . ___ _____ __ _ __ ~-------~ A completed original of this form must
Phone / FAX/Email . accompany all SUSMP 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,
Cl/I/A§ 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) Property 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, accµrate and
complete.
Property Owner I Developer (signature) Property Owner I Developer (printed) Title Date
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.
Proprarty Owner (signature) Property Owner (printed) T/ile Date
Public Correspondence - 257
Car Wash Facility
P~anni' 1 Best Management Practicr"'
BMP Mdentificati@fl'll No"
and Name
ashing and
inlet rash Racks Not applicable
Landscape ESC2, Preservation of Existing Vegltation;
ECS10, Seeding and Planting; ESC11,
Mulching
Linings for Urban Runoff
Conve ance Channels
Materials Management
Not applicable
SC5, Outdoor Loading/Unloading of
Materials; SC6, Outdoor Container,
Storage of Liquids; sea Outdoor Storage
Check if to
be used
of Raw Materials, Products and B ·Products
dla Filtration ,_, ~-----~--~ Media Fiitration
Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing
Areas
c2, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
otor FueiQiSPensing'Area''~-~-,,-,1SC2.'ve~leaa;nddSEqQ'luiiiip:irmme;;:nltt PFuLiEelilllmng~
anopy
toimatel:sePa'rattmorsancivvater' ,_,,i¥:~~.'nTIAM.:a:r:e:::r'<>:e:::pa:::ra::'lt:::or:::s=::a:::n:TTI:r.:a:z:te:::-r·'''''''W'''''-t-·~~·-·%,,,,,, .• ,,,,,~~="AA'""i
Quality Inlets
Outdoor Storage
Self-Contained Areas for Vehicle or
1 Equipment Washing, Steam Cleaning.
Maintenance, Repair, or Material
Quality Inlets
SC6, Outdoor Container Storage;;r=-~· ..
Liquids; sea, Outdoor Storage of Raw
Materials, Products and By-Products
TC1, Infiltration ' -~·,=·,~-·-' II->·--·~·--~~-~""
·Processing -----~---,,, -•--_......,.....,_....,. _______ _
Storm Drain System Stenciling and
Public Correspondence - 258
Attachment Q
1991 CUP Revision Application Filed by Green Hills.
Public Correspondence - 259
CONPITXONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATlON \SS
~~~~H1~·1~1~s~M~em~o~r~i~a~l_.:.:Pa~r~k'--~--J.:__...f:::!~~!:\,_......J~-..l~~-c~01'\\fli-,\
..,._;,:..;~~So~1~1t~h~W~es~t~e~r~n~::!:.!~:.._--1-~....::.L.::!JE!....~:::'..:~.s;c:;!!.:5"~~0 ~~
.......::=:;:-.:.:.:;;...:..:::o:;;;:.::;~;:.:...::.~~C~A:...,.:.;:~,___..::=::.>::.~.:;..;.:..::="---"""-,1<.o~
telephone• h010e -------work 1-213-831-0311
Qr~en Hiils Memorial Par~
(name
27501 South Western Avenue
(aCldress)
RsDGb9 E~lgs Verde~. CA 90732
telephone; home -------work 1-213-831-0311
Project i..oc11tion: 27501 South Western Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes
i..ot 'Tract No.: Portion of Lot, 1, Tract No. 3192
current Zoning: Cemetery
She of Parcel: 120 Acres
Ilescribe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development•
An existing 120 acre cemetery, of which 75 acres are fqlly
developed and remaining 45 acres to be developed in phases.
BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENTS
l. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and
shape to acco=nodate the use and for all the yards, setbacks,
wall• 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 ae§thetic beautv of the existing memorial park. There is
no adverse i.mpac t on ad joining land uses.
Public Correspondence - 260
I' '•
...,.,,
CONDITIONAL OH PJ!:RMlT APPLICATION
Hills Memorial Park
01 South Western
telephone1 hOlbe -------
:t.ANDOWNER 1
Gr~en Hills Memorial Park
(e ren)
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90732
,55
telephone; hOllle -------work1-213-831-0311
Project Location: 27501 South Western Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes
Lot • Traot No.: Portion of Lot, 11 Tract No. 3192
Current Zonin91 Cemetery
Si~• of Parcel: 120 Acres
l>escribe in detail the nature of the propo•ed use or development:
An existins 120 acre cemetery, of which 75 acres are fully
developed and remaining 45 acres to be developed in phases,
BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENTS
l. Explain how the eite for the proposed use is adequate in size and
shape to accolDlllOdBte 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 arid
within the neighborhood.
The site presently is partiall:t: developed as a beautiful
cemetery. Future development will maintain and complement
the aesthetic beauty of J;.be exi§J;.ins; mi:morial oarjt. Tbm1 is
no adverse i'!llpact onadjoining land uses.
Public Correspondence - 261
2. \,...../ "-" El!Plain how the •ite for the propoaed uae :relatea to streets lllld
hi9hways properly 4eeigned to oarry the type and quantity of
traffic 9enerated by the aubject uaa.
Green Hills Mem9r1al Par~ is presently serviced and will
continue to be serviced by Western Avenl!e.
3, The proposed uae at thi• apecific location will have no aignifioant
adver1e effect on adjacent property or the peX'!llitted use thereof,
t>.oau••=
The presently developed portions of Green Hills Memorial
Par!$ haye had po p,dyerse effect 9n ad 19i11ing land mml @ml
fllture developmmnt will s;onUpue to ma:\.IJUtP i!: n~@tive
im act,
4. The proposed uae ia not contrary to the General Plan because:
The General Plan designates the site for cemetery uses,
Does the project involve anr work, activity, er encroachment in the
public right-of-way or public drainage structure? No If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Wor~k~s~oe"""p~a~r~tme""""~n~t~p~r~i~o~r
to iaauance of construction permits.
I HEREBY CERTIFY, under the penalty of perjury, that the information
and IN!lterials submitted with this application are true and correct.
I HEREBY CERTIFY, under the penalty Qf perjury, that I am the owner of
the prQperty for which this applicatiQn is made and, in that capacity,
have authorised the al:>Qve•listed applicant to act in my behalf.
t>ated at~~ ... Cal.:i.fcrnia
3/86
Public Correspondence - 262
Attachment R
Email to Susan Brooks
Public Correspondence - 263
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 - 264
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 <Subrooks08@gmail.com >
Cc: Joel Rojas
Public Correspondence - 265
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 <subrooks08@gmail.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 - 266
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 - 267
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com>
Monday, November 09, 2015 3:06 PM
cc
Comment about PC Resolution No2014-29 -meeting on Nov 17th
November_17 _2015.pptx
My email was rejected by the rpvca-gov.mail.protection.outlook.com server for the recipient domain rpvca.gov
This is the reason I'm sending it to your contact email address listed in the directory.
Hi Gabriella,
I'm an owner of a condo at Vista Verde complex. Attached are my comments and concerns about the appeal of
the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014 decision.
Please let me know if you received it.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Nadejda
1 Public Correspondence - 268
First of all, I would like to thank the City Council of the city ofRPV for your
willingness to listen to our concerns about Green Hills and how their new
Mausoleum has affected our lives.
With all already have been said so many times ...
I'm presenting how GH mausoleum impacted my life.
Nothing has changed for us for a year. That's even more
devastating than actually what happened to us because we
had hope that the justice will be done and we could start
enjoying our homes again. The longer the situation stays
unresolved the worse it gets to us -depression,
unhappiness, missing enjoyment -all this piles up and
takes it's toll on us! We were looking towards the city
council to take actions because the illegal building is
causing so much troubles for us and for the people they
buried their loved ones so this one could not be ignored.
But here we are again ... repeating our self and just adding
more painful memory and stuff to it ...
Public Correspondence - 269
I lost the view, enjoyment, privacy, quietness,
clean air ... They have been replaced by cement
wall and rail, mold, constant noise of huge fans,
people mourning 'on my balcony', heavy
bulldozers digging graves, smog from the
machines, dust blowers, lawn maintenance,
visitors and crew anytime during the day on an
arm reach distance, dirt, filming all our moves,
witnessing sorrow and pain, people staring at us
and our homes, vibrations, fumes and dust ...
Public Correspondence - 270
• Lost View
• Completely gone for the first floor and pool
area and severely impacted for the second
floor. First floor:
--, --<
Public Correspondence - 271
• Saturday Oct 31st all afternoon till after sunset loud mariachi music,
even closed doors and windows cannot prevent you hearing it.
People screaming and talking loud on the top of the mausoleum. I
had guest and I was embarrassed to have them realized that a
horrible place my home was turned into after this mausoleum was
built. Our lives were turned upside down I
• Last picture is taken after sunset.
Public Correspondence - 272
Besides we never agreed on using screens GH
uses them at their discretion.
Also, maintenance: GH should keep their
property and fence neat looking.
Repair on the stairs took longer that 3 weeks!
On the top of mausoleum it should be only
ground cover -there are bushes all over the
South side along the fence.
Maintenance and work there is limited to
certain hours -not followed.
Public Correspondence - 273
First 2 cameras are towards our yard and building, right on the fence I
Camera's eye is towards our building.
See the "beautiful" fence there, it is like that for several years. And now for added
"value" left over cut branches -more than a month old by now.
Is it legal to record us all the time in our homes?
I know we are like David and Goliath in this situation and so far the big one wins just
because they are big and have money, not because they are right ...
Please treat your neighbors as you would treat yourself. Thank you.
Public Correspondence - 274
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
NEVADA PREWITT <nevadap@sbcglobal.net>
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 8:02 AM
cc
Response to RPV 10-29-15 notice of appealo resolutuon 2014-29.odt
Since my email "Response to RPV 10-29-2015 Notice of Appeal by Green Hills ... " was rejected
when I sent it to the email address for Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager given in the letter, I am
sending it to the City Council directly. Hopefully, you will accept it and allow it to be considered.
1 Public Correspondence - 275
11-09-2015
Gabriella Yap
Deputy City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Nov 11, 2014 Decision set forth in P.C.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 to assist in mitigating illegal actions/encroachments/damages
by Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue
Ms. Yap:
I have grave concerns regarding the above appeal by Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S.
Western Avenue. Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery wants to undo the Planning Commission's
decision to mitigate/rectify Green Hills Cemetery's illegal and unconscionable acts that have caused
great harm to the adjoining property owners.
I have been a resident owner at 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. North #111, since 1988. My purchase of
the property was primarily made because of the unobstructed ocean view and openness of the
landscape in front of my living room and dining room. This is my only home, my forever home, and I
have been ruinously impacted by Green Hills Cemetery's continual illegal actions; below is a partial list
of damages I have suffered due to these actions:
• Loss of property value
(appraisal prior to obstruction of view by mausoleum, was $435,000.; after mausoleum,
appraisal dropped to $315,000.)
• Complete loss of ocean view, replaced by concrete walls of the mausoleum.
• Obstructed vista views, building a ramp to access the roof top graves on top of the
mausoleum, in front of my home, making me feel as though Green Hills Cemetery is
entombing me while I'm still alive.
• Loss of 40 ft set-back so that now my living room and dining room are part of every
funeral service as well as subjected to continuous (everyday, 365 days a year, from
opening til closing of cemetery) visitations by grieving and partying mourners.
These funerals and visitations include load music (live bands & recorded music); as
well as screaming, wailing, partying, drinking, reeving of engines in autos and
motorcycles, etc.
• Complete loss of privacy in my home -the ramp constructed next to my unit is where
mourners, visitors and their kids, congregate, looking into my home, sometimes waving,
or making gestures.
• Complete loss of the enjoyment of my home
The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has the opportunity to deny Green Hills Memorial
Park Cemetery's appeal of P.C. RESOLUTION 2014-29, so that Green Hills will be forced to correct
the damages their lack of integrity and complete disregard for the rules protecting the neighboring
property owners has caused.
Respectfully submitted by property owner & resident of 2110 Palos Verdes Dr North # 111
Public Correspondence - 276
Gabriella Yap
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
April Sandell < hvybags@cox.net>
Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:26 AM
cc
Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western
Avenue Enhancement update plan.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The staff report regarding Western Ave. agenda is not available at this
time. I have previously scheduled plans for tomorrow and the weekend so
I submit to you my most likely incomplete comments today.
1) The Western Ave Enhancement plan could impose a significant
negative impact on my property interests. As you may recall, I wrote to
you earlier regarding property title issues (seemingly unmarketable title to
date) as well as a separate matter regarding lack of pubic notice to me
having to do with the same Western A venue (Fences, walls ordinance )
and my backyard, so to speak.
That said, I urge the council to oppose this latest "enhancement" plan
for Western Avenue.
(Note: I could share endless supporting documents but I don't care to
waste my time or yours explaining to you something you already know or
should know. )
2) Green Hills appeal agenda item. It appears the Vista Verde property
owners due process rights were denied from the get go.
Two or threes days ago I visited with Vista Verde property owners. It's
unbelievable what the city has permitted or allowed to have happened. So,
you might imagine the distrust I feel regarding Western Ave. so called
enhancements.
1 Public Correspondence - 277
Moreover, the Green Hills appeal appears to include Master plan updates
that could impact other Rolling Hills Riviera property owners as well, so I
hope these residents have received notice of the Nov. 17th meeting. If I
am wrong about that please don't hesitate to set me straight on what seems
Master Plans issues mixed within the appeals process regarding but not
limited to after the fact variance, moratoriums, property rights of both
Green Hills and Vista Verde residents etc.
I can't help but point out the laughable big picture here. For crying out
loud, a MAUSOLEUM was built and no one noticed any code
violations? Unbelievable.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Regards,
April L. Sandell
2 Public Correspondence - 278
Gabriella Yap
From: Carla Morreale
Sent:
To:
Monday, November 09, 2015 11:00 AM
cc
Subject: FW: cc@rpvca.gov (Letter from Sharon Loveys)
Mayor Knight and Council Members,
Please see the letter below from Sharon Loveys. I know she intended to send this to you.
Carla
From: sharon loveys [mailto:sharon.loveys@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 10:51 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: cc@rpvca.gov
Dear City Council Members,
It has been two and one half years since we started on this very
unfortunate venture. This so called venture with no end in sight is a result of
City officials who can"t make up their minds. Now, why they can't stay focused
and make a decision and stick to it leaves us with many questions
unanswered. Quite simple it is baffling!
First, unfortunately we were unaware of how cities are run so we started
with The Planning Commission. Week after week we presented our case to the
Commission. A group of us spent many hours retrieving information, from the
city and how this building was actually built, revealing all the lies and deceit
that went along with it. I could go on and on about the deceitful information
we discovered, but with your own Internal Investigation and the Lily Group
checking on Green Hills and their Conditional Use Permit you already know all
the facts. The facts reveal Green Hills took advantage of everything they
could. Obviously, they want no variance around the perimeter of the cemetery
as with the Baby Boomers dying to get in they need all the space available. It
would have been one thing to have burials eight feet from our property
looking down at a forty foot drop from our pool but to put a over stated
mausoleum with burials on top is another, right in our face. One of our early
visits to the City revealed a encounter with Joel Rojas stating, with a fearful
look on his face "so we made a mistake. What do you want us to do about it ?"
I actually was shocked that what we revealed was the truth the building was/is
illegal and all a city employee stated it was a mistake. A mistake!
1 Public Correspondence - 279
So lets get back to the Commissioners. We invited anyone/everyone who
would make a personal visit to see what this mausoleum has/have and
continues to do to to our life style. Everyone who visits "The Mistake" and sits
in our condo's is shocked. I can remember Ellen Berkowitz standing on one of
the balconies and all she could do was complement one of the owners art
work. In the early years one of the commissioners visited Vista Verde and
informed us if it was him, he would seek legal council. Ray Frew admitted in
public he knew it was too tall but had all the building permits pulled, "What
was he to do!" How pathetic! What a question ... statement and look at this
mess he helped create. Look at all the money wasted, or if you are Ellen
Berkowitz you would think differently! "What was he to do" I know what most
God fearing humans would have done, bite the bullet and correct the
situation. Oh no, not Mr. Frew after he realized what a mistake the height of
the mausoleum was he kept building it. Then the most pitiful and pathetic
thing he did was round up all the Veterans ,inviting them to a commissioners
meeting telling them Vista Verde did not want gun salutes at OUR Veterans
funerals. Ted Liu, wrote a letter and he had no idea what he was doing and
showed this by using his law that he put into force. His law forbids people to
protest fifteen or thirty feet near a funeral, what he did not know or care is
that our balconies are ten feet from the mausoleum and we were not
protesting. Everyone loves Gun Salutes, its nostalgic and respectful, it
represents what a great country we are so lucky to live in, ESPECIALLY the
personal sacrifices some people have endured. After the first few minutes of
the meeting they all realized what a sad sham it was. A few of the Veterans
wrote to The Daily Breeze, they realized that they were set up. It was
inexcusable, and I remember I didn't see Mr. Frew around for the next
year. If only he would have bit the bullet I would not have to write another
letter to the City Council.
Lets get back to the City Council and why they can't agree on finalizing what
the commissioners voted on so VERY long ago. The resolutions along with
placing a moratorium on top of the mausoleum. After all, your own Internal
Investigation revealed the building as it stands, It is not legal! No Variance,
too tall and not one person knew that there would be burials on top. So
during the last year Rancho Palos Verdes fired a city employee, hired a new
City Manager, new Attorney and after elections this month they have a new
Council member. On September 1, the City Council voted to pass all
resolutions, including the moratorium. I think all it needed was a signature and
one SMALL part of this mess would be settled. But, it will be up for discussion
again on November 17, 2015, and I ask "Discussion on what?" Do we need to
rehash all the information you have in your own Internal Investigation. What
seems to be the problem? Who and what are they frightened of, perhaps it is
the August 6, 2014 letter from Ellen Berkowitz or the nine residents from
Vista Verde. The building is illegal and Green Hills has hurt so many people.
2 Public Correspondence - 280
The families buried on top suffer every time they look at us. You need to stand
behind your own personal investigation and stop wasting your taxpayers
money. Put a full moratorium on top, ALL burials and have Green hills move
their clients who they have deceived. It needs to be ALL future burials ... At
the September 1, meeting Ellen Berkowitz and John Resich could not reveal
the details OR I should say didn't want to reveal the details of how many
companion plots were left .. as just another ploy to prolong this mess. I walked
the top of the mausoleum last week and it does appear that there is only one
grave that needs an companion.
In closing, we are not going away, until you our representatives do the
honest, legal thing. Make Green Hills pay for their lies and deceits, Nick
Resich told me once, you people don't have the money to fight .. I wonder if he
understands the word "Never Give up."
Thank you,
Sharon L. Loveys
3 Public Correspondence - 281