Loading...
PC MINS 20141111 Approved January 13, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chairman Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Gerstner, James, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Nelson, and Chairman Leon. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Associate Planner Mikhail, Acting City Manager Petru, and City Attorney Lynch. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item Nos. 2 and 3 before item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their November 4th meeting the City Council adopted the proposed LCP amendment regarding flag poles in the City's Coastal Zone, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Director Rojas distributed 9 pieces of correspondence, a strike-out version of the proposed conditions of approval, a follow-up memo from the Lilley Planning Group and a letter from the City Attorney in response to the recent letters from Green Hills, all related to agenda item No. 1. Commissioner Emenhiser noted his objection to conducting the Planning Commission meeting on Veterans Day, and Vice Chairman Nelson noted the freedoms we enjoy as a result of the veterans. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Coastal Permit Conditional Use Permit & Environmental Assessment JCase No. ZON2014-00332): 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South Director Rojas presented the staff report, noting that the Commission heard this item at their last meeting, however the comment period on the Negative Declaration had not yet concluded, and therefore staff's recommendation was to continue the public hearing to tonight's meeting. However, staff received a comment letter from the Coastal Commission strongly recommending a property line survey be obtained prior to the City making a decision on the proposed Coastal Permit. He noted the applicant is in the process of getting the property line survey, and staff is therefore recommending the public hearing be continued to December 9th. He noted that he has received no speaker slips for this item. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to December 9, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation (Case No. ZON2014-00103): 28723 Shire Oaks Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. She explained that during the public noticing period the neighbor at 6309 Alto Circle expressed some privacy concerns. She noted photos taken by staff from the rear yard at 6309 Alto Circle, and explained that staff did not feel there would be any new or significant impacts to this neighbor as a result of the proposed addition. She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending the Planning Commission approve the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Mr. Atalla's daughter stated she was available to answer any questions from the Commission. There being no questions, Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. PC Resolution 2014-28 was approved, (7-0). Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Green Hills Memorial Park Annual Review Director Rojas explained that the public hearing for this item was continued to tonight's meeting, therefore the public hearing remains open. He reminded the Commission that at the last meeting the Commission approved three motions and directed staff to come back with a Resolution, which is now before the Commission. He noted that staff did their best to capture the motion, and in doing so is open to suggestions from the Commission. In addition, while drafting the Resolution staff and the City Attorney identified some ambiguities in certain conditions, and given testimony made at the last meeting, staff took the initiative to propose some additional changes to the conditions of approval. He noted that staff has distributed to the Commission a strike-out version of the draft conditions of approval. He also noted that there is an addendum to the compliance report that was submitted by the Lilley Group, which has also been distributed to the Commission. Acting City Manager Petru explained that at the last meeting a compliance report was submitted to the Planning Commission, however there were a number of items and conditions where the consultant was not able to make a determination regarding compliance. She noted the primary reason was the consultant was provided with a hard copy file and did not have access to some of the electronic files through the Building and Safety Division. She explained the focus of the report was on the mausoleum in Area 11 in terms of building height certification and whether or not it complied with the conditions of approval, which is the sole subject matter of the three page memo that was distributed to the Commission. She noted there are currently two conditions in the CUP that relate to building height, the first being condition No. 35, and she read aloud condition No. 35. She noted the Lilley Group's response that the construction plans and the height certification do not match the Area 11 mausoleum depicted in the Master Plan Revision booklet. Specifically, the consultant referenced sheet 11-D, which is a section through the mausoleum, noting that sheet 11-D shows a schematic site section of the west wing of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum with a 25 foot maximum building height, but appears to have a 40 foot high rear retaining wall. She noted that the other condition regarding height was condition No. 38, and read condition No. 38 which states all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20 feet in height as measured from the average elevation of finished grade at the front of the building 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. She explained that in 1995, the Planning Commission amended the condition to change the downslope height measurement from 25 feet to 30 feet. She noted that condition No. 38 allows for a 30 foot height maximum while condition No. 35 is still operating at the 25 foot height maximum. Presuming that condition No. 38 is the condition that controls, the consultant determined that, based on the stamped and approved building plan, the building complies with the 30 foot height limit. However, when looking at the 20 foot height measurement, the building does not comply. She felt that something does need to be done in terms of the conflicting conditions of approval. In addition, if the Commission wishes to do something regarding Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 3 the non-compliance, it would be within their jurisdiction through a Conditional Use Permit revision. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff to clarify if the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, which is currently under construction, is exempt from these conditions of approval. Acting City Manager Petru explained that the height of that structure was handled through another condition of approval, which states the Director has the authority to approve the maximum height of the structure so that it doesn't impact views. Commissioner Tomblin questioned that there appears to be a number of conflicts that the Commission and staff have been looking at and this building is currently under construction. Acting City Manager Petru did not think there was a conflict of terms of Inspiration Slope because it has its own specific condition of approval regarding the height. It was approved by the Director through an administrative approval to a specific elevation. Ellen Berkowitz stated her comments are included in the submittal letter, adding that she would like to take a closer look at the consultant's comments that were given to the Commission, as she had not yet seen them. She also stated that she agrees with some of the points raised by Mr. Friedman in his email to the Commission, specifically that staff has added a number of conditions into the draft resolution that were never raised or discussed at the prior Commission meeting and are only now being presented for the first time. She noted that Green Hills is continuing to be denied the ability to file the plans for the administration building, and that Green Hills is under a very tight time frame in regards to this building. Commissioner James asked Ms. Berkowitz if Green Hills was now prepared to move the above-ground structures on the west side that contain remains. Ms. Berkowitz answered that there are actually very few that do contain remains, and the ones that do will be moved so that they are out of the five-foot setback. She estimated this will be completed by next week. Commissioner James asked Ms. Berkowitz about the over-height trellises in that area. Ms. Berkowitz answered that those will be taken down and will ensure that they are not over six feet in height. City Attorney Lynch clarified that the trellises do not have to be lowered to less than six feet if they are outside of the setback area. Michael Friedman (representing Vista Verde HOA) stated he has sent an email to the Planning Commission noting his concern that the proposed Resolution went too far in Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 4 terms of staff taking initiative rather than following the direction and instructions of the Commission. He stated the Commission previously voted on three items, and it is only these three items that should appear in the Resolution, so that there isn't discussion on what has already been voted upon. As it stands, the current Resolution has all sorts of new things added to it that, in his opinion, deserve a public notice and public hearing. He was concerned that once again the Commission would be in a position where they could not adopt the Resolution as presented. He stated the Commission has already identified problems and those problems deserve to be addressed immediately. Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Friedman if his primary objection was one of the Commission being unable to vote on a Resolution, or was it the content of the Resolution. Mr. Friedman felt it was the content of the Resolution, as he did not want to address at this late date the notion of having to change the height of the mausoleum from the average of the finished grade level to a 30-foot height. City Attorney Lynch respectfully disagreed with Mr. Friedman's comments, noting this is an open public hearing. She stated that staff has provided the Commission with a red- lined version of the Resolution and staff is seeking the Commission's direction in regards to any additional changes that were included. Linda Ott stated one simple line between February27th and April 24th that was crossed out, underscored, and a new piece of information was added. She said if you look at the progression it is very subtle, and now Pacifica and Pacific Terrace Mausoleum will be included in massive changes. She felt that the Commission and staff know that the mausoleum was built too high, too wide, they went too deep, too much dirt was brought in, it's in the wrong place, and fifty people have been massively affected by all of this. Sharon Loveys stated the Commission was going to put a moratorium in place in February and it is now November and nothing has changed. She questioned the logic of applying for an after-the-fact Variance if it can't be approved. She asked the Commission to do something for the residents and encouraged them to place the moratorium on this small area of Green Hills until the City and Green Hills has figured out what to do with the mausoleum and the above-ground burials. Julie Keye stated that in the almost one year they have been coming to the Commission each month has shown, little by little, how many mistakes and oversights have occurred at Green Hills. She encouraged the Commission to place the moratorium as requested. Laurie Brown stated it was her understanding that one of the objectives of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was to preserve ocean and coastline views, and noted Green Hills is taking that away. She stated that once a coastline view is taken away it will be gone for all future generations, and she encouraged the Commission to preserve the coastline views. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 5 Matthew Martin felt it was very clear what the height limitations were, as it clearly said the height of the mausoleum will match what is in the booklet and the booklet says the heights will comply with what is in the conditions of approval. He read from the February 27, 2007 staff report in which staff stated that in regards to significant impacts to views from neighboring properties staff believes 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. He also noted the staff report stated that the locations of the mausoleums 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 cemetery that abut the residences to the north and the south. With that, he felt the moratorium should not only be for burial on the rooftop, but for the entire building. Ellen Berkowitz recalled that this was supposed to be four separate Resolutions and not one Resolution. She also stated that she would respond to some of the other issues in another written submittal when they see the next compliance review. Commissioner Emenhiser suggested the Commission review the changes to the Resolution line-by-line, and the Chairman agreed. City Attorney Lynch stated she did not understand that there was supposed to be separate Resolutions regarding each Commission action, noting this has never been a past practice. She stated that if the Commission wants this broken down into four Resolutions staff can certainly do that and bring them back to the Commission, however she did not think that would add anything. City Attorney Lynch began with the Resolution language on page 14 of the staff report, noting staff added Section 3 which addresses the moratorium on any burials on the roof of the mausoleum. She stated that at the previous meeting Mr. Martin had raised the issue of a moratorium on any interments anywhere in the mausoleum, but staff understood the Commission's direction to be only with respect to the rooftop burials. She stated that Section 3 also includes the various operational conditions that the Commission wanted, and those were all left in place except for those that the Commission specifically directed to be deleted, which she would review when discussing the conditions of approval. She moved on to Section 4 (page 16 of the staff report) which was the direction from the Commission to have, within 30 days of the adoption of the Resolution, a requirement that Green Hills submit a Variance application to the City to seek approval to allow the existing Memorial Terrace Mausoleum (Pacific Terrace Mausoleum) to remain encroaching 32 feet into the required 40 foot setback and to allow the thirteen existing below-ground burials and the six companion spaces within the 16 foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery site. She noted it specifically calls out the plots where there are already interments as well as where the companion plots are located. She stated that a Variance would be required to allow any of the existing structures to remain within the five-foot setback along the western property line. She noted that if Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 6 Green Hills moves forward with their plan to more all of the items that exceed six feet in height or contain human remains that are above ground to be moved outside of that setback area, the requirement would no longer be applicable. She suggested leaving the language in the Resolution and adding the language "Unless the structures are removed from the setback by Green Hills prior to the thirty day deadline, which is December 11, 2014." Commissioner Gerstner requested that staff and the Commission begin the review with the first page of the Resolution (page 10 of the staff report). Chairman Leon asked staff if there were any changes made to page 10 of the staff report, and the City Attorney responded that no changes had been made. City Attorney Lynch stated no changes were made to page 11 or page 12. She noted that on page 13 staff included what they thought were the Commission's actions and requested the Commission read through each of the paragraphs. Commissioner Gerstner noted on the next to the last WHEREAS on page 13, the word "neighbors" should be changed to "residential properties" to be consistent with the rest of the document; and that "burial" should be changed to "burials and activity". He also noted that in the last WHEREAS it would be clearer to reference this as being in contradiction to a municipal code section which restricts this from happening. Vice Chairman Nelson questioned the definition of "final City action". City Attorney Lynch responded that final City action would either be the adoption of the Resolution by the Planning Commission if there are no appeals to the City Council, or if the Commission's decision is appealed to the City Council, it would be the City Council's final decision on the matter as reflected in the adoption of its Resolution. Commissioner James suggested adding to the end of that sentence, "or further determination from the City Council" to clarify the sentence. The Commission agreed.. Commissioner Gerstner looked at the fourth WHEREAS on page 13, explaining that the Planning Commission required the Variance to fulfil the requirements of the Municipal Code. Therefore, he would like that reflected in the WHEREAS. Moving to page 14, Commissioner Gerstner felt an additional WHEREAS was needed. He explained that the Commission is not completely acting on all of the actions and review of the consultant's work, which is intended to be discussed at the next annual review. Therefore, a final WHEREAS that says this is an intermediate action or an immediate action to address the issues that can be currently addressed, understanding that there are some open issues that the Commission anticipates addressing at the next review. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 7 City Attorney Lynch suggested the following: WHEREAS there is an ongoing compliance review that will be completed in the future, there are open issues that will be addressed at the next upcoming compliance review. Commissioner Gerstner felt that was the gist of it, but wanted to further discuss the language later in the meeting. City Attorney Lynch then moved through the Sections. She noted Section 1 did not change. She stated that Section 2 reflected the Commission's direction to address a new operational condition and to address the existing violations of the Master Plan. She explained that Section 3 is the area where the moratorium is being imposed on the rooftop burials at the mausoleum. Commissioner Tomblin noted the language that this moratorium was based on the visual and noise impacts. He felt it was far more than the visual and noise impacts, as there are also direct violations of the CUP occurring at the site. He felt this should be noted in the Section 3. Commissioner Gerstner suggested wording to include "due to inconsistencies between the approval and the building". City Attorney Lynch added the language so that Section 3 read: "As a result of the observed visual privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials on the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum building, Area 11, and due to inconsistencies between the conditions of approval and the constructed mausoleum, a moratorium is hereby imposed on the burials and sale of plots on the roof of the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum in area 11. In addition, the following conditions of approval are added to the Green Hills Master Plan which are included as conditions 1.3(A) through 1.3(0) in the attached Exhibit A which is incorporated here and by reference." Commissioner Gerstner suggested saying Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum throughout the section, rather than just mausoleum. Commissioner Cruikshank commented that in Section 2 it states "the impermissible construction of large structures." He suggested removing the word "large" from the sentence. The Commission agreed. Chairman Leon asked the Commission if they were in agreement on page 14. There were no objections. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that it looks like all of the conditions, with the exception of condition O are consistent with what the Commission voted on at the previous meeting. Therefore, he suggested jumping ahead to condition O, which is the condition staff added. The Commission agreed. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 8 Before discussing condition O Commissioner Gerstner asked the City Attorney to comment on the word "inconsistent" in the third sentence of condition A. She explained adding the word inconsistent was because there were other conditions that were imposed that govern other parts of the Park. Commissioner Gerstner suggesting saying "conflicting conditions" rather than "inconsistent conditions", and City Attorney Lynch agreed. Commissioner James referred to condition A, and suggested adding language to say "when not in use". In addition, on the last line of A he suggested changing "and" to "or" in the last line. The City Attorney agreed. Commissioner James referred to condition B and felt the word "only" was in the wrong place as it suggested the landscaping should grow only to the satisfaction of the Director rather than the landscaping should grow only on the wall. The Commission had no further comments on page 15, and moved on to page 16. City Attorney Lynch discussed condition O, explaining staff understood the Commission's direction was not to allow the last row of plots along the northern property line on the roof of the mausoleum. Staff felt it was important to add a condition that so stated that reflected the Commission's direction. Commissioner Emenhiser recalled the discussion at the last meeting and felt condition O was consistent with what was discussed. Commissioner Tomblin agreed. Commissioner Gerstner questioned if this condition does not restrict above-grade interments on the rooftop within the sixteen feet, and felt it might be clearer to state that all interments are prohibited within the 16 foot setback on the rooftop of the mausoleum.. City Attorney Lynch agreed, and suggested changing the language to read that "No interments shall be allowed on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum building that are within sixteen feet from the northern property line, specifically plots illustrated in Sections 540 through 563 as depicted in Exhibit C are hereby eliminated." Commissioner James referred to condition K and asked that the wording be changed to "potential rooftop ground interment plots". Commissioner Emenhiser noted that throughout the Green Hills discussions there has been discussion regarding the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum as well as Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum, and asked staff to clarify. City Attorney Lynch clarified that Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is how it is described in the initial Master Plan, but is now called Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 9 Vice Chairman Nelson stated that the County Recorder records and Green Hills both refer to it as the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and staff continuously refers to it as Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. He felt that what the County Recorder has on record and what Green Hills calls it should be what it is named. City Attorney Lynch stated that staff uses Memorial Terrace Mausoleum because that is what it is called in the city approved Master Plan. She stated she will go back to the reference to include a cross reference. City Attorney Lynch asked the Commission if they wanted to review the language in Section 4 in regards to the requirements of submitting a Variance. The Commission was in agreement. Chairman Leon noted there was now concurrence on page 16 and asked to move on to page 17. Commissioner Tomblin noted a typo on the date in Section 5. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if, even if an appeal is filed, the moratorium comes into effect as of the adoption of the Resolution and would stay in effect until such time a decision was made on the appeal. City Attorney Lynch answered that was correct, the moratorium would be in effect until the City Council made a decision on the appeal or if Green Hills goes to court and has the moratorium invalidated. Commissioner Cruikshank noted that on Exhibit B there is no north arrow or any other reference, and felt that should be added. Commissioner Tomblin questioned if a condition could be added that upon final resolution that Green Hills modify all County plot maps so they are in compliance with the City decisions and there will be no ambiguity. City Attorney Lynch suggested language to Section 4 stating that "In addition, Green Hills shall submit modified maps to the County of Los Angeles that accurately reflect the final action by the City." The Commission agreed. The Commission agreed that they were satisfied with the language on page 17. City Attorney Lynch read the language in the Code regarding appeals, which states that the filing of the notice of appeal stays all activity on the project until a final decision on the appeal. It's for that reason that staff interprets that during the 15 day appeal period the Commission's decision in not in affect. Given the language of the Code section, and staff's interpretation, she felt that the moratorium would not be in effect immediately Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 10 upon adoption of the Resolution. She explained the moratorium would become effective if no appeal is filed or if the City Council takes action to impose the moratorium. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if there was alternative language the Planning Commission could insert that would allow the moratorium to go into effect once the Resolution was approved and to make the moratorium effective immediately. Commissioner Gerstner noted the Commission is trying to suspend activity on the property, which he felt was the intent of the code section. City Attorney Lynch agreed that the point of the Code language was to prevent applicants from developing something on the property until the appeal period was over or the City Council made a decision. She suggested language stating, notwithstanding that particular code section the Commission's action on the moratorium is to be effective immediately. She stated she will further consider the language. City Attorney Lynch next discussed the conditions of approval. She noted that many of the conditions are conditions carried forward from1991 and 2007, as well as some of the prior approvals. She explained that, other than the language highlighted in color, no other changes were made. The Commission had no comments on pages 1 or 2 of the conditions of approval, which were distributed as part of the late correspondence. On page 3, City Attorney Lynch pointed out that the language had been changed from tombstones to headstones, since headstones had been used elsewhere in the document. She also noted that staff added a definition of"low garden walls" with a definition similar to that in the code. She stated that this was not part of the motion but rather staff added it for clarification. Commissioner Cruikshank suggested taking out "low" and just defining "garden walls", and the Commission agreed. Chairman Leon felt language should be added to prohibit garden walls from being used as a columbarium, and Commissioner Tomblin agreed. City Attorney Lynch suggested the following language "Garden walls and headstones shall not be used to contain above ground interments." The Commission agreed. City Attorney Lynch discussed condition J, noting it is new and again, was not directed by the Commission, and if the Commission does not like the language it can be removed. She explained the condition requires all new mausoleum buildings to first have a silhouette constructed, notice be sent to all adjacent property owners, and requires a decision approving any new mausoleum by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 11 Commissioner Gerstner felt the original CUP was a bit bold in allowing the Director to approve new mausoleum buildings without a public hearing, and agreed with the suggested language. Commissioner Cruikshank also agreed with the proposed language, but questioned if the word "mausoleum" should be removed so that all new buildings must first come before the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed. The Commission had no other comments on page 3 or page 4. On page 5 City Attorney Lynch explained the minor modification in "I", changing the date by which the applicant must submit an application for a building permit regarding the administrative offices. The Commission agreed. City Attorney Lynch noted language added on page 6 in regards to vines on the northern wall of the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum and the addition of "which shall be allowed in consultation with the abutting Vista Verde Condominium Association". Commissioner Gerstner preferred "in concurrence with" rather than "in consultation with". There was no objection from the Commissioners. Commissioner James noted that "when not in use" should be added to 1.3 (a), City Attorney Lynch stated that all of the changes made previously will be reflected in the Resolution. There were no other comments on page 6. On page 7, City Attorney Lynch noted added language after a, b, c, d, and e, which apply regardless of whether the moratorium is in effect or not. Language was added to differentiate those conditions from f, g, h, i, and j which will apply when burials resume, if they do, on the roof of the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum. The Commission agreed with the changes on page 7„ City Attorney Lynch explained that on page 8, the old condition "I" was deleted as directed by the Commission. The Commission also directed that the hours that the sales personnel could show perspective plots in Area 11 be changed to 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Commissioner James noted that the language discussed earlier that no sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential rooftop ground interment plots should be added. Commissioner Gerstner noted that in "o" the words "below grade" should be eliminated. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 12 The Commission was in agreement with the language on pages 8 and 9. On page 10, City Attorney Lynch explained the changes to AQ-1 were to make the condition consistent with the same changes the Commission just authorized regarding Planning Commission review of buildings rather than Director review. She noted the word "mausoleum" will be changed to "buildings". With that, the Commission agreed to the changes on page 10. The Commission had no objections to pages 11 and 12. City Attorney Lynch noted on page 13 there was an issue with respect to whether or not the Commission wanted to have the cross referencing to allow this approval pursuant to a Variance. She noted that Mr. Friedman feels this condition is inconsistent with condition No. 55, however she did not agree. Mr. Friedman stated that with respect to condition No. 7, the North section should say 80 feet and in parenthesis say 40 feet for the entire mausoleum. He explained that it should be set at 40 feet because at present that is the lawful setback. If there is an approval of a Variance there can be a change of the condition of approval to make it 8 feet. He noted that condition No. 55 references the required 40 foot setback, which is why he feels the conditions are inconsistent. Commissioner Gerstner stated that condition No. 7 is saying that setbacks for above ground structures, including mausoleums and crypts shall be as follows, except for Pacifica Mausoleum and the mausoleum in Area 11. However in the requirement the first thing done is to throw into parentheticals something for one of the excepted mausoleums. He did not feel this was a clear way to write the condition, and suggested taking the exception language out and adding it into a condition 7a. City Attorney Lynch felt this was a good point, and noted condition No. 8 was written in a similar way and a condition 8a could be added for the mausoleum in area 11. Mr. Friedman explained that what he was proposing was that condition 7 (north) say 80 feet or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater (40 feet for the mausoleum shown in area 11). Commissioner Gerstner understood, however he noted that was not what was done, and part of the dispute is 40 feet or 8 feet. Mr. Friedman felt that if the City is requiring a variance for the 8 foot setback, the code says 40 feet and 40 feet is what it is today. If a variance is granted in the future, the condition can be revised to reflect the distance granted by the variance. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 13 City Attorney Lynch read proposed condition 8a, which would say that "Setbacks for the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum in area 11 shall be as follows: North: 40 feet unless a variance is approved by the City for a reduced setback." Senior Planner Schonborn stated that would go in hand with deleting the portion of condition 7 that discusses the mausoleum in area 11. Chairman Leon noted that the undeveloped side of this has an 80 foot setback from the north property line, which should be in condition 8a. In discussing the mausoleum it needs to be 80 feet adjacent to the maintenance yard and 40 feet in front of Vista Verde. City Attorney Lynch stated that was correct. She noted the 80 foot setback language was still needed, even though Green Hills has already stipulated, and language has already been included in the conditions, that there will be no additional mausoleum in area 11. Commissioner James asked the City Attorney to read into the record conditions 7, 8, and 8a. City Attorney Lynch read the following modified language in condition 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 and crypts shall be as follows: North: 80 feet or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater. South: 40 feet East: 25 feet West: 5 feet." She stated that condition 8 is unchanged, and condition 8a is added to read "Setbacks for the existing Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) mausoleum in area 11 shall be as follows: North: 40 feet, unless a Variance is approved by the City for reduced setbacks." Chairman Leon felt language should be included that setbacks are 40 feet on the western portion of the north setback and 80 feet in front of the equipment yard. He explained that condition 8a is the condition controlling the mausoleum in area 11, and the Master Plan shows the mausoleum going all the way across. Senior Planner Schonborn referred to letter F on page 2, explaining F states there are no expansions to the building that is already constructed. Commissioner Gerstner understood, however he felt this is where there could be confusion. He explained that the condition says you can't build here so we're not going to tell you what the setback is, and in the future someone comes in with an application for a building there and staff is going to consider whether or not they can have it. Then staff will have to figure out what the setback will have to be because it was never written anyplace. He suggested calling the area the north property line, north of the maintenance yard. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 14 City Attorney Lynch suggested revised language for condition 7 " North: 80 feet or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater, from the north property line north of the maintenance yard and 40 feet from the north property line abutting the Vista Verde condominium complex." The Commission was in agreement on page 13. Ms. Berkowitz questioned if this new language was now pretending that this was never approved at 8 feet, that 2007 approval never existing, the building plans were never approved, and the building was never built at 8 feet. City Attorney Lynch explained they were talking about the setbacks for the existing building and the language was saying that the building needs to conform to the setback requirements in the Municipal Code for Cemetery Districts, which is 40 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. She stated it is, in some respects, fiction since the building already exists, however it is also saying that the City would require a Variance to be approved in order to allow the building to allow in its existing location. She also noted that this language is more for clarity and how to address future proposed buildings on the property. The Commission was in agreement in regards to pages 14, 15, and 16. City Attorney Lynch referred to condition 36, noting staff modified the condition to require that approval of any mausoleums be approved by the Planning Commission, thereby making it consistent with the other conditions. She also discussed the proposed revision to condition 38 which addresses the discrepancy about the height of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. She asked the Commission if they wanted to leave the language regarding the average elevation at the front of the building, as it is currently written. Commissioner Gerstner did not think the language in condition No. 38 should be changed, and after some discussion the Commission agreed. The Commission agreed the language on page 18 was satisfactory. On page 19, Commissioner Emenhiser referred to condition No. 56, recalling at the previous meeting there was a perspective motion in regards to the security cameras, however the Commission took the CEO of Green Hills at his word that the security cameras were being used to deter vandalism and theft, and therefore the motion maker withdrew the motion. He therefore did not think condition No. 56 was needed at this time unless the consultant or member of staff provides different information. Commissioner James agreed. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if there are no laws against putting cameras on your property, then what basis did the Commission have to restrict the use of the cameras. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 15 Chairman Leon felt the Commission has to make findings that there is or is not unreasonable infringements of privacy. He felt it was quite reasonable to have this condition to ensure privacy to the residents at Vista Verde. Commissioner James stated that the Commission has no evidence that cameras are pointed directly at the resident's windows. He stated there have been allegations that residents feared there might be, but there is no affirmative evidence in the record. He stated that is not to say that at some point in the future if someone shows evidence to the City that some type of condition can be added back in at a future review. Commissioner Gerstner agreed with Commissioner James' comments. The City Attorney stated she would remove condition No. 56. Commissioner James referred to condition No. 54 and stated the language from the Resolution needs to be added to the condition. Commissioner Gerstner stated the last WHEREAS where the City is trying to establish the Planning Commission is making a Resolution to discuss the issues the Commission can address and suggested language to address this. Senior Planner Schonborn read Commissioner Gerstner's suggested language for the final WHEREAS as follows: "WHEREAS the Planning Commission seeks to provide resolution to certain items of immediate importance pursuant to the operational review, and being aware of the fact that certain conditions of the operation remain under review by consultants to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission intends to consider the findings of the consultant no later than its next scheduled operational review of Green Hills anticipated to be conducted in early 2015." Acting City Manager Petru suggested changing the wording of consultants to the Planning Commission to City Consultants. Moving to the title of the Resolution, City Attorney Lynch suggested changes which she read as follows: "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes imposing a moratorium on ground burials, interments, and sales of burial plots on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum building located in Area 11 of the Master Plan and imposing a moratorium on above ground burials within the five-foot setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building, unless said encroachments are removed within thirty days of the date of final City action. Whereby the moratorium shall remain in effect until final action is taken by the City to approve a variance for the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum building and to allow existing interments in the required setbacks to remain. Requiring submittal of a variance application and to seek approval to allow the existing Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum building in Area 11 to remain encroaching 32 feet into the required 40 foot setback; to allow existing below- Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 16 ground interments and six additional companion interments to encroach into the 16 foot setback in the northwest corner of Green Hills; imposing additional conditions of approval; amending the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan for property located at 27501 Western Avenue, Green Hills Memorial Park." City Attorney Lynch then referred to Section 3 and explained that at the beginning of the section the following language would be added: "Notwithstanding Section 17.80.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, as a result of the observed visual, privacy, and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials on the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum building in Area 11, and inconsistencies between the conditions of approval and the constructed mausoleum Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) building a moratorium is hereby imposed immediately on the burials and sales of plots on the roof of the Memorial Terrace (Pacific Terrace) Mausoleum in Area 11." She stated the rest of the section remains the same. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve both the Resolution and Exhibit A, as amended per the discussions that have taken place at this meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tomblin asked the City Attorney if she felt comfortable with the language regarding the moratorium, and that the moratorium would be in effect immediately and could not be subject to an appeal. City Attorney Lynch responded that was the intent, as the language supersedes the Municipal Code section. However, she noted that Green Hills will most likely make a contrary assertion. Commissioner Tomblin asked what the remedy would be if Green Hills chooses not to abide by the moratorium. City Attorney Lynch answered that the City would have to evaluate to determine whether the City would go to court to get an injunction to prevent individuals from interred on the roof of the mausoleum. Commissioner Tomblin asked, if Green Hills were not to follow the moratorium, if the City could consider revocation of the CUP. City Attorney Lynch stated there is a condition of approval that states failure to comply with the conditions of the Master Plan and the Commission's actions could entitle the Commission to commence revocation proceedings. City Attorney added that on page 13, the last WHEREAS is being deleted, as it refers to the administrative buildings, and it is being added to the separate Resolution regarding the administrative building. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 17 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to amend his motion to eliminate the last WHEREAS on page 13 in regards to the administrative building, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Vice Chairman Nelson stated that none of the Commission or staff are experts in running cemeteries. He stated the Commission has spoken on micromanagement in the past, and now the Commission is micromanaging the cemetery. He felt that taking the punitive actions that they are about to take should wait until the internal investigation is over so that the Commission has all of the facts. He realized the time and effort that has been put into this, but could not support taking the punitive actions that are part of this motion. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that after six very long hearings this is the best the Commission can do for Green Hills, the City, and the residents at Vista Verde. Commissioner Tomblin agreed that the Commission does not like to micromanage, however the role of the Commission is to enforce the codes of the City. While performing the annual review, unfortunately the Commission discovered there are violations at Green Hills of these codes. He felt it was the Commission's obligation to enforce the City's codes, and that he was doing his job as a Commissioner. Commissioner Cruikshank agreed. He felt it was time the Commission do something to help a very bad situation, and this was the least the City can be doing for the residents that have to live with this every day. The motion to approve the Resolution and Exhibit A as amended, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2014-29 was approved, (6-1) with Vice Chairman Nelson dissenting. City Attorney Lynch read the following Resolution into the record: "A Resolution of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes directing the City to allow submittal of construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for the administration building addition that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2014 for property located at 27501 Western Avenue (Green Hills Memorial Park). WHEREAS the Planning Commission previously established deadlines for the submittal of plans and construction of the administrative offices building and the removal of the temporary modular units; NOW THEREFORE the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: SECTION 1 Notwithstanding Municipal Code Section 17.86.050 the Planning Commission hereby agrees to allow Green Hills to proceed with submittal of construction plans into Building and Safety plan check for the administration building addition that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2014." Commissioner James moved to adopt the resolution as read by the City Attorney, seconded by Commission Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2014-30 was approved, (7- 0). Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 18 Commissioner James asked staff the status of the internal investigation being conducted. Acting City Manager Petru reported that the City's labor attorney has retained a private third party investigator to conduct the investigation, and will be assisted by the Lilley Planning Group. In regards to the time line, she explained the Lilley Group is finishing up the compliance review, and once done will move on to compiling the documents for the investigator. She did not have a time line for that, noting that to her knowledge this has not yet commenced. Commissioner James stated he was disappointed that this has taken so long, and Commissioner Emenhiser agreed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. October 14, 2014 Minutes Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Nelson. Approved, (5-0-2) with Commissioner Gerstner and Chairman Leon abstaining since they were not at that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on December 9 2014 The pre-agenda was approved without objection. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 11,2014 Page 19