The URL can be used to link to this page

20161115 CC AGENDA Exhibit 677-9193 0 N V N �O r El I. I w LU I fN C� �rN CJ �q w LU From: Debbie Landes To: So Kim Subject: No. 2 of 2: Pictures of Green Hills for RPVPC mtg 5/10/16 Date: Sunday, May 08, 2016 2:20:08 PM Attachments: ATf00001.txt ATf00002.txt Hello Ms. Kim, here are the other two pictures I wanted to present on May 10. Again, thank you so much for your time & expertise. Debbie Landes Dlbodesi@fastmail.com D-679 From: Sharon Lovevs To: So Kim Subject: View from #109 Date: Friday, May 06, 2016 9:18:15 AM Attachments: ATf00001.txt From: Irene Turner To: So Kim; miminotchewC�amail.com Subject: Saturday morning work schedule ... again Date: Saturday, April 30, 2016 9:18:11 AM Hello So Kim, I am once again forwarding photos of the crypts being moved, by separate e-mail. It's again, Saturday - 9.am - when you said GH hours were Mon -Fri. Is anything being done? If so it either needs to be monitored or enforced. It would be appreciated if we could have some peace and quiet at least one day a week. Was a new agreement made between RPV and GH to allow them to work on the weekend? Irene Turner ^yr � \ �. « ��: \ � . %& � � « . �� \� 2 � : w y .. a� «: . . ��. �\. d� \ - . /�� >� « «:»<� <� � »�. 2 �©»x� ƒ«y? m � � � ©°� »�»� � : \ » 2' < . : yam« y/© , N�u�uui�l� _'�:Wmrerrc �mu'uriu' _ - From: Irene Turner To: So Kim; miminotchewC�amail.com Subject: Re: Too close? Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:32:24 AM Thank you Kim for your prompt response. I did measure the distance from the fence to the end of the grave and it is only six feet. (Photo sent to you). I do realize that you cannot restrict mourners for standing around the gravesite, but if the gravesite was further away from the fence (even two feet would help), it might not feel like they were actually in our back yard! It seems like GH are slowly encroaching on the separation space between them and RPV residents. Thank you for helping to get signs along the Inspiration Slope. Irene Turner -----Original Message ----- From: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> To: Irene Turner <imtathome@aol.com>; miminotchew <miminotchew@gmail.com> Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2016 10:51 am Subject: RE: Too close? Hi Ms. Turner, Thank you for the email. I will relay the concern to GH and talk to them regarding the additional signs along the frontage of Inspiration Slope. Re: the distance from the property lines, we can only regulate how far actual burial plots can be from the property lines. Unfortunately, there is no regulation restricting mourners to abide by the same setbacks. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Irene Turner[.[r�.a....�.�:`�..:;.,��,tat,[1,o _e.(r �.�.` .�..::.�:.ca,�r�.] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:48 PM To: So Kim <�,cal<..tl:?...:.t:,v�.:.......,eov>; �r�.i..1^r�..i.t;1,ca.�.�::....1.�.�..(l:?..grr�ai .(::orr� Subject: Too close? Hello So Kim, I am attaching 3 photos (separately) of a recent burial outside our back fence. How close is too close? The mourners are so close to the fence that we feel they are actually in our back yard as we can hear every word they say as we are trying to enjoy a quiet read on our back deck. This morning (Sunday) a large party - 8 car loads - arrived at 9.am, put up their canopies and stayed until around 1.Opm playing their music and partying. I notice there are several signs on other parts of GH asking that visitors keep the noise down and respect the fact that there are homes close by. Perhaps you could arrange for some of those signs to be put up - and enforced - along Inspiration Slope where the most recent parts of the cemetery have been cultivated. Thank you, Irene Turner D-691 From: Irene Turner To: So Kim; miminotchewC�amail.com Subject: Too close? Date: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:48:34 PM Hello So Kim, I am attaching 3 photos (separately) of a recent burial outside our back fence. How close is too close? The mourners are so close to the fence that we feel they are actually in our back yard as we can hear every word they say as we are trying to enjoy a quiet read on our back deck. This morning (Sunday) a large party - 8 car loads - arrived at 9.am, put up their canopies and stayed until around 1.Opm playing their music and partying. I notice there are several signs on other parts of GH asking that visitors keep the noise down and respect the fact that there are homes close by. Perhaps you could arrange for some of those signs to be put up - and enforced - along Inspiration Slope where the most recent parts of the cemetery have been cultivated. Thank you, Irene Turner D-692 I Pr 41' From: Irene Turner To: imtatho So Kim; Subject' Re: Mausoleum atInspiration Slope Date: Saturday, April 16, 2016 10:29:28 AM Hello So, By1O.O5the concrete vaults were unloaded and the empty flat bed truck left the Slope. I'll let you know if they return. Thanks Irene ----- Original Message --- Fnom:Irene Turner <intathome@;aoioom> To: SoK<SoK@rpvoa.gov>;miminotohew<miminotohew@gmai|.00m> Sent: Sat, Apr 1G.2O1G8:18am Subject: Re: Mausoleum atInspiration Slope Good morning So Kim (copy Bernadette) |eaUze you won't be in your office this Saturday morning 16thApril, but atO81Oamanother large supply ofconcrete vaults are being delivered to the Mausoleum atInspiration Slope. As your message below says the working hours of the city is 7am. to 6pm on weekdays does that mean that they have different hours for the weekend, or (like I had assumed) that there should be no-one working onthe slope onthe weekend? Could you please clarify this? Thank you So Kim. I will let you know what time the work stops today. Irene Turner ----- Original Message --- Fmm:SoKim To: Irene Turner Sent: Wed, Mar 2.2O1G82Gam Subject: RE: Mausoleum at Inspiration Slope Good Morning, Green Hills was already approved tufill the roof area with earth aspart ufthe original construction ufthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. They held off unitinhopes tuobtain approval tuhave burial sites there. As you know, they withdrew that request and no burials will be allowed on the rooftop. Yesterday, we granted an administrative approval for a retaining wall that wraps around the northwest corner of the building and re -contouring of the area to accommodate the new wall. The retaining wall will be placed below grade with guard nai|s/pi|asters above grade. Su | du not anticipate the wall tucreate any adverse impacts from your property. Asaresult, the mounds uf dirt placed across that area will be used to fill on and around the building and any remaining dirt will beremoved from that area. | updated the City's webpageand placed alink tuthe approved plan Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm up, etc are allowed from 7am to 4pm on weekdays only. This is shorter than the general construction hours in the City, which is 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Also, I plan to have add a FAQ section on the City's webpage for all questions raised by the public related to GH. I will have it set up by mid -month. I hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes g (310) 544-5222 From: Irene Turner [.Ij�.a..il..�:`�..:;.,r.r.]tat,(io.l��_�'...(r�.D.`:�.�..::.�:.ca,M] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:08 AM To: So Kim<�.`:�..K..(l:?...:.p..:.......S1c Y> Subject: Mausoleum at Inspiration Slope Hello So Kim, Irene Turner from Peninsula Verde Drive here. I want you to know that the GH cemetery workers and currently filling in the above ground burial site with mountains of earth. It seems that whether they withdraw their application or not, the height is getting higher. Whether they fill it in and use it for above ground burials, or whether they fill it in and don't use it, the height will be the same. Of course the 7.Oam wake up call with their earth moving equipment and its loud shrill reverse siren is on- going. Does the city of RPV have a start time for workers, and do the workers of GH fall into that category? I just want to make you aware of their progress. Thank you for all your help in the past. Irene Turner D-697 Residents of Peninsula Verdes would like clarification as to what persons, and to which department they work in when you refer to the "City" in the letter below. I have highlighted the section in question. bernadette sabarh Dear RPV Residents, As you may be a ware, the Inspiration Slope ma us.1—building was approved w lth nearly 6'.f fill., the rooftop. Earllerthls year, GH submitted a, a pp l Icahn, r,q,,,ti,g a pp.... I fr..ft. p burial activltles, which was wlthd—s..n after Asresult, n. r.. ft. p burial activities are currently allowed. Ab-ta—th ag., GH .rd—d 600..,.rete —Its -d the City a uth--d them t.t—p.rarily store lt., the r..ft.p. Now, GH is requesting approval t. permanently install these —Its — the r..ft.p and backfill.verth— Thee,d result will be... -tent with the approved plans, except thatthe.... rete —Its would be buried within the approved fill area. After —h dlscussl., between the City and GH regardl,gthls matter, a. agreement was reached t. allow GH t. stare and bury the vaults ., the r..ft.p, provided that GH signs a ragreel,gthatthey have ,. e,tltl—tt. r..ft.p burials, must g. through the City process t.. bt— approval (duly noticed public hearing), and will waive any claims against the City should future requests far r..ft.p burial activltles be denied. A ... rdi,gly, should GH submit a, appllcati., requesting r..ft.p b, -Il -d this be approved bythe City, the co n .rete —Its —y be utilized f.rthat purpose. C.--Iy, should the request be de,led, GH —t n.t utillzethe buried .... rete vaults -d release the City ft— any liability. rd—gest. GH arising from such decisi.,, and assumes all risks. I, .they wards, with a denial, GH will n.t be able t. conduct grading activltles t. remove the —Its that were buried. Please feel free t...,tact — with -y q—tl.,s. Sincerely, So Klm Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes f2,i [ 1 Set_12" J From: Pat Akins To: So Kim Subject: Resident of Peninsula Verde Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:29:41 PM Dear So Kim, I was informed by another resident of Peninsula Verde that you sent an email to Peninsula Verde residents on April 5, 2016. I am a Peninsula Verde resident and I did not receive that correspondence. I am requesting to be on your list to receive future emails. I was in attendance at the City Council meeting that evening along with other neighbors and since the email was sent at 5:55 pm, just an hour before the meeting, we had no idea that an agreement had been made with Green Hills allowing them to continue installing vaults on the rooftop of Inspiration Slope. When reading the email after the meeting and then understanding what Councilwoman Brooks meant by receiving late correspondence, it was disturbing news to me, especially because it seems like Green Hills is being rewarded for ignoring the rules of the very commission that has given them permission to proceed to do what they intended to do in the first place. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting this evening but I will try to keep informed by watching the video. Sincerely, Patricia Akins 26911 Lunada Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 From: Sharon Lovevs To: So Kim Subject: Question.. Date: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 6:05:05 PM I am wondering why, the last two important letters you have written always seem to arrive on Tuesday afternoon. Is the city attorney so busy that he can't give interested parties information sooner! I hate to say this, but it looks like Ellen Berkewitz all over again. Perhaps you remember in front of the Planning Commission she would pull the three o'clock long letter. No one read it and was prepared to challenge it. Needless, to say it is very discouraging and stressful for all! I am shocked that in thirty days the city attorney is now allowing Green Hills to bury the white concrete vaults in ground/ on top of Inspiration Slope! Why would Green Hills waste 600 vaults 7. You know as well as I they will bury on top of Inspiration Slope. They figure we will rat on our neighbors and try and buy us out. What happened to the lie about placing them in the surrounding area!!! Or storing them ! I wondered about that as I have not seen that currently around the perimeter of Green Hills only on the roof top have I seen the vaults buried. Why can't he Just say No7 Can anyone tell GreenHills "no"' does he understand that Peninsula Verde does not want Roof Top burials We get it!!! Push push because no one tells us no, we are Perfect neighbors. We care about them we put curtains around the roof top burials, to give everyone privacy. We are terrific in "our own minds eye." We will never rat on our neighbors! Thank you, Sharon Loveys Sent from my iPhone D-700 From: Sharon Lovevs To: So Kim Subject: Re: Email to Peninsula Verde residents Date: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:00:45 PM Are you coming tonight? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2016, at 5:55 PM, So Kim < �,c&. r �� > wrote: Dear RPV Residents, As you may be aware, the Inspiration Slope mausoleum building was approved with nearly 6' of fill on the rooftop. Earlier this year, GH submitted an application requesting approval of rooftop burial activities, which was withdrawn soon after. As a result, no rooftop burial activities are currently allowed. About a month ago, GH ordered 600 concrete vaults and the City authorized them to temporarily store it on the rooftop. Now, GH is requesting approval to permanently install these vaults on the rooftop and backfill over them. The end result will be consistent with the approved plans, except that the concrete vaults would be buried within the approved fill area. After much discussion between the City and GH regarding this matter, an agreement was reached to allow GH to store and bury the vaults on the rooftop, provided that GH signs a waiver agreeing that they have no entitlement to rooftop burials, must go through the City process to obtain approval (duly noticed public hearing), and will waive any claims against the City should future requests for rooftop burial activities be denied. Accordingly, should GH submit an application requesting rooftop burials and this be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be utilized for that purpose. Conversely, should the request be denied, GH must not utilize the buried concrete vaults and release the City from any liability or damages to GH arising from such decision, and assumes all risks. In other words, with a denial, GH will not be able to conduct grading activities to remove the vaults that were buried. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes g (310) 544-5222 D-701 April 5h,2016 To: Mayor Ken Dyda Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks Councilman Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman Anthony M. Misetich Planning Commission Chairman David Tomblin Senior Planner So Kim From: Vincent Reber 26918 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Comment on City Council Meeting Agenda Item M To Whom It May Concern: Reference is made to my letter to you dated March 26th, 2016 alerting you to preparations Green Hills Cemetery is making to implement rooftop burials on top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Although I have not yet received a formal response to that letter, I see that city planning staff has prepared and submitted a report pertinent to tonight's City Council meeting agenda item 'M'. While the content of that report addresses some of the concerns I raised in my previous letter, one of the pages on an attachment to the report illustrates what I see to be a fundamental problem with the city planning process. I would like to draw your attention to a page excerpted from that report and attached below. The top of the page contains an excerpt from the 2007 approved plans for the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The depicted plan was congruent with the 2007 Master Plan that had been developed and finalized after much public input. This is what the residents of my neighborhood had agreed to. The bottom of the page contains an excerpt of the 2013 approved plans that contrasts significantly with the 2007 approved plans. In particular: 1. The picture shows the rooftop retaining wall and burial vaults that were described in my previous letter. It would appear that the city had approved construction of the mausoleum building with significant modifications that only make sense for specifically supporting rooftop burials. Yet the city did not specifically permit rooftop burials at that time? 2. Rooftop burials or not, the approved plans were a substantial modification to the 2007 approved plan and should have gone through a cycle of public notice and review. In fact, a search of the 2013 Planning Commission meeting agendas indicates that the members of that body were not made aware of this change. As I stated earlier, I have not formed an opinion on rooftop burials. However, I am very disappointed that the city planning staff agreed to let Green Hills pave the way for these Page 1 of 3 D-702 in 2013 in a process that was hidden from public view. We could have and should have had an open discussion in 2013 of the proposed changes to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building, as well as their obvious purpose. But we did not. Some of my neighbors are resigned to the belief that rooftop burials are a "done deal" and that there is nothing they can say or do to influence matters. I do not agree with them but I think it is a terrible shame that they feel that way. I conclude this letter by repeating one of the recommendations made in my previous letter: "Submit all future applications from Green Hills for permits, variances, et cetera to very careful scrutiny and notify the residents of adjacent neighborhoods so they can provide comment and feedback before decisions are made. " Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 of 3 D-703 EXCERPT€ILLI ,P'PRI]EI PLANS EMIR THE II�PIRTII4f SUPE MAUSOLEUM ! EXCERPT OF 2013 APPROVED PLANS FOR THE INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM CO Nuq y. r�i��._��°i(x, i� w^°; lug d�1� A7 fRYPTS CA MKREIE SMI, KIM . ......... �r 10M Tu MIWC 4$ T ¢4m I E B-6 Page 3 of 3 D-704 From: Rebecca S. Burleson To: Ken Dvda; Brian Campbell (Gmail); Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Jerry Duhovic Cc: Doua Willmore; So Kim; Elena Gerli; Terry Rodriaue; Ara Mihranian Subject: Inspiration Slope (Green Hills) Waiver of Liability Date: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:19:20 PM Attachments: (Inspiration Slooe) Waiver and Indemnity Aareement.pdf Sent on behalf of Dave Aleshire Councilmembers— It is possible that tonight questions will come up concerning the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum rooftop burials. I wanted to be sure you were aware of the current status. Doug had agreed to permit them to place the vaults on the rooftop and bury them as a part of the construction project so that there would not have to be a subsequent uncovering of the roof and installation. We did require them to agree that they will have to go thru a public hearing process to get the rooftop burials authorized, and to waive any claims against the City should they not get that approval. Attached is the letter agreement which memorializes the oral understanding. The letter agreement has not been signed by Green Hills yet. Although I'm leaving for Fresno shortly, Elena who is attending the meeting will be following up with Ellen Berkowitz to see if there are any issues with releasing the draft letter publicly tonight. So Elena should know by tonight's meeting, and she and Doug will be consulting on the best way of handling questions tonight. I don't anticipate any problems with the letter and I'd hope you find it complete. Again you need not respond to this email but can discuss it tonight, Dave David J. Aleshire Managing Partner Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949) 223-1170 1 Dir: (949) 250-5409 1 Fax: (949) 223-1180 1 daleshire@awattorneys.com I awattorneys.com II')I�, eriwil .)rd.n)y fllro= tip ncriillIed will`) Il riwy cord )Ir) IprIvlle ed or ollw rwly (, confider)li<d inforriwlir.n If ymn .)re nol I`)e Ir)IenrJed iecll.iienI, or I)(,I eve 1I`wI ymn riwy I).av, receiver; I , coriiri nu)ic.allor) 1r) error, p r.;vi`)e c ndervla) erii�ail <,)r)rl rReIoe I`)e erii.) !I yon,i r( cc,ivc,rl, D-705 1 LESHIRE & David J. Aleshire 18881 Von Karman Avenue, WYN �r 1,�, daleshire@aw 49) 250- com409 Suite 1700 LLI� (949) 250-5409 Irvine, CA 92612 A y 1 0 A, , i, A/ P (949) 223-1170 F (949) 223-1180 t II kAIVAI A fl 1Y I I OS AIVAI 1..11 ! A1111!! I AI IN I dA1.. VAI 11!IY March 30, 2016 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Name Title Green Hills Memorial Park Address Re: Inspiration Slope Rooftop Burials; Waiver of Claims Dear Name: AWA I I ()1:R1V1'.YA,C()1A This letter memorializes the agreement between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) and Green Hills Memorial Park (Green Hills) regarding application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (the Mausoleum) by Green Hills. The representatives of the parties reached an oral understanding to permit placement of concrete vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum provided that Green Hills agrees that it has no entitlement to rooftop burials, must go through the City process to obtain approval, and will have no claims against City with respect to rooftop burials should its application be denied. This letter agreement confirms the oral understandings. 1. Factual Background Green Hills operates a memorial park and cemetery located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Green Hills's operation and development of the memorial park is governed by the 2007 Master Plan, including all later amendments (the Master Plan), and by City Council Resolution No. 2015-12, revising and amending conditions of approval for Green Hills's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and amending the Master Plan (the Resolution). The Master Plan contemplates the construction of the Mausoleum in Area 2 of the memorial park, and further contemplates the possibility of rooftop burials thereon. The CUP's conditions of approval were revised and updated due to a recent controversy surrounding rooftop burials at another of Green Hill's mausoleums, the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. The rooftop burials in the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum are visible from the condominium building just north of the structure, and have generated complaints and litigation. The City has expended significant public resources to resolve the issues surrounding the rooftop burials, and will expend significant further resources in the foreseeable future to resolve the litigation. 01203.0025/291270.3 D-706 Name March 30, 2016 Page 2 Green Hills acknowledges that the Resolution amended Green Hills's Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which now provides for an administrative substantial compliance review so that, except for improvements consistent with the Master Plan or those subject to the Planning Commission, all improvements must be reviewed by the Director to determine if they substantially comply with the Master Plan (Condition Lk.). Condition Lk. specifically provides that review of an application for rooftop burials can be performed by the Director. The Director can, at his or her discretion, refer a matter directly to the Planning Commission. Condition 2 provides that the following matters are directly reviewable by the Planning Commission: (i) the construction or modification of a mausoleum or other significant building, (ii) any significant change to the grading, (iii) any development of a future phase of Green Hills where the Master Plan has not designated a development plan or uses, or (iv) any amendment to the Master Plan. Thus, while rooftop burials are contemplated in the Master Plan, per Condition Lk. of the CUP, Green Hills may not perform such burials prior to obtaining administrative approval from the Director or the Planning Commission, pursuant to the Resolution. Green Hills therefore acknowledges that neither the Master Plan nor the Resolution vest them with the right to conduct rooftop burials at the Mausoleum. In anticipation of possible rooftop burials, Green Hills has purchased and with the oral understanding memorialized herein, installed concrete vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum. Green Hills intends to cover the vaults with dirt and ground cover, per Condition 22 of the CUP. However, Green Hills has not to date filed an application to conduct rooftop burials at the Mausoleum. Unless and until Green Hills obtains permission from the Director or the Planning Commission, it may not perform rooftop burials at the Mausoleum. Green Hills does not have a readily available storage space for the vaults which have been ordered and has requested that it be allowed to (i) install the vaults on the roof top, and (ii) bury them. The City Manager has agreed that Green Hills may store the empty concrete burial vaults on the roof of the Mausoleum, and that such vaults shall be buried and the entirety of the roof shall be backfilled with dirt and ground cover provided that Green Hills waive any claims against the City should rooftop burials not be approved for the rooftop at the Mausoleum. Accordingly, if Green Hills submits an application to perform rooftop burials at the Mausoleum, and should the application be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be utilized for that purpose. However, in the event that the City decides in its sole discretion to deny any application by Green Hills to perform rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, Green Hills must not utilize the buried concrete vaults for rooftop burials and releases the City from any liability or damages to Green Hills arising from such decision, and assumes all risks therefore, as provided below. Based on the above, and on the City's police power, Green Hills agrees that the provisions of this Agreement are reasonable and do not impose an undue burden on Green Hills, 01203.0025/291270.3 D-707 Name March 30, 2016 Page 3 and that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Master Plan, and with the agreed -to conditions of approval in the Resolution. 2. Waiver of Claims Against the City. Green Hills expressly acknowledges that any future application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is within the City's police power to grant or deny. Green Hills agrees that the City shall be entitled to reject, with or without cause, any application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Green Hills further agrees, consistent with Condition 41.a. of the CUP, that City shall not be liable to Green Hills for any cause or damages whatsoever arising out of City's denial of any such application. Green Hills further agrees that any rejection of any such application is not for a discriminatory or any other illegal purpose and Green Hills waives all rights to future claims or damages arising out of the City's rejection of Green Hills's application for rooftop burials at the Mausoleum in perpetuity. Green Hills further acknowledges that the denial of such an application does not constitute a compensable interest that would give rise to a takings claim. 3. Police Power. Green Hills acknowledges that the City has the authority to grant or deny discretionary applications for uses within the City in part based on concerns of public health, safety, and welfare. Rooftop burials have generated complaints and litigation and have caused the City to expend significant public resources, and may constitute a threat to the health, safety, and welfare. Green Hills agrees that the City retains its authority to determine the appropriateness of rooftop burials at the Mausoleums at a future date. Nothing in this Agreement, therefore, shall limit the City's authority to exercise its police powers or governmental authority, or take other appropriate actions to address issues of public health, safety, and welfare as deemed appropriate by the City in its sole determination and discretion. Green Hills acknowledges that no rights arise under this Agreement as to the City's police power, including but not limited to, the approval or denial of any required permits. Further, this Agreement does not constitute a development agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, and thus the Mausoleum remains subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and codes. 4. Estoppel. By entering into this Agreement, Green Hills waives any and all claims of estoppel against the City relating to the requirement that Green Hills apply for and obtain a permit from the City before conducting any rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. 01203.0025/291270.3 D-708 Name March 30, 2016 Page 4 5. Indemnity. Green Hills, as a material part of the consideration to the City, shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold the City, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, City Council members and employees (collectively, "City"), harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever which may arise in the exercise of Green Hills's rights hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), losses or damages arising from City's rejection of any application for rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, any breach of this Agreement by Green Hills, or any act or failure to act of Green Hills or Green Hills's agents, employees, construction workers, or invitees (collectively, "Green Hills"), except those arising out of the sole willful misconduct of the City. 6. Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542. By releasing and forever discharging claims both known and unknown as provided herein, Green Hills expressly waives any and all rights under California Civil Code Section 1542 in connection with any Claim or Liability against the City. Civil Code Section 1542 provides: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. Green Hills waives and relinquishes any and all rights and benefits which it may have under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and any similar code provision or protection. Green Hills represents that it has performed a full and complete investigation of the facts pertaining to this Agreement. Nevertheless, Green Hills acknowledges and is aware that it may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different than those which it now knows or believes to be true with respect to potential claims, allegations, events and facts set forth herein, but it is Green Hill's intention hereby to fully and finally settle and release any and all matters, disputes, and differences, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which may exist, as against the City, and in furtherance of this intention, the release herein given shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete general release notwithstanding discovery or existence of any such additional or different facts. 7. Integration; Amendment. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and cannot be modified, terminated, or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by an instrument in writing signed by all parties hereto. Green Hills acknowledges that it was permitted to commence installation of the 01203.0025/291270.3 D-709 Name March 30, 2016 Page 5 concrete vaults based on an oral understanding consistent with the terms hereof and which is memorialized in this letter agreement. 8. Interpretation and Enforcement; Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or in any other appropriate court with jurisdiction in such county, and the parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court. 9. Prevailing Party Attorney Fees. In the event that either party shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The venue for any litigation shall be Los Angeles County. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding, the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the drafting party. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. 10. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible. Please carefully review the terms of this letter agreement and, if you find them acceptable, execute the enclosed copy. This agreement may be executed in counterparts and by fax signature. By signing below, Parties represent and warranty that they have authority to bind the Parties to this Agreement. Please return the executed letter agreement by fax and by enclosing an executed original in the envelope provided. 01203.0025/291270.3 D-710 Name March 30, 2016 Page 6 Very truly yours, ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP David J. Aleshire City Attorney DJA:rsb Attachments cc: City Council City Manager City Clerk 01203.0025/291270.3 D-711 Name March 30, 2016 Page 7 I HAVE RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL OF THIS LETTER AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND AGREE TO THEM. I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF AND BIND GREEN HILLS. GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK Dated: April , 2016 By: Name Title: 01203.0025/291270.3 D-712 From: Nad Gv To: So Kim Subject: Fwd: GH violation of CUP Date: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:50:05 PM Attachments: IMG 0446.PNG So Kim, Did you receive the email I sent to you yesterday? Here it is again thank you, Nadia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nad Gv <nvgeoruagmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:15 PM Subject: GH violation of CUP To: So Kim <SoI rpvca.gov> Cc: Brian Carter <brianscartu&umail.com>, Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveysayahoo.com> Hi So Kim, Almost a month passed after you forwarded our conversation to GH and as expected and as usual, nothing happened... You said your job is to make sure that GH comply with the CUP. Please, don't forward my emails to anyone! You get the necessary information from the emails, arrange it in a way the other party understands it clearly and tell them what to do to follow the rules. Then there are no excuses like "We didn't understand..."! Another issue with GH which I would like to bring to your attention.. They recently did a burial on the area close to the ramp, Actually, so close, the tent was partially over the roof top?! They erected the tent a little after 8AM, pinning down the legs with loud noise ... GH is playing the game to tease us or to tease and test the CUP! Yes, because it is not entirely on the top, it could be set up early morning, no matter that the tent is actually partially on the roof top... I guess that what they are going to argue about is that it was not on the rooftop. To us, the tent was on the top and it was erected and kept there for entire morning plus the early afternoon... And, if they were "the good neighbors" they state they are, this would not happen. Every move is well measured to create visual and noise impact on us and at the same time to avoid direct disobeying of the rules, just bending them ... and trying how much you would allow them to bend the rules... that's not what a good neighbor would do... See the pictures. Beginning a little after 8AM on March 21st. D-713 end: after 13:20PM D-714 This is another GH violation of the CUP. The city actually has the power to revoke their CUP if they don't follow it. What about this one? Nadia D-715 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: No more dirt? Date: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:00:34 AM Attachments: ATf00001.txt Please So, This is NOT storage. This is installation! The shovel is sitting on a section that was not placed when you told me no more dirt would come onto the roof. D-716 From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: RE: No more dirt? Date: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:56:10 AM So I haven't even had enough deliveries to start a new area. More concerning is that they are clearly in the construction area. You can let them know we will start enforcing trespassing violations if they are seen in that area. This is for their safety. They are clearly standing on walls and or climbing the fence. Nick Resich Park Operations Superintendent Direct Line (310) 521-43011 Fax Line (310) 519-8573 Main Line (310) 831-03111 www.greenhillsmemolial.com -----Original Message ----- From: So Kim [mailto:SoK(a)rDvca. oy] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM To: Nick Resich Subject: FW: No more dirt? Hi Nick, Just a reminder, until the waiver is prepared and signed, please do not fill the rooftop with any more dirt. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 -----Original Message ----- From: Bernadette Sabath[mailto:miminotchew(cr)gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 5:32 AM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: No more dirt? Please So, This is NOT storage. This is installation! The shovel is sitting on a section that was not placed when you told me no more dirt would come onto the roof. D-718 From: Nad Gv To: So Kim Cc: Brian Carter; Sharon Lovevs Subject: GH violation of CUP Date: Monday, April 04, 2016 6:15:21 PM Attachments: IMG 0446.PNG Hi So Kim, Almost a month passed after you forwarded our conversation to GH and as expected and as usual, nothing happened... You said your job is to make sure that GH comply with the CUP. Please, don't forward my emails to anyone! You get the necessary information from the emails, arrange it in a way the other party understands it clearly and tell them what to do to follow the rules. Then there are no excuses like "We didn't understand..."! Another issue with GH which I would like to bring to your attention.. They recently did a burial on the area close to the ramp, Actually, so close, the tent was partially over the roof top?! They erected the tent a little after 8AM, pinning down the legs with loud noise ... GH is playing the game to tease us or to tease and test the CUP! Yes, because it is not entirely on the top, it could be set up early morning, no matter that the tent is actually partially on the roof top... I guess that what they are going to argue about is that it was not on the rooftop. To us, the tent was on the top and it was erected and kept there for entire morning plus the early afternoon... And, if they were "the good neighbors" they state they are, this would not happen. Every move is well measured to create visual and noise impact on us and at the same time to avoid direct disobeying of the rules, just bending them ... and trying how much you would allow them to bend the rules... that's not what a good neighbor would do... See the pictures. Beginning a little after 8AM on March 21st. D-719 end: after 13:20PM D-720 This is another GH violation of the CUP. The city actually has the power to revoke their CUP if they don't follow it. What about this one? Nadia D-721 March 26 h, 2016 To: Mayor Ken Dyda Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks Councilman Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman Anthony M. Misetich Planning Commission Chairman David Tomblin Senior Planner So Kim From: Vincent Reber 26918 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Mausoleum Rooftop Burial Preparations To Whom It May Concern: My neighbors and I have have been on heightened alert ever since we became aware of the events leading to the debacle of the Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and its adverse effects on the owners of the adjacent Vista Verde Condominiums. In particular, we have been closely monitoring the development of the nearby Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. This communication is to raise your awareness of what might be a developing issue concerning that project. I would like draw your attention to the photographs below that were recently taken near the site of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum project. It would appear that Green Hills is currently in the process of installing uniformly spaced and precisely leveled concrete burial vaults on the roof of the mausoleum. Unless this is an unusual but permitted type of roofing material, one could reasonably assume that they are actively preparing this area for "rooftop burials". This is confirmed by the presence of what appears to be a retaining wall on the roof instead of the railing depicted in the original plan. It is my understanding that rooftop burials on the mausoleum were not part of the 2007 Master Plan, nor are they allowed by the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP). But the pictures seem to indicate that Green Hills has been planning for them for quite a while, and has designed and constructed the building and its roof in anticipation of eventually conducting these. In my opinion, this constitutes a significant deviation to a plan that had been agreed upon after significant public disclosure and discussion. I had heard that Green Hills had recently submitted, then withdrew an application for a permit to conduct rooftop burials. I had also heard that city planning staff had intended to approve this permit, apparently not sharing my concern that this is a significant change that merits full and formal public review. I personally have not yet formed an opinion about rooftop burials on Inspiration Slope or how they would affect my neighborhood. But I do have a concern with what appears to be a surreptitious "if we build it, they will approve" maneuver. I am also concerned that Page 1 of 6 D-722 other deviations from the plan might have taken place in this and other projects. If you share these concerns as well, I strongly recommend that you take the following actions: 1. Issue a stop work order to Green Hills and send city employees or city contractors to visually inspect as well as conduct detailed measurements in order to independently ensure that all aspects of the project adhere to the CUP and city building regulations. 2. Order Green Hills to remove the currently installed vaults from the roof, and then replace the solid rooftop retaining wall with the railing that was depicted in the original plan. 3. Submit all future applications from Green Hills for permits, variances, et cetera to very careful scrutiny and notify the residents of adjacent neighborhoods so they can provide comment and feedback before decisions are made. I would like to elaborate on the driving concern behind the 3rd recommendation. As stated earlier, I have been told that the Planning Department had intended to grant approval for the now withdrawn request for Inspiration Slope Mausoleum rooftop burials. Furthermore, two other development requests pertaining to the Inspiration Slope project were approved this month without prior notification. While my cursory review of those two requests seems to indicate that they were reasonable, I don't think it is very good idea to proceed with granting such requests without at least informing and seeking input from the affected local community, especially in consideration of what happened with the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Please do not misunderstand: my neighbors and I have no interest in pointlessly obstructing the progress of Green Hills development projects, nor do we wish to micro - manage the operations of the Planning Department. We are only requesting a "heads up" so we can avoid the costly process involved with disputing decisions made by the city after we are made aware of them. Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 of 6 D-723 Photographs taken March 2"d 2015 Page 3 of 6 D-724 Photographs takenMarch 11" and 17`', 2017 Page 4 of 6 D-725 Sketch oflnspiration Slope roof line from 2007 Master Plan Note: there is no retaining wall depicted on top of roof • S V 9 NR I"1T)I7&A IN6;:. MASTFR DEVELOPMENT NT PLANT MASTFR PLAN AREA 1 '14K "I MA Uid' GREEN HILLS IVIENORML PARK IN9PI RAI ION SILOGF Iitnurrzti RANCHO PAI OS VI'Pr -S C,41 "I'll, 44 Pan u',nNwr 2 Page 5 of 6 D-726 Sketches from Green Hills Web Site showing mausoleum rooftop Note: there is no retaining wall depicted on top of roof // %� rrf ; 0 Page 6 of 6 D-727 From: Bernadette Sabath To: Nick Resich; So Kim Subject: SIgnatures in Favor of Privacy Wall on North Border of Cemetery Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:06:44 PM Hi Nick, Here is a copy of the signatures from all the residents on the North boundary of Green Hills Memorial Park. We appreciate Green Hills covering the cost of the permits and construction of the wall. The building of this wall shows an interest to improve conditions which now exist between bordering residents. Unfortunately the phone numbers that were previously provided have not been of any use to those who have tried calling during louder visitations from families. This wall would help increase the privacy and hopefully start a healing process between the cemetery and the residents. The next phase of course would be the height issues. I believe a step wall is called for to accommodate the topography of the hill. Thank you, bernadette & many residents North of the cemetery ps I will drop off the signed petition at the front desk on Wednesday D-728 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Hi So Date: Saturday, March 19, 2016 12:48:24 PM It's Saturday morning and I awoke to the sound of big machinery backing up. I went over there to see what was going on, there were two men installing vaults, not for storage but for their final resting spot, because they were leveling them. I took a video for proof in case this is something they are not suppose to be doing. They had shovels and they had dirt for the purpose of leveling the vaults not to store behind as we saw in my last photo. My point is, there are 3 more vaults and machinery is still working as I am sure they will through out the rest of the day. Just wanted you to know bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " D-730 From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: their wall Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:18:18 PM Attachments: ATf00001.txt ATf00002.txt ATf00003.txt So I saw in one of the emails they were referring to moss, or mold and the smell. Attached please find a series of pictures showing the back of the mausoleum. If you notice on the right hand side of the picture a wall, that is the Vista Verde wall which has constant moisture coming from it. I took close ups of the area so you can see the growth of the moss in which they might be referring too. Hopefully that help. Thanks Nick Resich Park Operations Superintendent Direct Line (310) 521-43011 Fax Line (310) 519-8573 Main Line (310) 831-03111 www.greenhillsmemoiial.com D-731 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Re: Inspiration Slope Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 9:36:27 AM Hi So, Thank you for the Silhouette Cert. I travelled back and forth to RPV from Hawaii during the days the silhouette was constructed. So I don't have much recollection of the framing or the height. I appreciate you looping me into the discussion though. On another note, did you receive the photo I sent of the dirt that is packed in behind the vaults in the foreground? Thank you, bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:27 AM, So Kim <SoK(4�rpvca.uov> wrote: Hi Sharon, Attached is the scanned copy of the silhouette certification that was submitted in 2013, showing that the silhouette matched the plans submitted at that time. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www. r :)vca.o- ov (310) 544-5222 From: Sharon loveys [mailto:sharon.love sahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:17 PM To: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew(@gmail.com>; So Kim <SoK(@rpvca. ov>; Noel Weiss <noelweissgca.rr.com>; Matt Martin <matthewhmartingyahoo.com>; Brian Carter <brianscarter(@gmail.com>; CC <CCrpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Inspiration Slope Hi So, D-735 Remember at the meeting Tursday night I told you I had a problem with the last paragraph in your response to me . My computer / phone was all off line so I could not send it to you before ! In your last paragraph I get confused. You state yes, the building is higher, and you wrote about the fill.You stated it could have been more , if the fill was higher, than approved in 2013. I believe the building is much higher than the highest of three inches that you state. I remember the silhouettes being down on an angle, slanting to south. I personally studied those silhouettes and literally watched them just wither away.. I could not view three inches but can certainly view three or more feet. How do you measure the fill level? I am very confused and concerned as I noticed the same certificates signed by the same company who signed ours. Can you explain how he measured the fill, or did they! Between the parapet level? I would like to see the certificate between height / silhouette? I am sure you are not surprised I do not trust the information sent by Green Hills to Joel or Edwardo. Circumstances show the information not honest/ trustworthy. After re -reading the internal investigation.. Why should I ?? I realize you are only referring to information in file! Everything approved in these years are / is corrupt / not legal and Green Hills keeps getting away with all this. Awaiting the certificate with silhouettes ! ! One day this will be exposed likeJoel and Edwardo, it is just around the corner! Thanks, Sharon loveys Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Oii FL.esday, March 1, 2016, 7- 16 PM, sharm lloveys,-",sh1ron.love sa,v�hvvm°ote' Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Oii FLL essay, March 1, 2016, 6.23 PM, So X�m vvrok" Dear Sharon, Based on your email and statements made at a previous City Council hearing regarding the building height for the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum Building, I did some research and found the following: In September 2007, the Planning Division approved plans allowing for the construction of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building with an overall height of 19.5'. The rooftop was approved to be filled with earth up to a datum point of 321.75', which is shown to be lower than the highest/parapet level of the building. A guardrail was allowed on top of the parapet. In January 2013, Green Hills submitted revised plans to the Planning Division to increase the building height. In March 2013, a silhouette was installed on site and a silhouette certification form was submitted, certifying that the silhouette D-736 matches the submitted plans. In April 2013, the Planning Division approved plans to increase the overall building height to 22.5' with a datum point of 322.5' to the top of the parapet. While the approved 2013 plans show a datum point of 322.5' to the top of the parapet, the approved 2007 plans show a datum point of 321.75' to the top of the fill inside the parapet. Generally, earth material is not filled to the level of a parapet, it would leave some space - let's assume 6" (i.e. 0.5') from the top of fill to the top of the parapet level. This is equivalent to a parapet height of 322.25' (321.75'+ 0.5'). This means that the difference in parapet height of the 2007 and 2013 plan is 0.25' (i.e. 3"). So the question is why is the building taller by 3' (19.5' to 225)? This is because the grade was lowered to accommodate a taller building facade, without having to increase the highest level (parapet) of the building. In November 25, 2013, the Planning Division approved a second set of plans with the same measurements shown in the April 2013 plans. The only difference is that the grading quantity was reduced to match the 2007 plans. In August and September 2015, building height certifications were submitted by Green Hills on different points of the Inspiration Slope building showing the highest ridge/parapet at 322.5'. This matches the silhouette constructed in March 2013 and consistent with the April 2013/November 2013 plans. Simple answer to your question is yes, the overall building facade was increased by 3', however, the highest level (parapet) of the building increased at most by 3" compared to the 2007 plan. I would like to emphasize that I am saying "at most" 3" because this is based on an assumption that the gap between the area of fill and parapet level of the 2007 plan is 6". It could have been more, which would have resulted in a taller building than what was approved in the 2013 plan. I am in the midst of preparing a summary report to the City Council for their March 15th hearing addressing this very issue as an update to your concerns. I hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.uov (310) 544-5222 -----Original Message ----- From: Sharon.Loveys [in ailto:sharon.lovesyahoo.com] D-737 Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:09 AM To: CC Subject: Inspiration Slope Dear City Council. As you know, I noticed that Inspiration Slope is MUCH TALLER than the silhouettes showed. After the meeting Ms. Kim told me I was right that is it taller than originally planned. I was not shocked, as that is exactly what they did to us but this time with the permission / approval of Joel Rohas. I now understand why they withdrew the application for roof top burials as it would bring ATTENTION to the height. I am requesting Ms. Kim or someone in the planning department let me know the date this was approved and if they sent out another letter from the city to the neighbors at Peninsula Verde, notifying the height change. I believe this all took place before Ms. Kim took over the file on November 17, 2015. Please inform me of the date! Thank you, Sharon Loveys D-738 From: &aiGz To: So Kim Subject: Re: aHPacific terrace mausoleum Date: Friday, March 18'20162:23:19pm Attachments: Uoogg.0�.�� I know they are public records... Just didn't want no receive "special attention" from GH. Anyway, too late. (JnFri, Mor 18` 2016 ot2:O9PM, So Kim wrote: If anyone were to ask me for emails, they are all public record and will be released — so I already forwarded your email as -is. My apologies. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: NodGv[moi|to Sent: Friday, March 18'20162:07PM To: SoKim Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Thank you, So Kim Could you omit my email address please when thanks! (JnFri, Mor 18` 2016 ot2:OOPM, So Kim wrote: K� —x �� x� Thank you Nadia. I will forward your email to GH. I'm also happy to hear that some of the concerns have been addressed. Also, re: barriers along common property lines, GH informed me that they will not be touching those given the situation. However, anything located entirely within the GH property, they are willing to address. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpv€:ca.r-mv (310) 544-5222 From: Nad Gv [mailto:nveeorg(@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:53 PM To: So Kim <SoK� vca. ov> Cc: Brian Carter <brianscarter(cT ail.co >; Sharon Loveys <sharon.lovevsavahoo.co > Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Hi So Kim, sorry for not responding sooner to you. The fence on the last picture (80) is not visible in any way form the condos. I believe it is ours. I was talking about GH maintenance yard fence, which is now fixed. The cut branches were over their fence from their trees, which were cut somewhere in Sept. -Oct. I recall. This was the picture we "enjoyed" for about 5 months and I brought that one to your attention on November in my presentation. That was my thank for because finally it is fixed. I'm attaching it just to make sure we are talking about the very same thing. Picture is old, from my Nov. presentation. D-740 There is a condition of approval requiring wall vine landscaping at the rear of the Pacific Terrace Memorial mausoleum. So I cannot require them to remove any vegetation growing on the wall. The first and second pictures are well hiding the slime and "moss" growing there but you clearly could see the fallen vine vegetation which was the only good thing when someone steals the view and replace it with cement wall... now it is down. It would be nice if we at least have some green there instead of cement, I'm not complaining about these vines, I'm saying they are mess now, fallen down instead of climbing the wall. On the first picture, we will probably grow that live fence higher to block their cameras pointed to our building. What I'm referring to is the west side of GH fence, facing the trail between the GH and the church. I would try to take pictures of it and send them to you. Maybe it is fixed between last weekend and today, but it was bad since their other mausoleum maintenance. So, still these part of the fence should be fixed, see bellow: D-741 and the common one between our parking lot and maintenance yard. They might argue that what you see on the last picture it's ours, it is common. D-742 I hope this adds some clarification and better understanding. Have a good weekend, (JnFri, Mor 18` 2016 at 1:05 PM So Kim wrote: Please see the attached photos 89and 87. In response to your concerns with the maintenance of the area behind the mausoleum bldg., GH voluntarily cleaned itupand sent photos afterwards. 6Hmentioned that they trimmed a portion ofthe vine that was falling over and wired the rest tothe bldg. tagade. Re: the fence, please see attached photo 8O. |sthis what you are referring to? |fitis, 6H mentioned that they believe that belongs tothe condominium property. 6Hfence isthe one with the green screen onitontop ofthe slope. 6Halso mentioned that the condominium cut down the vegetation that used to be there some time ago. | hope this helps Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: So Kim Sent: Thursday, March 17' 2016 11:51 AM To:'NodGv' Cc: Brian Carter Sharon Loveys Subject: RE: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Morning, Thank you for your email. 0 | was not made aware ofripped off cover onthe maintenance yard. |n|ooNngatthe conditions of approval, | did not find a requirement to keep the cover atthat location. All it says is that equipment/supplies shall be stored in areas with minimal visual impact to adjacent homeowners ORinthe maintenance yard ifpossible. There isnocondition toscreen the maintenance yard with a cover. 0 Cutbranches—vviUyouremindmevvherethisisP 0 Fence on the west side next to trail — I thought a resident called me to thank GH for addressing this. Perhaps itwas adifferent fence. | will inform CH. 0 There is a condition of approval requiring wall vine landscaping at the rear of the Pacific Terrace Memorial mausoleum. So|cannot require them toremove any vegetation growing on the wall. 0 Re: vegetation on the rooftop, you are correct in that only ground cover is allowed. If there are other types ofvegetation itwill need toberemoved. | will inform CH. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: NodGv Sent: Thursday, March 17'201610:44AM To: SoKim Cc: Brian Carter <brianscarter.2gmail.com>, Sharon Loveys <sharonjove�sg�ahoo.com> Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Thank you for your time and clarification So Kim, In the very first sentence you said it that your role is to ensure that GH complies with the approved conditions of approval. 1. That ugly ripped off cover on the maintenance yard was "beautifying" our lost view for about 2 years. We complained to you more than 4 times. 2. The cut branches there stayed for about 5 months, also brought to your attention in a timely manner. 3. The fence on the west side next to the trail is still in the same bad condition. One of the CUP for GH is to keep the fence and surroundings clean and neat and clear of dirt. Yes, there's no mold or moss mentioned, but if this what you saw on my pictures looks nice to you, then I cannot argue. 4. There should not be any bushes on the top of the mausoleum. Besides numerous mentioning it the city did nothing... They are all the way on the south side... Rose bushes, other type, etc. What about those? In the CUP is said "no other than ground cover" ... So I guess it's arguable because of the language of the CUP but have to put this: are the benches there above ground structures which are not supposed to be on the top of the mausoleum or not? About the photo GH showed you about the cameras... they also said in public that they are not going to block our view .... It seems that big guys could get away with almost anything... even not complying with the CUP... Please, enforce at least what you can as a City. thank you! Nadia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, So Kim <SoK mvca. Lov> wrote: My role as a City Planner is to ensure that GH complies with the approved conditions of approval. It is not to advocate for you as a member of the public or GH as the applicant. My goal is to make the public aware of activities at GH in a timely manner and guide them D-745 through the City process by providing information and opportunities to raise your concerns before a decision is made. For applicants such as 6H, my goal is to guide them through the City process, regardless ofwhether the City decides to recommend denial or approval of their request. Having said this, I've been malking efforts to discuss all concerns raised by neighboring residents toGH, even ifit's something | cannot force upon them. 6Hisfully aware ofthis and yet voluntarily addressed some of the concerns raised by the public and some not. In discussing your specific concerns with GH, while your opinion is that there is mold growing on the wall, GH's opinion is that it's moss and therefore does not believe there is a need to remove it. Again, there are no conditions of approval or development code language related tomold issues and therefore, | cannot force them todoanything about it. Regarding cameras, you told methat the cameras are directed at the condos while 6H showed me a photo that they are not. However, asthe cameras can be rotated, | cannot prove your statement or6H's statement. Additionally, | cannot force them to remove the cameras either as this is not addressed as a condition of approval or the City's code. I hope you understand the City's limitations on what we can enforce and what we cannot. For things that we cannot, | will continue to have discussions with 6H to see ifthey would be willing tovoluntarily address public's concerns. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: NodGv[moi|to Sent: Wednesday, March 16'20162:27PM To: SoKim Cc: Brian Carter <brianscarter(@gmail.com>, Sharon Loveys <sharon.lovevs(@vahoo.com> Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Hi So Kim, I realized that you cannot (or don't want to) help us resolve these issues... Maybe you could help telling us whom to ask to put pressure on GH to clean up this slime, mold because this is not only esthetic and visual issue, this is a serious HEALTH issue... If we can smell it, we definitely inhale the spores and the bad stuff which will cause health problems if not already. Should I call the health department? I'm speaking for all VV residents, not only me complaining about this! It is not one person issue. There should be something you could do, I don't believe you are powerless! By the way, why don't you come over and see for yourself what we are forced to live next to? Once you see it it will give you different perspective than just hearing about it. The huge fans are blowing chemical from the inside of the mausoleum towards us during the day, besides the noise, the mold is growing there... Maybe after you see it it would be easier for you to find a way to ask GH to clean up the slime, mold and dirt there... They blow the leaves and dirt from the top of the mausoleum every week towards us, because that's what the visitors see, but the back of that building, where no one sees it is never ever cleaned up! Isn't that neglecting their neighbors? Also, seeing that the cameras are looking at you there, you may find a way to ask GH to remove the cameras or at least direct them towards their yard... They said that the camera recording is triggered by noise but they don't record voice, only video. Could this be checked? (They already proved they are not trustworthy) If you really want to check where the camera is pointed, ask for a video as of today, let say, not a future day, because then they can rotate the camera. But, for today, I know it is recording our building, so there are ways if you really want to fund the truth! And, I believe, that's what the city council should do, stand up for the right things and protect the people.... So please, come and see it for yourself! Thank you! Best Regards, Nadia D-747 On Mon, Mor 14. 2016 at 2:45 PM So Kim wrote: | didn't realize the cameras can rotate. | suppose there is no point in asking for photos from the cameras asthey can change anytime. | will not be able to prove your statement or theirs, one way oranother. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: NodGv[moi|to Sent: Monday, March 14,20162:37PM To: SoKim Cc: Brian Carter Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Thank you 8oKim! I'm thankful that you are taking this seriously. The camera can rotate more than |8Odcurcc...nomatter what they show you and tell you, lsee where itiopointed. See attached: This below io opicburc of the camera from the southeast comer ofthe rooftop of the mausoleum. This one is from their service road at the bottom of the mausoleum: D-749 This one is from myhome, on my terrace and from the den noo— So, it's olittle hard nJ me to believe that the security comcromonitors their yard I appreciate everything you donoresolve the issues wc are having niGlf. Best Regards, Nadia On Mon, Mor 14. 2016 at 1:49 PM, So Kim wrote: I'm happytohearthatthefence has been fixed. Re: the mold, I'm not really sure what can bedone, but | will inform 6Hofthe matter. Re: cameras, | was able tospeakwith GH and they let me know that one of the cameras are directed to monitor the rooftop burial area and the other is directed atthe gate between 6H and the condo premises near the pool. | haven't seen the footage from the cameras myself, but | plan to ask 6H for them toverify where itisdirected at. | hope this helps. K� —x �� x� Sincere|K So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: FW: Pacific Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:59:22 PM Attachments: ATf00001.txt ATf00002.txt So Here is a picture of the back of the mausoleum. As you can see the vine had fallen down but we trimmed it and wired it back to the wall. Thanks Nick Resich Park Operations Superintendent Direct Line (310) 521-43011 Fax Line (310) 519-8573 Main Line (310) 831-03111 www.greenhillsmemorial.com -----Original Message ----- From: Nick Resich[mailto:resichconstllaction(ai)hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:35 AM To: Nick Resich Subject: Pacific D-752 From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: fence Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:02:10 PM Attachments: ATf00001.txt So Here is a picture of the chain link fence. About 8 months ago before the appraisal of the Vista Verde apartment complex the homeowners cut down all the trees inside that area. Everything you see is what they left. The chain link I do believe is there's as you can see my fence in the back ground with the green tarp on it. If you need anything else please let me know. Thanks Nick Resich Park Operations Superintendent Direct Line (310) 521-43011 Fax Line (310) 519-8573 Main Line (310) 831-03111 www.greenhillsmemoiial.com -----Original Message ----- From: Nick Resich[mailto:resichconstllaction(ai)hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:37 AM To: Nick Resich Subject D-755 y iAP/�. i From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Fwd: Dirt packed around vaults Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:00:44 PM This is not right SO, They told you no dirt would be put back up on the roof. Look at the dirt behind these perfectly spaced vaults in the foreground! There is dirt behind those vaults. They have no intention of moving these anywhere. They have no right to assume we can not fight these roof top burials. Surely we can get their conditional use permit put in question, no? This is blatantly disrespecting your authority. Am I out of line? Or is this really wrong? Please help. bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmaiLcom> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:45 PM Subject: Dirt packed around vaults To: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmaiLcom> D-757 From: sharon lovevs To: Bernadette Sabath; So Kim; Noel Weiss; Matt Martin; Brian Carter, CC Subject: Re: Inspiration Slope Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:21:46 PM Hi So, Remember at the meeting Tursday night I told you I had a problem with the last paragraph in your response to me . My computer / phone was all off line so I could not send it to you before ! In your last paragraph I get confused. You state yes, the building is higher, and you wrote about the fill.You stated it could have been more , if the fill was higher, than approved in 2013. I believe the building is much higher than the highest of three inches that you state. I remember the silhouettes being down on an angle, slanting to south. I personally studied those silhouettes and literally watched them just wither away.. I could not view three inches but can certainly view three or more feet. How do you measure the fill level? I am very confused and concerned as I noticed the same certificates signed by the same company who signed ours. Can you explain how he measured the fill, or did they! Between the parapet level? I would like to see the certificate between height / silhouette? I am sure you are not surprised I do not trust the information sent by Green Hills to Joel or Edwardo. Circumstances show the information not honest/ trustworthy. After re -reading the internal investigation.. Why should I ?? I realize you are only referring to information in file! Everything approved in these years are / is corrupt / not legal and Green Hills keeps getting away with all this. Awaiting the certificate with silhouettes ! ! One day this will be exposed likeJoel and Edwardo, it is just around the corner! Thanks, Sharon lovevs dent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Oii TLes ay, March D, 2016, 7, 16 PM, sharm Voveys°--"sh,,ii°oii.11ov(,ys(tiJy,,ihoo.coiii,,- ev1Cote' dent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Dear Sharon, Based on your email and statements made at a previous City Council hearing regarding the building height for the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum Building, I did some research and found the following: In September 2007, the Planning Division approved plans allowing for the construction of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building with an overall height of 19.5'. The rooftop was approved to be filled with earth up to a datum point of 321.75', which is shown to be lower than the highest/parapet level of the building. A guardrail was allowed on top of the parapet. D-758 In January 2013, Green Hills submitted revised plans to the Planning Division to increase the building height. In March 2013, a silhouette was installed on site and a silhouette certification form was submitted, certifying that the silhouette matches the submitted plans. In April 2013, the Planning Division approved plans to increase the overall building height to 22.5' with a datum point of 322.5' to the top of the parapet. While the approved 2013 plans show a datum point of 322.5' to the top of the parapet, the approved 2007 plans show a datum point of 321.75' to the top of the fill inside the parapet. Generally, earth material is not filled to the level of a parapet, it would leave some space - let's assume 6" (i.e. 05) from the top of fill to the top of the parapet level. This is equivalent to a parapet height of 322.25' (321.75'+ 05). This means that the difference in parapet height of the 2007 and 2013 plan is 0.25' (i.e. 3"). So the question is why is the building taller by 3' (19.5' to 225)? This is because the grade was lowered to accommodate a taller building facade, without having to increase the highest level (parapet) of the building. In November 25, 2013, the Planning Division approved a second set of plans with the same measurements shown in the April 2013 plans. The only difference is that the grading quantity was reduced to match the 2007 plans. In August and September 2015, building height certifications were submitted by Green Hills on different points of the Inspiration Slope building showing the highest ridge/parapet at 322.5'. This matches the silhouette constructed in March 2013 and consistent with the April 2013/November 2013 plans. Simple answer to your question is yes, the overall building facade was increased by 3', however, the highest level (parapet) of the building increased at most by 3" compared to the 2007 plan. I would like to emphasize that I am saying "at most" 3" because this is based on an assumption that the gap between the area of fill and parapet level of the 2007 plan is 6". It could have been more, which would have resulted in a taller building than what was approved in the 2013 plan. I am in the midst of preparing a summary report to the City Council for their March 15th hearing addressing this very issue as an update to your concerns. I hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim D-759 Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 -----Original Message ----- From: Sharon.Loveys[mailto:sharon.loveys@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:09 AM To: CC Subject: Inspiration Slope Dear City Council. As you know, I noticed that Inspiration Slope is MUCH TALLER than the silhouettes showed. After the meeting Ms. Kim told me I was right that is it taller than originally planned. was not shocked, as that is exactly what they did to us but this time with the permission / approval of Joel Rohas. I now understand why they withdrew the application for roof top burials as it would bring ATTENTION to the height. I am requesting Ms. Kim or someone in the planning department let me know the date this was approved and if they sent out another letter from the city to the neighbors at Peninsula Verde, notifying the height change. I believe this all took place before Ms. Kim took over the file on November 17, 2015. Please inform me of the date! Thank you, Sharon Loveys D-760 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject' Re: Dirt packed around vaults Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 10:18:58 AM Thank you for your speedy rcnk,. lwas not inthe construction site. That photo was taken outside the site. bernadette "Me make a InIng kv what we get, but we make a I�fe kv what we give. " On Fri, Mur 18, 2010 at 7:13 AM, So Kim wrote: Hi Bernadette, Thank you for the photo. | talked with Nick this morning in response tuyour email and he confirmed that hedid fill in-between the vaults but not untop. | informed him that regardless uf fill being untop ufthe vaults urin-between cannot beallowed. Heunderstood and | don't expect any more fill tuoccur inthat area. Having said that, inlooking atyour pictures, itappears that you may have been inthe construction site. Please note that the public is not allowed within the construction area due to liability and safety concerns. Please allow metuvisit the site instead as|can get permission tuguunsite. Lastly, | appreciate you helping memonitor the site. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From/: Bernadette Sabath [mai|to Sent: Thursday, March l7,2Ul6lU:4lPM Subject: one more thing I felt you were trying to be accommodating with them not having anywhere else to STORE the vaults. They clearly premeditated this action by asking you to let them keep the vaults up there. Please do not allow them to even store those vaults up there. You must see by now with how they have conducted business in the past.... if you give them any room to manipulate a situation to their advantage.... they will do it and not look back. I feel you have a difficult job stepping in when so many wrongs have not been righted. Please don't let them continue to wrong others too. thank you for your time, bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " From: Bernadette Sabath [mailto:miminotchew(@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:01 PM To: So Kim <SoK(@rpvca. ov> Subject: Fwd: Dirt packed around vaults This is not right SO, They told you no dirt would be put back up on the roof. Look at the dirt behind these perfectly spaced vaults in the foreground! There is dirt behind those vaults. They have no intention of moving these anywhere. They have no right to assume we can not fight these roof top burials. Surely we can get their conditional use permit put in question, no? This is blatantly disrespecting your authority. Am I out of line? Or is this really wrong? Please help. D-762 bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmaiLcom> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:45 PM Subject: Dirt packed around vaults To: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmaiLcom> D-763 From: Nad Gv To: So Kim Cc: Brian Carter; Sharon Lovevs Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:43:43 AM Thank you for your time and clarification So Kim, In the very first sentence you said it that your role is to ensure that GH complies with the approved conditions of approval. 1. That ugly ripped off cover on the maintenance yard was "beautifying" our lost view for about 2 years. We complained to you more than 4 times. 2. The cut branches there stayed for about 5 months, also brought to your attention in a timely manner. 3. The fence on the west side next to the trail is still in the same bad condition. One of the CUP for GH is to keep the fence and surroundings clean and neat and clear of dirt. Yes, there's no mold or moss mentioned, but if this what you saw on my pictures looks nice to you, then I cannot argue. 4. There should not be any bushes on the top of the mausoleum. Besides numerous mentioning it the city did nothing... They are all the way on the south side... Rose bushes, other type, etc. What about those? In the CUP is said "no other than ground cover" ... So I guess it's arguable because of the language of the CUP but have to put this: are the benches there above ground structures which are not supposed to be on the top of the mausoleum or not? About the photo GH showed you about the cameras... they also said in public that they are not going to block our view .... It seems that big guys could get away with almost anything... even not complying with the CUP... Please, enforce at least what you can as a City. thank you! Nadia On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, So Kim <SoK(4�rpvca.gov> wrote: My role as a City Planner is to ensure that GH complies with the approved conditions of approval. It is not to advocate for you as a member of the public or GH as the applicant. My goal is to make the public aware of activities at GH in a timely manner and guide them through the City process by providing information and opportunities to raise your concerns before a decision is made. For applicants such as GH, my goal is to guide them through the City process, regardless of whether the City decides to recommend denial or approval of their request. Having said this, I've been making efforts to discuss all concerns raised by neighboring residents to D-764 GH, even ifit's something | cannot force upon them. GH isfully aware ufthis and yet voluntarily addressed some ufthe concerns raised bvthe public and some not. |ndiscussing your specific concerns with GH, while your opinion isthat there is mold growing on the wall, GH's opinion is that it's muss and therefore dues not believe there is a need to remove it. Again, there are no conditions of approval or development code language related to mold issues and therefore, | cannot force them tuduanything about it. Regarding cameras, you told methat the cameras are directed at the condos while GH showed me aphoto that they are not. However, asthe cameras can berotated, | cannot prove your statement or GH'sstatement. Additionally, | cannot force them to remove the cameras either as this isnot addressed asacondition ufapproval urthe City's code. I hope you understand the City's limitations on what we can enforce and what we cannot. For things that we cannot, I will continue to have discussions with GH to see if they would be willing tuvoluntarily address pub|ic'sconcerns. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: NadGv[mailto Sent: Wednesday, March l6,2Ul62:27PM To: So Kim Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Hi So Kim, lrealized that you cannot (or don't want to) help uoresolve these ioouco—Maybe you could help telling us whom to ask to put pressure on GH to clean up this slime, mold because this K� —x �� %� x� is not only esthetic and visual issue, this is a serious HEALTH issue... If we can smell it, we definitely inhale the spores and the bad stuff which will cause health problems if not already. Should I call the health department? I'm speaking for all VV residents, not only me complaining about this! It is not one person issue. There should be something you could do, I don't believe you are powerless! By the way, why don't you come over and see for yourself what we are forced to live next to? Once you see it it will give you different perspective than just hearing about it. The huge fans are blowing chemical from the inside of the mausoleum towards us during the day, besides the noise, the mold is growing there... Maybe after you see it it would be easier for you to find a way to ask GH to clean up the slime, mold and dirt there... They blow the leaves and dirt from the top of the mausoleum every week towards us, because that's what the visitors see, but the back of that building, where no one sees it is never ever cleaned up! Isn't that neglecting their neighbors? Also, seeing that the cameras are looking at you there, you may find a way to ask GH to remove the cameras or at least direct them towards their yard... They said that the camera recording is triggered by noise but they don't record voice, only video. Could this be checked? (They already proved they are not trustworthy) If you really want to check where the camera is pointed, ask for a video as of today, let say, not a future day, because then they can rotate the camera. But, for today, I know it is recording our building, so there are ways if you really want to fund the truth! And, I believe, that's what the city council should do, stand up for the right things and protect the people.... So please, come and see it for yourself! Thank you! Best Regards, Nadia On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:45 PM, So Kim <SQK LrpvcmXov> wrote: I didn't realize the cameras can rotate. I suppose there is no point in asking for photos from the cameras as they can change anytime. I will not be able to prove your statement or theirs, one D-766 way or another Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www. rovca. 7ov (310) 544-5222 From: Nad Gv [mailto:nveeor (@email.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:37 PM To: So Kim <Sol<(@rpvca. ov> Cc: Brian Carter <brianscarter9gmail.com> Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Thank you So Kim! I'm thankful that you are taking this seriously. The camera can rotate more than 180 degree... no matter what they show you and tell you, I see where it is pointed. See attached: This below is a picture of the camera from the southeast corner of the roof top of the mausoleum. D-767 This one is from their service road at the bottom of the mausoleum: � •i This one is from my home, on my terrace and from the den too... D-769 So, it's ulittle hard to rnc to believe that the security cun\cru rnnnitnm their yard luppnociutc everything you dotnresolve the issues vvc are having ni GH. Best Regards, Nadia On Mon, Mur 14,2010ut 1:49 PM, So Kim wrote: |'mhappy tuhear that the fence has been fixed. Re: the mold, |'mnot really sure what can bedone, but | will inform GHufthe matter. Re: cameras, | was able tuspeakwith GHand they let me know that one of the cameras are directed to monitor the rooftop burial area and the other is directed at the gate between GH and the condo premises near the pool. | haven't seen the footage from the cameras myself, but | plan to ask GH for them to verify where it is directed at. | hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Irene Turner To: So Kim Subject: Re: Noise at the mausauleum Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:32:12 PM Thank you SoKim. -----Original Message ----- From: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> To: Irene Turner <imtathome@aol.com>; glodough518 <glodough518@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 5:57 pm Subject: RE: Noise at the mausauleum Hi, Thank you for letting me know. I will report this to Nick so that he knows. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Irene Turner[.[r�.a....�.�:`�..:;.,��,tat,[1,o _e.(r �.�.` .�..::.�:.ca,�r�.] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 5:18 PM �... To: .ca,c;ca..,g 15]'r:�s �:: o::va .n t So Kim < ,cal<..(r:?_ �.:.[!!L.:.3.....20V> Subject: Noise at the mausauleum Hi Bernadette, copy so Kim A few minutes ago - about 5.03pm I called Nick's office to see if he could get the GH employees working on the vaults to turn down their boomboxes. Nick's office was closed, so I called the security number by pressing 8. No-one has shown up yet, but SoKim advised the workers' hours are from 7am - 4pm on weekdays. I'm also going to document the disturbances just for reference. Thank you. Irene It's now 5.15pm - the music has been stopped, but the workers are certainly still there with their earth moving equipment. D-772 From: Irene Turner To: alodouah518C�sbcalobal.net; So Kim Subject: 5.20pm Wed 16Mar16 Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 5:26:53 PM Hello Bernadette & SoKim, Just to let you know both the music and the noise have stopped. Thank you. It looks like the workers have gone home. Irene Turner D-773 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Re: fyi Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:29:25 PM Great! Thanks "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:27 PM, So Kim <SoK(4�rpvca.gov> wrote: Ck, got it. I just sent out an email to Nick Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes . r :)vca.o- ov (310) 544-5222 From: Bernadette Sabath [mailto:miminotchew(@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:26 PM To: So Kim <SoK(@rpvca. ov> Subject: Re: fyi YES, we both did. His number was unanswered the whole time. I thought it was the whole reason he gave us those numbers. He said to me "24/7 you call that number and I will come myself." He had me convinced. bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:23 PM, So Kim <SoK r, ovca.uov> wrote: D-774 Hi Bernadette, Do you know if Ms. Turner tried contacting Nick directly? I will inform Nick in case he was not made aware of this occurrence. Thank you for letting me know Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: Bernadette Sabath [mailto:miminotchew(@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:11 PM To: So Kim <SoK(@rpvca. ov> Subject: fyi Hi So, Irene Turner (1860 Peninsula Verde Dr.) had a rough day yesterday trying to raise someone over at Green Hills to respond to a very loud visiting party outside her backdoor from 1pm until 2:30pm. This was on a weekday and neither her or I could get anyone to answer those numbers Nick gave us to report disturbances. I called the front desk and the woman seemed like she wanted to help, but to and behold, no one came for the whole 90 minutes they were there. I was very happy when he gave me those numbers and I really thought he was trying to make some changes. I know this is not your department. Can you tell me who I am suppose to turn to when we get no help. We all know to call the Sheriff, and we will in the future instead of using those numbers. My imagined response from them is "what do you want us to do, it's the middle of the ay. �" D-775 If you have any ideas, I'd appreciate them. bernadette ps We will be keeping a journal of all these type of incidents from here out. "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " D-776 From: Nad Gv To: So Kim Subject: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Date: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:37:45 PM Hi So Kim, As we (Vista Verde owners) mentioned before, the back side of mausoleum wall is disgusting with mold, fallen vegetation and constant water dripping... See for your self from attached pictures. D-777 D-778 D-779 � i� D-781 D-782 D-783 it is not only visual, it smells bad too... Thanks for making GH fix the fence of the maintenance yard. If you protect our privacy and get the camera looking into my home removed would be great. Or at least pointed toward their yard, not my terrace...) Thank you! Nadia D-785 From: Nad Gv To: So Kim Cc: Brian Carter Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Date: Monday, March 14, 2016 3:12:10 PM Exactly... It can also pan, tilt, zoom ... The best thing is for them, and us, to have cameras in their premises without looking towards our windows or building. For proving my point, if someone can see the "eye" of the camera, he or she is definitely on the shot... and I see it every time I go on my terrace or look out from the den. I don't enjoy being there any more. Best Regards, Nadia On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:45 PM, So Kim <SQKarpvca.uov> wrote: I didn't realize the cameras can rotate. I suppose there is no point in asking for photos from the cameras as they can change anytime. I will not be able to prove your statement or theirs, one way or another Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rrvca. 7ov (310) 544-5222 From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvgeor (@email.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:37 PM To: So Kim <Sol<(@rpvca. ov> Cc: Brian Carter <brianscarter(@email.com> Subject: Re: GH Pacific terrace mausoleum Thank you So Kim! � i• I'm thankful that you are taking this seriously. The camera can rotate more than 180 degree... no matter what they show you and tell you, I see where it is pointed. See attached: This below is a picture of the camera from the southeast corner of the roof top of the mausoleum. This one is from their service road at the bottom of the mausoleum: D-787 This one is from my home, on my terrace and from the den too... � ii So, it's ulittle hard tnrnctnbelieve that the security camera monitors their vurd—. I appreciate everything you dotnresolve the issues vvc are having ni GH. Best Regards, Nadia On Mon, Mur 14,2010ut 1:49 PM, So Kim wrote: |'mhappy tuhear that the fence has been fixed. Re: the mold, |'mnot really sure what can be done, but | will inform GHufthe matter. Re: cameras, | was able tuspeakwith GHand they let meknow that one ufthe cameras are directed tumonitor the rooftop burial area and the other isdirected atthe gate between GHand the condo premises near the pool. | haven't seen the footage from the cameras myself, but | plan to ask GH for them to verify where it is directed at. | hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 K� —x �� x� From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: update Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:00:37 AM Hi So, I thought I would give you an update of how it is going between Nick and Peninsula Verde. After speaking with him a few times I got the impression he wanted to meet whenever it was convenient for me to get some residents together to come to an agreement about what could be done sound wise to help the residents deal with the noise problem. He seemed to be on board to come and help find solutions. After waiting for his reply for about 4 days, I finally reached him today on his office phone only to learn he wanted to come with his team. That was fine, I asked for the names and titles to pass on to the others. Then he says this meeting can't happen until after Easter. ( I was shooting for this Sunday.) The residents wanted him to come on a Sunday to hear and see for himself what they are up against. He said April 3rd was the first time he and his staff would be able to meet. Then he said they wanted us to come to them. To meet in the chapel and walk around the ground to see Inspiration Slope. I said this meeting isn't about the mausoleum, it's about 19 neighbors agreeing with you about what can be done to help with their situation. Needless to say without having to give you a blow by blow of this conversation. It went downhill after that. I appreciate you encouraging me to do the right thing and deal with him directly, but with this type of maneuvering and positioning I am having a hard time getting the folks over here to come to the table and trust that positive change can happen. The last time we were invited to a "discussion" at the chapel, we sat and watched a presentation about what we could expect in the future. No one left there with a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. One of the last things he said to me before today's conversation was that he could not build a fence unless all 19 agreed to the height of one wall the entire length of all the homes. Many of these resident have already planted their own wall of sound numbing trees. A few homes do not even have graves behind them yet. This is where we are at, we are holding a meeting on Sunday at the Turner residence, 1860 Peninsula Verde. I asked him to come even if he could not have his staff with him. We will see what happens. Thank you for catching the situation with the vaults. bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " D-791 From: Irene Turner To: So Kim Subject' Re: Mausoleum atInspiration Slope Date: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:18:55 PM Thank you SoKim for the information onwhat iagoing onatGS. Thank you also for creating apage on the city website, aowecan all bekeptuptodate. That's agreat idea. Irene Turner ----- Original Message --- Fmm:SoKim <SoK@rpvca.gm> To: Irene Turner<intathome@ao|.00m> Sent: Wed, Mar 2.2O1G82Gam Subject: RE: Mausoleum atInspiration Slope Good Morning, Green Hills was already approved tufill the roof area with earth aspart ufthe original construction ufthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. They held off unitinhopes tuobtain approval tuhave burial sites there. As you know, they withdrew that request and no burials will be allowed on the rooftop. Yesterday, we granted an administrative approval for a retaining wall that wraps around the northwest corner of the building and re -contouring of the area to accommodate the new wall. The retaining wall will be placed below grade with guard nai|s/pi|asters above grade. Su | du not anticipate the wall tucreate any adverse impacts from your property. Asaresult, the mounds uf dirt placed across that area will be used to fill on and around the building and any remaining dirt will beremoved from that area. | updated the City's webpageand placed alink tuthe approved plan Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm up, etc are allowed from 7amtu4pmunweekdays only. This isshorter than the general construction hours inthe City, which is7amtu6pmunweekdays. Also, I plan to have add a FAQsection on the City's webpage for all questions raised by the public related to GH. | will have it set up by mid -month. | hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Irene Turner Sent: Wednesday, March U2,2Ul68:U8AM To: So Kim Subject: Mausoleum at Inspiration Slope Hello So Kim, K� —x ��u� �� x� Irene Turner from Peninsula Verde Drive here. I want you to know that the GH cemetery workers and currently filling in the above ground burial site with mountains of earth. It seems that whether they withdraw their application or not, the height is getting higher. Whether they fill it in and use it for above ground burials, or whether they fill it in and don't use it, the height will be the same. Of course the 7.Oam wake up call with their earth moving equipment and its loud shrill reverse siren is on- going. Does the city of RPV have a start time for workers, and do the workers of GH fall into that category? I just want to make you aware of their progress. Thank you for all your help in the past. Irene Turner D-793 From: Chuck Haas To: So Kim; Bernadette Sabath; icw intraub ahoo.com; Irene Turner Cc: Terr1Ro&cLue; Ara Mihranian; Mandv Haas ---_ — Subject: Re: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Date: Thursday, March 03, 2016 11:23:02 AM Thank you so much for the update, So. You are providing valuable and needed service and support to our community as well as a communication link between us and GH that didn't exist before. Thank you, Chuck Haas 1884 Peninsula Verde Drive From: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> To: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmail.com>; "jcweintraub@yahoo.com" <jcweintraub@yahoo.com>; "charleshaas@yahoo.com" <charleshaas@yahoo.com>; Irene Turner <imtathome@aol.com> Cc: Terry Rodrigue <TRod rig ue@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 8:32 AM Subject: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Good Morning, As you may have noticed, yesterday morning, GH was moving concrete vaults to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum construction site. They were intending to bury it on the rooftop as part of the fill. As you know, GH withdrew their application for rooftop burials and none are allowed. As a result, they were informed that they could not bury the concrete vaults on the rooftop and they removed them later in the afternoon. Having said this, according to the Master Plan, ground burials are allowed around the mausoleum building. As a result, GH will be re -Purposing the concrete vaults and will be burying them in the ground burial plots instead. As the ground burials are approved to be double depth burials, two vaults will be stacked per plot — underground. Meanwhile, 20 concrete vaults will be delivered per day for a period of a month, totaling 600 to the Inspiration Slope construction site. As these cannot be stacked, they will be stored on top of the mausoleum rooftop and the areas behind it to screen them from the properties to the north (Peninsula Verde). GH will not be allowed to fill the rooftop area until these vaults are removed and buried in the adjacent ground burial areas. In order to bury the vaults, the ground burial areas will need to be prepared. In order to do this, the approved retaining wall around the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum will be constructed first, followed by fill, then the burying of the vaults. Once the vaults are removed off the rooftop of the building, GH may proceed with filling the rooftop. You will start seeing the delivery of the vaults beginning about gam this morning. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 D-794 D-795 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject' Re: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Date: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:06:29 AM Thank you So for this informative letter. hcoludctte po Seems like you have prevented another problem to be dealt with sometime in the future. "TT'e make a InIng kv what we get, but we make a 1�fe kv what we give. " On Thu Mar 3, 2010 at 6:32 Al\Y So Kim wrote: Good Morning, As you may have noticed, yesterday morning, GH was moving concrete vaults tuthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum construction site. They were intending tubury itunthe rooftop aspart ufthe fill. As you know, GH withdrew their application for rooftop burials and none are allowed. Asa result, they were informed that they could not bury the concrete vaults on the rooftop and they removed them later inthe afternoon. Having said this, according to the Master Plan, ground burials are allowed around the mausoleum building. As a result, GH will be re -purposing the concrete vaults and will be burying them in the ground burial plots instead. Asthe ground burials are approved tubedouble depth burials, two vaults will bestacked per plot —underground. Meanwhile, 2Oconcrete vaults will bedelivered per day for a period of month, totaling 6OOtuthe Inspiration Slope construction site. As these cannot be stacked, they will be stored on top of the mausoleum rooftop and the areas behind it to screen them from the properties tuthe north (Peninsula Verde). GH will not be allowed to fill the rooftop area until these vaults are removed and buried in the adjacent ground burial areas. |norder tubury the vaults, the ground burial areas will need tubeprepared. |norder tuduthis, the approved retaining wall around the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum will be constructed first, followed bvfill, then the burying ufthe vaults. Once the vaults are removed off the rooftop ufthe building, GHmay proceed with filling the rooftop. You will start seeing the delivery ufthe vaults beginning about 9amthis morning. |fyou have any questions, feel free tucontact me. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Cc: icw intraubff ahoo.com; ; Irene ]lure ;ZgLoRoicuue;8oa Kzomniam Subject' Re: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Date: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:58:46 PM Excellent So, Thank you on much. The site looks great and will be cuoy for folks to access. bcoludctte "Me make u/nmx/pwhat wxget, but wxmake u1�fe/v what we give. On Thu Mar 3, 2010 at 1215 PM, So Kim wrote: Good Afternoon, A new FAQ link has been added to the City's Green HiUswebpage. | will be addinp/updadngthe FA[lsectiun based on questions/concerns received via phone, email, and raised at public hearings. More willbe added after the next City Council hearing on March 15th. Stay tuned... Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 K� —x �� x� From: amie To: So Kim Subject: Re: Green Hills Inspiration Slope- pictures from this morning Date: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:10:39 AM � 1 1 Seat from YahQQ Mail for iPad On'Thursday, March 3, 20 16, 8-33 AM, So l< �m --"Sol<, (a.,1"pvca.gov> wrole, As you may have noticed, yesterday morning, GH was moving concrete vaults to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum construction site. They were intending to bury it on the rooftop as part of the fill. As you know, GH withdrew their application for rooftop burials and none are allowed. As a result, they were informed that they could not bury the concrete vaults on the rooftop and they removed them later in the afternoon. Having said this, according to the Master Plan, ground burials are allowed around the mausoleum building. As a result, GH will be re -purposing the concrete vaults and will be burying them in the ground burial plots instead. As the ground burials are approved to be double depth burials, two vaults will be stacked per plot — underground. Meanwhile, 20 concrete vaults will be delivered per day for a period of a month, totaling 600 to the Inspiration Slope construction site. As these cannot be stacked, they will be stored on top of the mausoleum rooftop and the areas behind it to screen them from the properties to the north (Peninsula Verde). GH will not be allowed to fill the rooftop area until these vaults are removed and buried in the adjacent ground burial areas. In order to bury the vaults, the ground burial areas will need to be prepared. In order to do this, the approved retaining wall around the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum will be constructed first, followed by fill, then the burying of the vaults. Once the vaults are removed off the rooftop of the building, GH may proceed with filling the rooftop. You will start seeing the delivery of the vaults beginning about gam this morning. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.r_ - (3101 -5222 From: Chuck Haas To: So Kim Cc: miminotchew2g ail.com Subject: Delivery of vaults at GH Date: Friday, March 04, 2016 9:59:26 AM Attachments: ATf00001.txt So, Here is a photo from now of vaults on top of the IS structure. Is this consistent with what they told you they would do. You can also file this photo as a view from 1884 Peninsula Verde. Thanks, Charles Haas From: amie To: So Kim Subject: Rooftop burials inspiration slope Date: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:18:23 AM � .1• Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From: amie To: So Kim Subject: More pics Date: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:19:38 AM Scnt frQm YahQQ Mail fQr iPad From: Irene Turner To: So Kim Subject' Re: Mausoleum atInspiration Slope Date: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:30:50 AM Thank you very much SoKim for your speedy reply. |twas very informative. Irene Turner ----- Original Message --- Fmm:SoKim <SoK@qmoa.gm> To: Irene Turner <intathome@ao|.00m> Sent: Wed, Mar 2.2O1G82Gam Subject: RE: Mausoleum atInspiration Slope Good Morning, Green Hills was already approved tufill the roof area with earth aspart ufthe original construction ufthe Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. They held off unitinhopes tuobtain approval tuhave burial sites there. As you know, they withdrew that request and no burials will be allowed on the rooftop. Yesterday, we granted an administrative approval for a retaining wall that wraps around the northwest corner of the building and re -contouring of the area to accommodate the new wall. The retaining wall will be placed below grade with guard nai|s/pi|asters above grade. Su | du not anticipate the wall tucreate any adverse impacts from your property. Asaresult, the mounds uf dirt placed across that area will be used to fill on and around the building and any remaining dirt will beremoved from that area. | updated the City's webpageand placed alink tuthe approved plan Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm up, etc are allowed from 7amtu4pmunweekdays only. This isshorter than the general construction hours inthe City, which is7amtu6pmunweekdays. Also, I plan to have add a FAQsection on the City's webpage for all questions raised by the public related to GH. | will have it set up by mid -month. | hope this helps. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Irene Turner Sent: Wednesday, March U2,2Ul68:U8AM To: So Kim Hello So Kim, Irene Turner from Peninsula Verde Drive here. I want you to know that the GH cemetery workers and currently filling in the above ground burial site with mountains of earth. It seems that whether they withdraw their application or not, the height is getting higher. Whether they fill it in and use it for above ground burials, or whether they fill it in and don't use it, the height will be the same. Of course the 7.Oam wake up call with their earth moving equipment and its loud shrill reverse siren is on- going. Does the city of RPV have a start time for workers, and do the workers of GH fall into that category? I just want to make you aware of their progress. Thank you for all your help in the past. Irene Turner D-811 From: &ad To: So Kim Subject' Re: Late correspondence Date: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:06:07 PM lknow Kim, sorry for that. lasked Dan and hcwas onnice tndoitfor me. lvvnuld don\ybest inthe future to send itbefore the required cutnfftinc. Thanks ugaingnoyou and Dan for your help and understanding! Best Regards Nadia On Mar L 2010, ut0:44PM, So Kim wrote: Hi Nadia, You will need to bring copies of your PowerPoint or bring a USB and ask our IT to upload ittuour laptop. Unfortunately, | will not beable tuduitfor you asitisbeyond our cutoff time. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: NadGv Sent: Tuesday, March Ul,2Ul66:2UPM To: So Kim So Kim Subject: Late correspondence For tonight's meeting So Kim, See Thank you onmuch, Nadia K�—��/u�1�� x� 1L- 4— , M of of E 0 � 01 M Q-0 i o' O p IC„�M CMS 0 1' w O +, �, � ' � �= � _0°� v> � CL o ipl o � � +01 ' cn Q Or C 01L O -1--' " Q a -J U Q A= • � ate--+ 0 p " Q) . C:m 0 4 -JC) ca .E + (D - + " _ •�bDp }' qCL ' ro >- ro _0.. b (D' C ca ru : 10 +� ra O01 �Cal 0 E Mi p p >l E>;N." %.j N E4-0 4- Q O cuI Cl i(D Ll o � o a' .. m • 14 -C O r � �O N a--+ N O r14 ol " � I ji -0 O N N p O U = Ol O }' CL (1)N O W 4 a� N U 0 CO 4-1 V 4 • 9 161, O 4— O O bA bA E O Ln _0 _0 O C� a --j 0) ca _a) CL bA ►, • O • 9 161, O 4— O O bA bA E O Ln _0 _0 O C� a --j 0) ca _a) CL bA ►, M 0)1 C: L- c c O' O ( -0 (7 O _0 X L- � - o +, U 4-J ro O' f �" N Ln o -a � , C O U a-+ - N }, � � N N -r-(D O 1 .— Ln -0 � I C s Q N -0a--+ -0 u +- 2 4- O Ln a--+ �~~ M C6 -0 a..+ _ O ol �• 4- O C ' 4-J ca M O ca U -)O O C O tib O tlA -C Ln cn ca +•+ 4-J O N Q ca CL O� N p E+ ca c ca N ( O >' U + ' _ — +, :3. ab.0O O Lf)U O N CA (Uate--+ N dl E c N ca `� N O O Ca N O E N `�' wO u O _ N N • N O Ca �j L c" +�-•+ +�-+ N a-1 tv0 ca a--+ bD •� to "' (01 O O Ln c -N Ln O' N � � • U�1 ai c ca a--+ ¢Iii N N N (B O > O o `� .N ca >- Cni ro L a--+ C6 +•' O m DO O �1 00 N W O O O N �+ r N 41 � � -0 -C ate--+ U Q 4-J CL -' �" M O r�.' O O O= O O N ro ca < .' C�Cd O (=7 v .� �O E (/) ULn M O tv0 ca N O E lqt Lj Q) N N Q) L 0 C6 r -I O N ca ca N O E 4- 0 a -J c O L 1 `^V, W W From: So Kim To: Bernadette Sabath; So Kim Subject: RE: Hi So.... Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:55:18 PM Hi Bernadette, It would be Terry Rodrigue, Interim Community Development Director. So Sural [i. -tarn tray C" Mobile 4G Q C E Device -------- Original message -------- From: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmail.com> Date: 2/29/2016 8:25 PM (GMT -08:00) To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Hi So.... Hi So, I tried to look up who that is on the site, is that position looking for applicants at the moment? I couldn't find a name for the position. thanks bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Bernadette Sabath <miminotchewagmail.com> wrote: thank you... "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:04 PM, So Kim <SoK4rpvca-ov> wrote: Hi, No, it's the City"s Community Development Director. So Scna Brett. stay l" Mobile 4G Q C E Device -------- Original message -------- From: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchewagmail.com> Date: 2/29/2016 7:00 PM (GMT -08:00) To: So Kim <SoK4rpvca > Subject: Re: Hi So.... Hi So, Thank you. When you say "could be required by the Director ....... is that the director of Green Hills? Just trying to clarify. � i i thanks bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM, So Kim <SQK4rpvca- ov> wrote: Hi Bernadette, There is no expiration clause within the conditions of approval. Rather, a compliance review is could be required by the Director based on the type of future proposal for improvement. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes wwwrr:)vca.o- ov (310) 544-5222 From: Bernadette Sabath [mailto:miminotchew(@email.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 3:48 PM To: So Kim <Sol<(@rpvca. ov> Subject: Re: Hi So.... Hi So, I replied to you from my phone, not very clear after re -reading. I will take these to Green Hills myself I was only going to keep you and the council updated with my progress. Can you tell me when the Conditional Use Permit for Green Hills is up for renewal? thank you, bernadette "Me make a living kv what we get, but we make a 1�fe kv what we give. " (}nMon, Feb 29,2010md |2:07PM, Bernadette Sohufh i i Yes, that was my plan. I'm just copying you and the council on our requests. Sorry. l thought that iowhat lmentioned noyou. Thanks hcoludctte Replied ASAP from iPhone! (}nFeb 29,20|0, at 1:23 PM,� So Kim wrote: Hi Bernadette, VVuu|d you like metuforward these concerns tuthe Green Hills superintendent instead? These all appear to be operational requests and |'m not sure what good itwill dubvraising ittuthe Planning Commission urthe City Council. The elected officials dunot operate the facility suyou may get a faster response wejust contact the Green Hills staff. Let meknow your thoughts. | can reach out tuGreen Hills unyour behalf with these concerns if you like. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From/: Bernadette Sabath Sent: Monday, February 29,2Ul6ll:l3AM To: SoKim < Thanks for taking the time with me on the phone today.... Here is the list I of items we feel could be addressed by Green Hills to improve relations between us. I will also bring this to the attention of the planning committee next week Tuesday if you think that is a good idea. thanks bernadette For Green Hills Operations Manager: Higher fence where people are cutting through for short cuts to graves. Watering areas where heavy machinery will be moving dirt to help decrease dust caused from the dirt. Stronger enforcement of the No Alcohol signs by security guards. Help with maintenance of ditch area where property lines are askew. No future burials where property line is incorrect. Help create new guidelines for visitation where sound is a concern. [oil Build a high curved sound wall between homes and graves which would reflect the sound away from homes. D-821 "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " D-822 From: Chuck Haas To: So Kim Subject: Green Hills Inspiration Slope question Date: Sunday, February 28, 2016 10:20:05 PM Ms. Kim, Thanks again for coming to meet with the residents of Peninsula Verde a few weeks ago. I was among that group. It has come to my attention that this mausoleum may be taller than the height than was originally approved by the city. Can you shed some light on the facts here please? If it is higher than the approved height, what remedies have the city identified? Can Green Hill be forced to bring the structure into compliance? Thank you, Charles Haas 1884 Peninsula Verde Drive (310) 621-6062 D-823 From: Nad Gv To: So Kim Subject: question Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:59:14 PM Dear So Kim, By the CUP GH has to operate I don't think this guy should be there before 9AM on a Thurdsday morning... (Fehr. 18th, before 9AM) He cleaned only this side of the rail, looked down and arownd and left after maybe 5 to 10 min... see attached. Cannot even dring my morning coffee without being looked at and disturbed... Nadia (Vista Verde owner) You have been sent 1 picture. P 1140608.JPG These pictures were sent with Picasa, from Google. Try it out here: httD://picasa.aoo leg com/ � i � From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Fwd: View from our window. Date: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:09:33 PM Hi So, This is the view my mom and I have from our upstairs windows..... yikes! Talk with you soonish, bernadette 26910 Luanda circle. RPV Gloria & Bernadette Sabath -----Original Message ----- From: Sharon.Loveys [mailto:sharon.lovevs a�ahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:09 AM To: CC Subject: Inspiration Slope Dear City Council. As you know, I noticed that Inspiration Slope is MUCH TALLER than the silhouettes showed. After the meeting Ms. Kim told me I was right that is it taller than originally planned. I was not shocked, as that is exactly what they did to us but this time with the permission / approval of Joel Rohas. I now understand why they withdrew the application for roof top burials as it would bring ATTENTION to the height. I am requesting Ms. Kim or someone in the planning department let me know the date this was approved and if they sent out another letter from the city to the neighbors at Peninsula Verde, notifying the height change. I believe this all took place before Ms. Kim took over the file on November 17, 2015. Please inform me of the date! Thank you, Sharon Loveys � i i From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Hi So Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:04:32 PM Hope you are well and ready for a relaxing weekend! Is there any way I could get some info from you. Sharon has shared with some residents the same information she shared with you just before the meeting started on Tuesday night. Pat and I are interested in having more solid info. Like you said, there are two sides to every story. How high was the original Mausoleum near us suppose to be? What is the height now? When did the change happen? thanks bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Hi So, Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:02:37 PM I've been trying to call you on and off, I realized you said email was the best way to get in touch with you. A phone conversation would have been easier about this but..... here goes. I am speaking tonight and I am addressing a few items in regards to Green Hills. First off I am praising you for your involvement on our end, on behalf of all of us here living off Peninsula Verdes. Second I am wanting to add our response to the news of how the planning commission's first response was to approve the application for the rooftop graves. This is the dynamic I am interested in changing up at the very core of how business is being handled with Green Hills. After what has gone down, getting this news was an indication of something so fundamentally off with the planning commission's approach with how we can prevent a repeat of what we are already seeing. The reason I am wanting to touch base with you is, some of the members at the meeting felt you might somehow take some heat for anything I might say in regards to this point. Please let me know if this is the case. I can make my point without using this as an example, but it would help me make my case of how frustrated we are that no sign of change is ahead for us. I am writing this to you out of respect for the work you are directing toward helping us. Thanks again. bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " From: Pat Akins To: So Kim Subject: Thank you Date: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 9:00:14 AM Dear So Kim, Thank you so much for meeting with us yesterday and for advocating for us or whatever happened to bring about the withdrawal of the application for ground burials on top of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. I appreciated your demeanor in bringing clarity to the issue and your willingness to help us through the process of having our voices heard. With appreciation, Pat Akins 26911 Lunada Circle Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 D-831 From: Kit Fox To: Terry Rodriaue; Ara Mihranian; So Kim Subject: FW: mediation/ arbitration/ Whatever Date: Monday, February 08, 2016 7:57:42 AM FYI Kit Fox, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kitf@rpvca.gov -----Original Message ----- From: Sharon.Loveys [mailto:sharon.lovevs a�ahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 6:49 PM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov> Subject: mediation/ arbitration/ Whatever Dear Mayor Dyda, Since this monstrosity was build over three years ago many interesting/ depressing things have taken place. Early in 2015 we were notified by our attorney that Green Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes wanted to hhave a mediation. Before the mediation could take place Green Hills/ Rancho Palos Verdes requested we have our condos appraised and all this was suppose to be hush-hush. This fiasco took over five months and prolonged the agony of who said what... put the moratorium on, D-832 From: Bernadette Sabath To: So Kim Subject: Re: Hi So Date: Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:21:14 AM Thanks So, I'm looking forward to getting these folks involved. I just wanted to tell you, besides the roof top graves the other topics that will come up are: - the 8 ft. setback violations - what is going to be done about the graves within that distance. - selling a house - what are the laws (if there are any) around disclosure, some have just bought, and some are wanting to sell. - take us through the process of the March 1 st meeting and what follows after that. Can you also emphasize that you are willing to help folks display photos taken from their homes for the March 1 st meeting. With Gratitude, bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:09 AM, So Kim <SoK(4�rpvca.gov> wrote: Hi, Sounds good. I will see you on Monday at 10am. So Surat li.-yarn my 'l" Mobile 4G L.,'C E Device -------- Original message -------- From: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchewagmail.com> Date: 2/5/2016 10:29 PM (GMT -08:00) To: So Kim <SoKrrpvca. > Subject: Hi So This is Bernadette, I spoke with you today about a time to come talk with us here on Peninsula Verdes. We are happy to host you at Pat Akins house which is the corner house facing Western on Lunada Circle Drive. Please meet about 10 of us at LOAM on Monday! Pat Akins is at 26911 Lunada Circle Dr. Thank you So for all your help. bernadette "We make a InIng by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " D-833 From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: Green Hills Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:40:45 AM Attachments: Ascension Slope Addition. df Emerald Morninaliaht Valley.pdf So as requested here are the maps showing the set back and the burial locations. If you need anything else let me know. Thanks Nick Resich Pork Operations Superintendent . ......... Ik 11 N'Ni K x Ny N R� N 1� N t "K nj, Direct Line (310) 521-4301 Fax Line (310) 519-8573 Main Line (310) 831-0311 www.ereenhillsmemorial.com RECOROEU feg. zr ZoO# PfrE. 1 of -1 03k34S7 NNP,Ht � lsR DU RR" NR3NB,�$°31 �£�° b p,15i 823.36'4q�'00' '0i65� p -nate nAz.bo.m .£V,£V p,32•o0 �0' p`17 C;j 33,34.' '00' R_ -f O O a �D A �Obp O�Z �b�p fan �''op app aa tin�w ti�� a >Q ti pati b oo a �p b Oi mo mAnCS n m oYA z o p Amo bZ W W � �ZN N r W Ano A DmA LO mm LO MM W mA I* D-835 REq Lq w; 01 z 1, Nan OT I1' still � I� ttTn r a�P is aIe f 4 a a r7?� X f Y p d s nlr .v� ,aar I . W . '4, v -•4............. ......... Nill 1.4 ,..„ 11,011,00 411; � 1 MI: % f 1 f l " �'. �' � R I � � � u c�� r Its Apt& �:� a y"e � " " �a, � to Ft �er"9 4.� "�' �'.� c,ty �� 4;. terry 40 , ❑ "��^� �Y��"S � ��. y MOMS= ro eta Wooln� Edi Y MA111. y„ tory Ilk, v All rz' Vis, '" s�w° pa A V1, I Way 511 In w,sv esu �, w, x>, 4 kill o '�% 4 ', .� � 4roL��o a c I !( I 1 t, n 1 91,-iy �' F >r y i But i �1 �a ' a y `µ '� a `� s y t � � c £ °� I bidwaL h i � a M R P '0 / Y'6 P6 1 Or -L RACOR0lD AP4/L t 2007 �"0 5 m3R3o��p �5 m Y3no�D� � Ca�,t4 "o i� qit s '1s dp - t F a �$o m'^8o o�3oaa3� a a a M;� a 1 �'-"Moaa a�oWo�.",�, C .06 LE 3.L0.90.00N, S A � �• N oma M-sj Ener ,°a 'e ��ao� dti �? �<.^. <12 Z 0 nlr-.� lfdvIr ll*.f Yir" eq,ogq aSo o, Me mQ��v'°,'^0 4 v$Iz za§$°a Fo-°Qoo°aGO �je3n F N .. 1�•"�o `bo �o �cq, �o �o k Iktiroo ya,o ko yb,4 1 Ir� 1Lp R1p Rip Rip'Lp Rip `Lp 1Lp Rp R1p n W RI p RI . (�l RI . RI � E .. q q. O p p p ... O R1p Rip Rio 2i0 Rip Rip Rio Rip Rip R1q Rip 'Rip Ri.O Rip Rip tiv lLp'Lp R,ro Rip �p °�`pw p 9 q q q q 6 p p Q p p q q q q p q p p p q • \ p \ p \ p tip 1 p tip \ p \ p \ p \ p\ q `�ti p h cq, b� h�h� M� R,o'tio �cp, qb ip v rte° b� y q p p p p p p q q p q O p G�1�Rip'S�Rc, h�,b�h ��q�pc, .ti�R14 •., p ti, p ti p •tip •tip •., p �., p \ p `�. p `tip •., p 'ti q `tip � C_123. 36`447..pp• o R YS. 8g <. C .06 LE 3.L0.90.00N, S A � �• E y �, o ��ao� dti nlr-.� lfdvIr ll*.f Yir" eq,ogq aSo o, Me mQ��v'°,'^0 4 v$Iz za§$°a Fo-°Qoo°aGO �je3n F N .. 1�•"�o `bo �o �cq, �o �o k Iktiroo ya,o ko yb,4 1 Ir� 1Lp R1p Rip Rip'Lp Rip `Lp 1Lp Rp R1p n W RI p RI . (�l RI . RI � E .. q q. O p p p ... O R1p Rip Rio 2i0 Rip Rip Rio Rip Rip R1q Rip 'Rip Ri.O Rip Rip tiv lLp'Lp R,ro Rip �p °�`pw p 9 q q q q 6 p p Q p p q q q q p q p p p q • \ p \ p \ p tip 1 p tip \ p \ p \ p \ p\ q `�ti p h cq, b� h�h� M� R,o'tio �cp, qb ip v rte° b� y q p p p p p p q q p q O p G�1�Rip'S�Rc, h�,b�h ��q�pc, .ti�R14 •., p ti, p ti p •tip •tip •., p �., p \ p `�. p `tip •., p 'ti q `tip � C_123. 36`447..pp• o R YS. 8g <. .06 LE 3.L0.90.00N, O A � �• �, o ��ao� dti �? �<.^. w�l �� a_32,L`13 a 465 o0 3 g317. a$-7f- ob ZX,S71 1/1 11V 7,9 SLOPE 3 ' '34 R't EA'), 4AEVSION ORBPBPOK 36, F^ e_ $ N PRz�A 38 AS BPC 0438365 3 2'oo 3S• \ Z - B C_123. 36`447..pp• o R YS. 8g <. .06 LE 3.L0.90.00N, O A � �• �, o ��ao� dti �? �<.^. w�l �� a_32,L`13 a 465 o0 3 g317. a$-7f- ob ZX,S71 1/1 11V 7,9 SLOPE 3 ' '34 R't EA'), 4AEVSION ORBPBPOK 36, F^ e_ $ N PRz�A 38 AS BPC 0438365 3 2'oo 3S• \ Z - q 33.34' o R YS. 8g <. O A � �• �, o ��ao� dti �? �<.^. w�l �� o d �rwo•a'esv 1979' "1d�0 �i�n v�• ti�4 ^ham i N B rn 1� D-837 I From: Kit Fox To: So Kim; Ara Mihranian; Joel Roias Subject: Fw: Funeral today Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:15:00 PM FYI Kit Sent using OWA for iPhone From: Sharon.Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 12:33:28 PM To: CC Subject: Funeral today Dear Council Members, As I was cleaning my patio this am, VERY unfortunately I ( and some of my neighbors) were witness to ONE of the saddest funerals . The poor woman kept screaming ..My baby, my baby.. Unfortunately, it took me back many years during the funeral of my own son. I wish i could have helped her but since the mausoleum is in the way I can't jump through the gate like i use to( and would not during funeral). Three of us are very upset, as I am writing this I am shaking.. One of the girls who was as upset as me is recovering from surgery, since the screaming was so loud she thought someone was hurt and tripped over one of her own tubes. Actually she said she might have to go to the emergency room when her husband gets home from work and repair it. In the years past you could hear people crying, screaming but not like this. What is happening... Why are you letting Green Hills subject everyone to this! I heard her yell, I don't want anyone here and something to that ... Sharon Loveys � i � From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: FW: Emerald Garden Date: Friday, January 22, 2016 4:20:03 PM Attachments: 98244 N Emerald Garden Map.pdf Nick Resich Park Operations Superintendent Direct Line (310) 521-43011 Fax Line (310) 519-8573 Main Line (310) 831-03111 www.greenhillsmemoiial.com From: Chris martinCahm.honda.com To: CC Cc: Doug Willmore; Planning; Ara Khranian; So Kim Subject: Letter from the residents of Avenida Feliciano for the consideration of the City Councilmembers prior to the 1/31/2017 City Council Meeting. Date: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:13:08 AM Attachments: Residents of Avenida Feliciano letter to RPV Citv Council 01192017.odf City Councilmembers, Please consider the contents of this letter when you review proposed updates to the Green Hills Memorial Park conditional use permit on 1/31/2017, and feel free to reach out to me for any needed clarification or for an opportunity to visit the area for a deeper understanding of our concerns. This letter should be viewed in supplement to a separate letter that will be submitted on behalf of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, of which many of us are members, which addresses similar, yet distinctly different concerns. As noted in the attached, we fully support the requests of our HOA, but we felt that our additional localized concerns merited a separate communication. (See attached file: Residents of Avenida Feliciano letter to RPV City Council 01192017.pdf) Chris Martin 2081 Avenida Feliciano Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-897-4803 � i� Avenida Feliciano Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 January 19, 2017 City Councilmembers City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills Memorial Park Councilmembers: We are writing on behalf of residents living along Avenida Feliciano and fully agree with the requests made in a separate letter submitted by Glenn Cornell on behalf of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association (hereinafter RHRHA) about concerns with development in Green Hills memorial Park (hereinafter GH). Beyond the alarming potential for soil and air contamination adjacent to GH and the protections we feel should be afforded us, we are further concerned by other aspects of recent and planned development by GH along their southern and our northern border. Specifically, we would like to ensure that appropriate requirements are placed in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to provide adequate sound and security barriers and visual screening between GH and our homes. We, the residents of Avenida Feliciano, request the following prior to future development within the areas designated as Area 5 and Area 6: After the installation of an in -ground root barrier, build a 7 foot aesthetically pleasing block wall set back at least 2 feet onto GH property, with reasonable attempts being made to preserve existing trees and plants on neighbors' properties. 2. Designate an 8 foot minimum setback from the location of the wall (not the property line) for any roadway construction, including curbing. 3. Plant and maintain, in perpetuity, mature screening trees within the minimum 8 foot setback on the northern side of the wall. (Trees may be replaced as appropriate due to age or ailment.) 7 Foot Wall: While we do not concede that any specific developments in Area 5 and Area 6 are acceptable to us, any further development in those areas will bring cemetery visitors closer to our property. Our experience and that of our neighbors to the east and north has revealed that a significant amount of noise can result from these visits, funeral activities, and public events at GH. In addition, providing access to this secluded section of GH property could present a security concern for homeowners without an adequate barrier to dissuade potential thieves from scaling a fence to commit crimes on our properties. Since many of our homes have mature trees planted on our properties near the property line with GH, the 2 foot setback for wall construction is necessary to protect these existing plants from damage in the construction of the 7 foot wall. 8 Foot Roadway Setback (from wall): The roadway that has already been installed to the east of Areas 5 and 6 is too close to the block wall to allow the planting and viability of screening trees. We believe that the current Master Plan designates an 8 foot setback from the property line for the roadway, but, once the wall has been constructed, the distance between the existing wall and roadway is 4 feet or less in many areas. (See attached image.) In addition, we are concerned that the roadway that is planned to run behind our properties will create an additional noise concern, and more distance could help reduce that issue. Since this roadway will be very straight and in a secluded portion of GH, very far from the front entrance, it is likely that vehicles will accelerate and drive at higher rates of speed in this location than in other better -monitored sections of the cemetery. Additional speed will create more noise and more potential for accidental impacts to the wall. For these reasons, we believe that a greater setback is prudent. Mature Screening Trees: A significant portion of Area 6 currently benefits from screening trees on GH property. These trees provide a visual barrier between our properties and the nearby GH soil stockpile mentioned in the RHRHA letter. We understand that the construction of a barrier wall along GH's southern border will necessitate the removal of the existing trees on GH property. Replanting small, immature trees would require many years of growth to provide a similar level of screening to that we now enjoy. To better preserve our privacy and reduce noise from GH visitors and activities, mature screening trees must be placed and maintained along the border. A root barrier is a physical underground wall, placed so that structures and plants may cohabit happily together. We believe that it is prudent for GH to install a root barrier to ensure that their wall or structures on our property do not sustain long-term damage from the roots of the screening trees. Existing trees planted along the border, where there is no root barrier, have shown a tendency for their roots to grow a significant distance into our properties, posing the risk of damage to patios and pools. A simple root barrier installed below the footing of the wall would help reduce this concern. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the requests presented here and by the RHRHA in a separate letter. If you have any questions or if you'd like to visit our properties to get a better view of the situation on the ground, please contact Chris Martin at Chris mMartin@abM..howrm or 310 -897-4803 or Jane Gualeni at _ jgualenia ocom or 310-221-2021.s Sincerely, oe aid JAkt �ual�i ' o 2uCO cc.: Ara Mihranian (w/attachments) So Kim (w/attachments) Doug Willmore (w/attachments) Planning Commission (w/attachments) � i� From: Kit Fox To: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Cc: Gabriella Yan Subject: Fw: Green Hills noise document for City Council CUP review Date: Friday, January 20, 2017 7:03:54 AM Attachments: NoiseSummarv.docx FYI Kit From: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:53 PM To: CC Subject: Fwd: Green Hills noise document for City Council CUP review Councilman Duhovic, You asked staff in your remarks during the Noise Ordinance discussion if any decibel readings have been taken by staff at the Green Hills border. David Turner submitted this to you and staff on January 13th, 2017. Please take a look at his records. Thank You, bernadette Ara, I attached a word file that documents the noise recordings on Green Hills operations. Can you attach them to the materials that the city council will be getting for the Green Hills CUP review? We also have the photo album, which you have seen before, that documents some infractions at Green Hills that we can loan to the city council. This has actual photographs. I haven't gotten it into a PowerPoint briefing as yet. and I won't be able to work on it until just before the meeting Thank you. Dave Turner This is a documentation of noise levels at 1860 Peninsula Verde Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes on days where the sounds exceeded 65 db during an event. May 24, 2016. Date: May 24, 2016 Time: From 11:50 AM to 1 PM Duration: Over 1 hour Funeral or "party/visit"? Funeral Noise level if available: See above Alcohol consumption witnessed? No Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any: GH staff was present throughout funeral. Funerall Nth Mairiiacll s on May 24, 2016 1.10 100 90 80 t 70 � 60 f0\ 50 40 Tome (24 err dock, PDF) This funeral used a several piece band (about 10 instruments). They played for nearly an hour. The sound could be heard all over the neighborhood. Green Hills staff was present throughout the funeral. Email to So Kim So Kim, I got home today after the meeting about our concerns with noise from Green Hills. As I drove up, I saw Pat Akins standing outside her house. She was recording a funeral at Green Hills on her phone. The sound level was high as we could both hear it on the street. The funeral had a band of around 8 instruments. They were largely facing into Green Hills and not toward our houses at all. I have an application on my iPhone which records db levels. The application is named Decibel 10th. I used it to record the sound levels during the funeral. The attached file has the data from the phone for segments of the funeral from around 11:55 to 12:55 PM. The band left at 1 PM. Most of the funeral comprised music from the band. I would estimate 40 to 45 minutes of playing. I don't know when the funeral started or how much the band played before I got home. The spreadsheet contains my data for the segment of the funeral in which the band played. I have another file containing sound levels after 1 PM that I will send on to you in the next few days. I also have a video with a sound recording of the band that I will send on so you will be able to hear how loud it was. The spreadsheet has a graph of the data from 11.9 AM to 12.9 PM. The time axis is in 0.2 hour increments (12 minute intervals). You can see that when the band played, the decibel level was above 60 db and went up to 100 db at times. The segment of the graph around 12.1 hours shows the ambient level which is from 50 to 60 db. This is a quiet level. During this period, there was only talking that was part of the funeral service. I also went inside the house with all sliding doors and windows shut and recorded the sound level. After that, I walked out the front of the house over to Pat Akins and then to Bernadette Sabbath's place while recording all the time. I then walked back through my house to the funeral outside. I believe this is the segment from about 12.5 to 12.7 hours. You can see that the sound level in the house was still high and across the street was also high. This was my first attempt to get some data, so I don't have a smooth procedure figured out as yet. Since this was a funeral, I would expect some high sound levels. However, I question the need to have 40 to 45 minutes of this sound level. I think 15 minutes would be more appropriate. This event took place with Green Hill's knowledge. Dave Turner -------------- August 16, 2016. Date: August 16, 2016 Time: 5:46 PM Duration: Recorded over 15 minute interval. Funeral or "party/visit"? Visit by relatives and owners of plots in this area Noise level if available: See above graph Alcohol consumption witnessed?: No Sheriffs contacted?: No GH staff response, if any: Did not call. Just recorded levels of a loud conversation near our fence. Co nversa-d n at Palace Une Aug 16, 2016 90 r, 80 75 QJ7055 50 65 45 40 .17.75 17.8 17.85 17.9 17.95 18 18.05 Tome (24 err dock, PDF) Conversation near our fence line during the evening of August 16, 2016. Level often exceeds 65 db. So Kim, I attached a word file documenting the decibel levels of a conversation I recorded in Green Hills Cemetery on August 16, 2016 for your information. Would you like me to forward this to Nick Resich at Green Hills? David Turner October 9, 2016. Date: October 9, 2016 Time: 1:36 PM Duration: Recorded for about 6 minutes Funeral or "party/visit"?: "impromptu vist" Noise level if available: See graph Alcohol consumption witnessed?: No Sheriffs contacted?: No GH staff response, if any. Contacted Green Hills office. They thought it was a funeral, so we did not pursue it any further. An investigation next day convinced us it was a visit with a mariachi band. Green WIIIs "Surprise uneral" Oct„ 9, 2616 90 80 11P 0 70 60 �1�� GN � Biu � �111u u 40 30 20 10 13.68 13.69 13.7 13.71. 13.72 13.73 13.74 13.75 13.76 13.77 rume PDF (24 Mr Dock) This was not an official funeral. Seemed to be an impromptu memorial for someone who had been dead for a year or someone's 401' birthday. There was a mariachi band hired for this. D-851 October 17, 2016. Date: Oct. 17, 2016 Time: 5:08 PM Duration: Recorded 2 minutes; visitation lasted longer Funeral or "party/visit"? Visit by owners of plot sites Noise level if available: see graph Alcohol consumption witnessed? No Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any. 120 100 80 60 0 r 40 20 Lead Conversa'don Near Fence Une, Oct„ 17, 2016 411 �ppo �� 410 411» 0 17.'14 17.1.45 17..A.5 17.' 15 5 17.]. 6 17..➢.65 17.]. 7 17..➢.75 17.'18 17.'185 rume PDF (24 Hour Dock) D-852 October 18, 2016. Date: Oct. 18, 2016 Time: 12:37 PM Duration: Recorded 42 minutes Funeral or "party/visit"? Funeral with band Noise level if available: see graph Alcohol consumption witnessed? No Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any. Green Hills not contacted unerall on October 18, 2016 120 100 too60 keii 40 20 0 rume PDF (24 Hour Dock) D-853 October 23, 2016. Date: Oct. 23, 2016 Time: Start time of 4:52 PM Duration: Record time of 2 minutes Funeral or "party/visit"? Visit Noise level if available: See graph Alcohol consumption witnessed? No Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any. Called. Green Hills security visited, but visit continued with child crying intermittently. G reen WI s Viss -t Oct. 23, 2016 100 90 101 80 41b 1�VID`�4170 60 1 40 41141401 N1440` 11 41 40,50 4m � f0� awe°' 1�u Oo X11 �5 fiU111�Ur 6 � mS�� 40 30 20 10 o 16.87 16.875 16.88 16.885 16.89 16.895 16.9 rume PDF (24 Mr Dock) Baby crying at intermittent intervals. This is a segment. Called Green Hills Security. Data is before the visit by security, but no change or improvement occurred after the visit. � i � November 3, 2016 Date: Nov. 3, 2016 Time: Recording started at 1:27 PM Duration: Recorded 3 minutes, but event lasted until after 2:40 PM Funeral or "party/visit"? After funeral event Noise level if available: See graph Alcohol consumption witnessed? May have been alcohol Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any. Received at least 1 visit from Green Hills staff. Event continued. Green WIIIs After Funerall Nov 3, 2016 IM 100 80 �o ��l»�t�10��1�� 0 40 a 0 13.45 13.455 13.46 13.465 13.47 13.475 13.48 13.485 13.49 13.495 13.5 13.505 rume PDF (24 Mr Dock) Children playing near fence in Emerald Garden. This is a segment. Appears that people remained after a funeral, and the children were using the area as a playground. Green Hills Office was called at 1:40 PM. Grounds keepers may have been sent, but no change or improvement occurred after the visit. Called Ann in office at 2:30 PM. She decided to go over herself. Arrived around 2:38 PM. Appeared to be some alcohol present. Also, music was played from a car radio or portable music player. The congregation of people continued after Green Hills left for the second time. D-855 December 14, 2016 Date: Dec. 14, 2016 Time: Started recording at 8:31 AM Duration: Recorded for 14 minute time span Funeral or "party/visit"? Neither. Backhoe digging grave near fence line Noise level if available: see graph Alcohol consumption witnessed? No Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any. No call to office. Normal Green Hills operation. No 8 60 0 40 ME 0 Green WIIIs Baclklhoe WorlkingNash Palace Une, Dec 14, 2616 rume PSr (24 Hour Dock) � i • January 9, 2017 Date: Jan. 9, 2017 Time: Started recording at 11:04 AM Duration: Recorded for 44 minute time span Funeral or "party/visit"? Funeral with 5 piece mariachi band Noise level if available: see graph Alcohol consumption witnessed? No Sheriffs contacted? No GH staff response, if any. No call to office. Green HdIIs Funeral, Area 4, 5 PieceBaird, Jan.. 9, 2017 120 100 80 60 1114 40 20 Farre: (24 Hour Dock) D-857 From: Kit Fox To: Ara Mihranian; So Kim Cc: Gabriella Yan Subject: Fw: Green Hills CUP Date: Friday, January 20, 2017 7:04:39 AM FYI Kit From: Margaret Spinelli <mgt.spinelli@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:27 PM To: CC Subject: Green Hills CUP Council Members, As a resident of Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association, I support all the points listed in Glenn Cornell's letter concerning the conditional use permit for Green Hills. Margaret Spinelli Sent from Margaret's iPad � i i From: RHRHA HOMEOWNERS To: Citv Council Cc: Ara Khranian; Doug Willmore; LC; So Kim; Cornell Glenn Subject: Green Hills Review of Conditions of Approval Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:00:18 PM Dear Councilmembers, Please review the attached letter written on behalf of Rollings Hills Riviera Homeowners Association by our Treasurer Glenn Cornell. It raises the associations concern regarding a conditional use permit granted in the past to Green Hills Memorial Park. Thank you for you time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bill Spinelli Membership Co -Chair , .......... .. N Glleiv-i Corr-iefll Iletter to City Cour-iciilkpdf 2004 Velez Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 January 19, 2017 Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Councilmembers: I am writing on behalf of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association (hereinafter RI-IRIIA) regarding a conditional use permit granted in the past to Green Hills Memorial Park (hereinafter GH), which you are scheduled to re-examine at a meeting on January 31, 2017. RBREA is concerned about certain activities which GH has been doing pursuant to that permit, particularly as they affect our residents whose properties abut GII. Among these concerns is an easing of limitations on construction in the cemetery which permits in -ground burials to within 8 feet of their properties and the future construction of multiple mausoleums taller than 16 feet as close as 40 feet to their property lines. Another concerns possible air pollution and soil contamination from interment activities. Dusting and possible air pollution from dirt, which the cemetery continues to pile in an area close to their homes constitute a third. Accordingly, RHRHArcquests the following: 1. Restore the 40 -foot setback and 16 -foot height limit set forth in subsections A and B of Section 17.28.040 of the city's municipal code-, and 2. Conduct appropriate testing of the soil at GH and of dirt which it has been stockpiling in what it calls Areas 5 and 6 of its property. Should such testing demonstrate the presence of toxins or harmful contaminates, determine appropriate measures to protect those who reside near GH and require GH to take steps necessary to implement those measures. Setbacks and Height Limits: Rancho Palos Verdes, Municipal Code contains a. chapter regarding cemeteries. It mandates that all their structures be limited to 16 feet in height and that all structures and burials be set back a minimum of 40 feet from those borders which the cemetery shares with a residential area. (Section 17.28.040(A) and (B).) Further, it grants certain city officials the power to increase setbacks if the need arises. (Section 17,28.040(3).) Such restrictions on cemetery activities are hardly unique. Great Britain's Burial Code of 1855 forbade in -ground burials within 100 yards of a dwelling, and the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1879 extended that restriction to 200 yards, ("Pollution Potential of Cemeteries" (2002), p. 9- as this entire paper with tables runs to more than 100 pages, the cover page — to help those who want to locate the paper and read it in its entirety -- along with the parts cited in this letter are attached.) Our city's code section dates to the early 1980s when GFI consisted mostly of lawn, with graves and markers that were flush with the ground, and a handful of buildings. Moreover, there was little activity in the the areas adjacent to RHRHA, which GH now designates as Areas 5 and 6. The cemetery business appears to have changed since the adoption of 40 -foot setbacks in 1981. Some cemeteries in Los Angeles have sought to become destinations — even showing movies at night at their facilities. Mausoleums have become more common. Ceremonies and visitors at GH seem to have become noisier, almost celebratory. If 40 -foot buffers and 16 -foot height limits were reasonable restrictions a few decades ago, increasing the setbacks would have been a logical response to the increased noise and activity levels which have become more commonplace at the cemetery. Instead, GH, no doubt feeling pressure to find new burial sites to sell, applied for the setbacks to be decreased and the height limits increased and began laying the groundwork to develop a series of mausoleums. Our city agreed. However, experience since those changes has shown that they have not afforded the residents near the cemetery the protections they need from noise and loss of privacy (and, as discussed below, from possible air and soil contamination) and that returning setbacks and decreasing building size are the changes needed now. Accordingly, the RHRIIA requests that, when you re -visit GH's conditional use permit, you restore the setbacks and height limits set forth in the city's municipal code. Litigation Threat. During a recent meeting at which this request was raised, city's staff mentioned legal concerns — apparently, the possibility of a lawsuit by Green Hills — if it were to make the adjustments FJMIA seeks. Staffs concerns are misplaced. The California Supreme Court, in an analogous situation, stated that "It is beyond question that a landowner has no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning. [Aveo, Community Developers, Inc. v: South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 796, 553 P.2d 546.] In Avco, a developer had obtained a grading permit from Orange County for a housing tract which it proposed to build in an area near the ocean. However, before the developer received a building permit from the county, a ballot proposition which created the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (precursor to the California Coastal Commission) was passed and went into effect. It required that the developer also obtain a permit from the new commission before the project could proceed. The developer challenged that requirement and applied to the courts to issue a. writ to compel the commission to allow the development to move forward. The trial court declined, and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In doing so the Court pointed out that, although the developer had expended money preparing the tract for development, it had yet to receive or even apply for any of the necessary building permits and had not even submitted plans for the structures which it claimed it wanted to build. Accordingly, it had no vested right to proceed. Here, Green Hills was granted a conditional use permit but has yet to undertake the development on its south border outlined in that permit. None of the mausoleums proposed in it has been built. Indeed, their appearance and even their dimensions and capacities have yet to be disclosed. They are at this time nothing more than general concepts. Moreover, GH appears to have just begun selling plots in Areas 5 and 6, and burial activity there seems to have been minimal. In light of Avco, fear of legal action by Green Hills would be a feeble excuse for our city to refuse to restore the limitations set forth in its own municipal code. That is more, the city has expressly reserved the right to re -visit the conditional use permit in question. Presumably this was done so the city could make adjustments to it including, one would hope, adjustments that reflect concerns that might arise about " .. the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood and in the community as a whole," (Municipal Code Section 17.60.040(C).) Contamination and Areas 5 and 6 Dirt Pile: Few of us think much about what goes on at a cemetery. Rarely do our thoughts extend beyond an impression of green and calm. As it turns out, reality is not so tidy. Embalming the corpse involves the use of a variety of chemicals, formaldehyde and methanol being among the most common. (Jeremiah Chiappelli and Ted Chiappelli, "Drinking Grandma: the Problem of Embalming" (2000, Journal qfEnidronmenlal Health, vol. 71, no. 5, pp 24-28); a copy is hereby attached.) Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and a Proposition 65 substance. (Office of Environmental Hazard and Health Assessment, www.P65 Warnings. ca.gov.) With time, these chemicals along with the products of decomposition escape the casket and burial vault. This process occurs whether the interment takes place above ground (a,s in a mausoleum) or in -ground. ("Drinking Grandma," .supra., and Josh Slocum and Lisa Carlson (2011), "Not So Clean, Not So Dry," a copy of which is attached.) More recently, the Philadelphia lnqujrerlDaiZy News, Philadelphia's major newspaper, offered a report about the funeral industry in an article entitled "Everything You Want To Know About Embalming ...And Even Things You Don't," (September 14, 2016) in which it discussed, among other matters, the impact of embalming on the environment with particular focus on the dangers posed by embalming fluid on the sod and water and, if the body is cremated, on the atmosphere. It reads in part: "When an embalmed body decays, the fluid can seep into the ground and affect surrounding soil and water ecosystems, and if cremated, the formaldehyde enters and remains in the atmosphere for up to 250 days ... [where it can combine with condensation and rain] onto plants, animals and water supplies." (A copy of this article is hereby attached.) As citizens have become more aware of environmental and health hazards posed by activities which many used to accept as normal, governmental bodies have begun to examine the funeral business and harms it may pose. "Pollution Potential of Cemeteries" (cited above) reports the preliminary findings of a study sponsored by the government of Great Britain. As the paper reflects, embalming is not widely used in Great Britain so the study's focus is more on the impact of the products of decomposition. These include the various microbes which are part of the normal flora in and on a Paving body that may escape and be harmful after death. (pp 53-54.) The study acknowledges that concerns about the funeral industry are evolving and that more investigation is needed. Research about the impact of the decomposition of human corpses and of the materials used in coffins is just getting underway, and hard data can be difficult to come by. Likewise, identification and study of the wide array of bacteria, and viruses which played roles in the function of the body when it was living but may prove harmful once they escape it is relatively new. Plus the authors recognize that many variables can affect their impact, such as the concentration of burials in an area and the type of soil and the configuration of soil layers underlying the cemetery. The study, not surprisingly, urges further study of these matters. (see p. 53.) The study's authors do cite recommendations from what they consider the "most comprehensive" investigation— one done in Australia, One such recommendation concerns the concentration of interments. It states: "Ideally interments should be well spread in time and position within the cemetery." (see p. 54.) Plainly, the greater the concentration of contaminants, the greater the need for caution. This matter will be raised again in this letter on the subject of mausoleums in which the number of bodies interred in a small space can be quite high. Another recommendation concerns setbacks and reads: "Buffer zones should be mandatory in cemetery design, ideally at, the cemetery boundary." (see p. 54.) In acknowledgment that an array of factors may affect the impact caused by the gases and fluids which are bound to escape from each burial site, it refrains from specifying how extensive such buffer zones should be. However, the numbers discussed at various points in the article are in the tons of meters. Nowhere is a buffer as small as 8 feet advised. In light of these papers and the small setback which now exists along GH's south border, concerns for those who reside near GH should include at least two general types of contamination and pollution. Soil contamination. The leaching of bacteria, viruses and embalming fluids as well as the products of decomposition into the ground may have contaminated and continue to contaminate the Soil under GH. These substances are also known to migrate — especially downhill, which in this case is toward GH's border with RHRHA. Residents whose properties abut GH do not have the 100 yard margin between their land and any burials once afforded in England. Indeed, they no longer have even a 40 foot buffer. Now it is only 8 feet. The area abutting these residents has not yet been extensively used by GH. Only a few burials seem to have occurred there so far. Accordingly, our association requests that the 40 -foot setback, set forth in the city's municipal code, be restored and that burials, sale of burial plots and other activities which will disturb the soil, such as roadway construction, be halted within 40 feet of GHs south border. What is more, RHIU-lArequests that the soil at Green Hills be tested for the presence of toxins and harmful contaminates so that it can be determined whether the 40 -foot buffer needs to be increased to protect those who live nearby. Dust and air contaminants. Contamination of the soil under and around Green Hills is not the only hazard posed by activities at Green Hills. Certain practices at the cemetery are adding another dimension to the problem. Not all the soil which is removed when a grave is dug can be replaced, since the burial vault takes up space. Green Hills puts this extra dirt in a stockpile in what it calls Areas 5 and 6. GH claims to conduct about 1800 burials annually — or about 35 each week. (p. 5, RPV Resolution No. 2015-102.) The result is that dirt is continually being added to this pile from sites all around the cemetery, thereby continually refreshing and potentially concentrating contaminants in it. This pile sits just to the north of those who live along Avenida Feliciano. In dry weather, dusting from the pile can be considerable. That by itself constitutes a nuisance-, and that reason alone warrants taking steps to ensure that the stockpile be kept at least 40 feet away from GH's south border, that its height be capped at 16 feet and that, additional dust control measures be studied and implemented, if indicated. Dusting is not the only concern, however. As discussed above, the stockpile's soil may be contaminated. The dust it creates is not simply a nuisance-, it may be a health hazard. Testing. RHRHA requests that the City order appropriate soil testing at. GH, including the dirt in the Areas 5 and 6 stockpile and that this be performed on a regular, ongoing basis. If the dirt in the pile proves to contain toxins or harmful contaminates, RHRHA requests the city retain the services of appropriate experts to determine the best way to deal with the stockpile and to make sure that excess dirt from future burials is bandied and located property, Area 6 Mausoleums. As noted above, gases and fluids produced by decomposition are formed whether the interment occurs in -ground or above -ground. Then they escape. ("Not So Clean," cited on page 2 of this letter.) What is more, mausoleums concentrate more bodies into a space than could normally be achieved with in -ground burials. For these reasons, mausoleums should incorporate features to vent the gases and channel and treat the fluids; and the mechanisms which perform this venting and channeling must be continually monitored and maintained. Unfortunately, experience is revealing that many such structures fail these requirements. ("Not So Clean," cited above.) Accordingly, R requests that the city undertake appropriate studies before it approves any further mausoleum construction at GH, in order to ensure that each structure is engineered and maintained so that such products are properly vented and treated and do not concentrate in unacceptable levels in or around GH. We make that request even for those that may be sited 40 or more feet from GH's South border and stand less than 16 feet high. RHRHA asserts the conditional use permit granted to GH in the past did not, with the aid of hindsight, afford residents in the area around the cemetery the protection they expect and usually get from our city. Our city now has an opportunity to re -visit that permit and must face what to do going forward. It can continue down the same path taken by prior officials, who quite possibly acted without the benefit of more current information about the operation of cemeteries in general and GI -I in particular. That course may well have the effect of exacerbating those missteps and allowing them to impact even more of our city's residents. Or it can draw the line now and take the measures requested herein to minimize problems and the risk of future harm. My fellow REIR14A residents and I appreciate your time, attention and patience. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 831-3033 or gcorne if you should have any questions. Sincerely, Glenn Cornell, Treasurer, Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association cc.: Ara Nfibranian (w/attachments) So Kim (w/attachments) Doug Willmore (w/attachments) Planning Commission (w/attachments) Pollution Potential of Cemeteries Research Contractor- Vv'Rc pic Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive Aztec West Bristol BS12 4UD R&D Project Record P2/024/1 Publishing Organisation: Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive Aztec Test Almondsbury Bristol BS12 4UD Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409 ISBN 185705 022 3 C Environment Agency 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this docurncut maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic; mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior pcnnission of the Envirantncnt Agency. The views expressed in this document are not. necessarily those of the Environment Agency. Its officers, servant or agents accept no 'liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon views contained herein. Dissemination status Internal: Restricted External: Restricted Statement of use This report should be read in conjunction with Draft R&D Technical Report 223. It is intended to provide guidance to Agency staff when considering development proposals for new or existing cemeteries. Through the use of this document a consistent, risk based approach, will be adopted Nationally by the Agency. it is envisaged that the report will also be of use to local authorities, parish councils and other parties interested in developing and planning future burial sites. In this respect early consultation with the local Environment Agency Office is advisabic. Research contractor This docurnerll was produced under R&D Project P2-024 by: WRC plc Henley Road Medmenharn Marlow Buckinghamshire SL,7 21-11) Tel: 01491 571531 Fax: 01491 579094 WRe Report No.: EA 4659 Environment Agency's Project Manager The Environment Agency's Project Manager for R&D Project P2-024 was: David Hybert e Thames Region R&D Project Record E2/024/1 ,+; LEGISLATION,RE GULATION AND GUIDANCE D RELATION TO BURIAL GROUNDS 4.1 Introduction This section draws together information gathered on the laws of England and Wales tivhicb. control the siting and operation of burial grounds, information collected on guidance provided currently or in the past by national and regional bodies and a consideration of proposed European Union Directives which may influence future trends. 402 Legislation The principal legislation related to burial grounds is sumynarised below: Cemeteries Clauses Act 184T This Act applied to places of burial other than cemeteries provided by burial authorities (vide s 214 Focal Government Act 1972) - Ch 13, p 201 Polson, 1975. Ss 20-22 relate to water (see also Goodman and Beckett, 1977). The Act provided for a fine of £50 for allowing offensive matter from a cemetery to enter water, with an additional fine of £10 per day from 24 hours after the notice is first served until the offence is stopped (s 22). This Act was one of the earliest which dealt specifically with the control of water pollution, and certainly the first to address specifically the problem of contamination from cemeteries. 2. Burial Act 1855. Prohibited interment within 100 yards of existing dwelling without consent_ Position clarified by Burial Act 1906 (Polson 1975, pp 202,203). 3. Public Health. Act 1875 and Public Health (Internments) Act 1579. Prohibit houses being built within 200 yards of a burial ground (see Goodman and Beckett 1977). 4. flogs Act 1906 (6 edmn 7, C32). The section relating to burying of carcasses states "Any person who shall knowingly and without reasonable excuse permit the carcass of any head of cattle belonging to him, or under- his control, to remain unburied in a field or other place to which (logs can gain access shall be liable on conviction under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 to a fine not exceeding £10 [Dogs Act 1906, s. 6, as amended by Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928, s. 3, and Criminal Justice Act 1967, 3rd Sched.]. In this Act, the expression "cattle" includes horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats and swine [Dogs Act 1906 s. 7]. 5. Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Contains provisions for the development of burial grounds and contains provision for remains to be removed and re -interred (Polson 1975, pp 257-260). 6. Local Government Act, 1972 sections 214 and 215 + Schedule 26, brought together Victorian and later legislation (Polson, 1973, p 204). R&D Project Record P1024/1 7, Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 (amended from 1974), Article 9 and Pts H and III of Schedule 2, grant of burial rights not to exceed 100 years, but gra nt, s made earlier may be in perpetuity. Commonwealth War Craves Commission exempted from 100 year rule (Polson, 1975, pp 234-237). The Local Authority (LA) rules specify a minimum depth of burial of 3 feet, or not less than 2 feet in friable soils. No depth is specified for private cemeteries. in general, the nearer to the surface a body is buried, the faster it will decay. This is an important factor in assessing potential risk to the environment, both in the short and long term. Rapid decay could lead to a short sharp impact on the local environment, conversely slow decay could mean loss impact but over a longer timescale. 4.3 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) ® Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water Although this Code of Practice is directed at the on-farm disposal of dead animals, it is widely employed within Environment. Agency Regions to assess the acceptability of burial ground proposals. The code suggests that, if other ways of disposing of carcasses are not practical, and a notifiable disease is not suspected or has been ruled out, carcasses may be buried on farms. In order to comply with the Code, the burial site must: • be at least 250 metres away from any well, borehole or spring that supplies water for human consumption or to be used in farm dairies; • be at least 30 metres away fi-om any other spring or watercourse, and at least 10 metres from any field drain-, • have at least one metre of subsoil below the bottom of the burial pit, allowing a hole deep enough for at least one metre of soil to cover the carcass; • be free of standing water when first dug. �11 111,111111!11111 1 , , " , ; f �, � �E, in 1? 211 2111 � _n I I I The Southern Water Authority first issued its Aquifer Protection Guidance in 1978. The 1985 revision made specific reference to the vie -%v that would be taken by the Authority in the case of proposals for new cemeteries or extensions to existing sites. The guidance was based on zonation of the area, using a mixture of calculated saturated zone flow times and aquifer types. Zone I was defined as the 50 day flow zone around public supply and major private supply irrespective of aquifer material. Zone 2 comprised the outcrops of the Chalk and Upper Greciisand aquifers, other granular aquifers were classed as Zones 3 and 4, and impermeable strata (non -aquifers) as Zone 5. The principal guidance may be summarised: • Zone I - No cemeteries kind no burial of animal carcasses; • Zone 2 to 5 - Cemeteries acceptable. R&D Project Record P2/024/1 10 8. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF LITERATURE REVIEW '1 Discussion Examination of much of the so-called evidence of environmental contamination from burial grounds shows it to be hearsay and circumstantial. !Attributable and verifiable data are sparse, and may be incomplete, with historic data often being anecdotal and relating to !practices which are no longer carried out in the UIQ. There is very little information related specifically to the situation in England and Wales, although studies from other northern European countries and from parts of North America may provide acceptable analogues. The results of the computer aided literature search and the extensive contacts made during the course of the surveys produced only twenty four sets of data related to groundwater composition beneath or adjacent to burial grounds, of which rather less than hall' were in hydrogeological or climatic situations which may find parallels in England and Wales. The results of the survey are summarised in 'T'able 8.1, but arc given in full in Appendix A. Results from sampling on more than one occasion are only available for a small number of cemeteries in Holland, at Branston in England and in Australia. The data set was insufficient to allow statistical analysis and quantification of the observed impacts from cemeteries. The evidence gathered and assessed from around the world indicates that there is a potential for water pollution associated with the siting of burial grounds, particularly in those locations where burials from a large area are concentrated to a single cemetery, and where the hydrogeological conditions are such that. any other potentially polluting activity would require a properly conducted risk assessment to be completed before authorisation. The perception of the funeral industry is that there is awareness amongst their members of the potential problems, but not necessarily amongst planners in focal !Authorities. It appears that potential problems associated with intensive embalming may not be as serious in the United. Kingdoms as in other countries, particularly in view of the movement away from formalin to saline solution as a short terra preservative, and the cessation of the use of toxic metals in embalming preparations. However, some 15% of the UIQ. faireral industry is now owned by American interests and pressure towards more intense embalming and the securing of more "perpetual' grave sites is possible. The situation regarding the potential emission of pathogens in water from burial grounds remains ambiguous and although further sources of information were sought, little firm field-based evidence was obtained. This is an area where more field-based research is required, particularly relating to survival of pathogens in the groundwater environment. Unequivocal evidence of water pollution from burial grounds is confined principally to situations of shallow water tables, high burial rates and an area in which R&D Project Record P2/024/1 53 hydrogeological factors favour the persistence of anoxic ground conditions. Conversely, burials in low permeability areas (non -aquifers) may lead to the prolonged presence of decay products in anaerobic conditions, which could threaten local surface waters. 2. The amount of field-based research is very limited. The most comprehensive study is currently being undertaken in Australia (Knight, 1996, Knight and bent, 1998), and the preliminary findings are summarised below: m There has been widespread, low leveldetection of indicator and pathogenic bacteria, and nutrients, in the groundwaters. However, their effects and longevity is unknown; * There should be prevention of direct contact of decaying remains with groundwater tables as this will provide pathways for pollution. The prevention of burials into water tables appears a sound. policy„ « Appropriate hydrogeological assessment and/or monitoring should be carried out to determine groundwater level fluctuations so that the base (invert level) of all burials is well above any fluctuations. Perched and/or seasonal water tables should also be considered; :Buffer zones should be mandatory in cemetery design, ideally at the cemetery boundary. if they are planted with trees this should reduce groundwater flows leaving the cemetery boundary with the trees take-up nutrients and maybe even accumulating trace metals. No burials should occur adjacent to the cemetery boundary; Ideally interments should be well spread in time and position within the cemetery to reduce the impact. 1 There are no published papers, and little raw data, detailing cases of pollution from cemeteries in the UK. This may be an area for more research and a programmer f monitoring boreholes located near cemeteries. 4. Although evidence from the United States has suggested that in the past soils at burial grounds may have become contaminated by toxic metals in embalming fluids, such as arsenic, current UK embalming practices are such that similar pollution is extremely unlikely in the future. 5. There is little evidence that atmospheric emissions are likely to present problems from future cemeteries. R&D Project Record P2/024/1 54 D-871 1/16/2617 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. -Free Online Library R id;U 29,464,744 arthec."d backs I fisclodicak Literature Search v> Keyword Title f Author Topic Unk2at�e d Ein tr £ i : The Origin and Spread of Embalming in the United States While embalming has origins going back to ancient Egypt, its roots are not as deep in the United States. The modem practice of embalming owes its origins to the American Civil War. Faced with the problem of shipping dead soldiers home, the army commissioned or Thames Holmes to develop a method of preservation (Roach, 2003). He came up with and emblaming told that used arsenic as the main ingredient because it was effective in killing the microorganisms responsible for decomposition (Knoefes & McGee, 2002). [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] After the Civil War, the practice of embalming spread and became increasingly common. The final train ride of Abraham Lincoln's embalmed body form Washington, D.C., to Illinois raised awareness even more. Open -casket funerals became the norm (Roach, 2003). The era of arsenic -based embalming lasted until the early 19005 when it was banned because of harmful health effects (Knoefes & McGee, 2002) and because it interfered with criminal investigations of cases where arsenic poisoning was suspected (Iserser, '1994). This firs era of embalming provides a clear example of the impact of embalming on the environment, Studies in Iowa and New York found elevated levels of arsenic in the groundwater "downstream" of late -19th -century cemeteries, as well as higher levels of copper, zinc, and lead–elements associated with caskets (Knoefes & McGee, 2002). pilfir i� _..... Despite this, embalming and opencasket funerals continues to he the nom in America. A number of rationales have been given for the expansion of these practices. Urban population density prevented traditional funeral practicus such as leaving the body in the parlor and holding the funeral service at home, And as life spans increased and contact with death became less common, the fear of death increased. When death did occur, people had a desire to render death more aesthetically pleasing. The most likely reason for the continues practice of embalming is that it fueled the expansion of the funeral industry. Dempsey (1977) wrote, "Economically speaking, there is no doubt that viewing the corpse is one of the fundamentals of economy of the funeral industry," When you make the body the center -piece of the funeral, you incurcosts in dressing and preparing the body a viewing room with attendant chapel, floral costs, expensive caskets, and grave vaults. Today the funeral industry in the United States takes in approximately $13 billion per year (Harrington & Krynski, 2002). The funeral industry remains the driving force behind embalming. Harrington & Kryneki`s 2002 study confirmed that funeral directors do induce costumers into burial and embalming over cremation. This inducement is aided by state regulations that tacitly encourage embalming by linking funeral home licenses with embalming certifications. Modem embalming entails replacing the blood with an embalming fluid. A slit is made in an artery and the embalming hose, is inserted. The blood is drained and disposed of via the regular sewer. Roach (2003) notes, "Just as blood In the vessels and capillaries once delivered oxygen and nutrients to the calls, now those same vessels, emptied of Used, are delivering embalming fluid" Red -slating is added to the emba rujup fluid to give the bodies a natural coloring. I he primary ingredient in most modem embalming fluids is formaldehyde. It takes roughly 3.5 gallons to embalm the average adult (Cook, 1999}. The National Funeral Director's Association estimates that two million Americans are embalmed each year That translates into roughly seven million gallons of formaldehyde being deliberately placed in the soil each year, In addition, at least 42 oth-tradmally regulated "dangerous chemicals are also commonly used in embalming and body preparation ([.arson, '1994).°' All of these dangerous chemicals also end up in the ground or being burned in a crematorium. Because formaldehyde makes up the largest percentage of embalming Fluid, it will be the focus of this article. Download This To PDF ku r -d c. nn '. Formaldehyde breaks down first into formic acid (which is itself hazardous) and then into carbon dioxide. It is unclear how long formaldehyde remains in the soil before it degrades or what damage it does in the meantime {Cook, 1999). Formaldehyde has a big advantage over arsenic and other alternalivee in that it helps stiffen the body and helps fir, the body in a desired position. The more embalming find used the bogs - the body lasts but in a less lifelike condition (Mitford, 1994 Undertakers attempt to find just the right balance of diluted embalming fluid to preserve the body in a lifelike condition long enough for the funeral. Embalming "is designed to keep a cadaver looking fresh and uncadavemus forthe funeral service, but not much longer (Roach, 2003)." The Dangers of Formaldehyde to Public Health and the Environment Formaldehyde is used in the production of resins, plywood, permanent press cotton, certain molded plastics, and a variety of other uses (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1997). It also occurs naturally during combustion. Most studies on the effects of formaldehyde on public health and the environment focus on airborne exposure rather than groundwater or waterborne exposure. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that formaldehyde is harmful to public health and probably not a good thing to be adding to the environment. In June 20CAh the International Agency for Research on Cancer upgraded formaldehyde from a probable human carcinogen to a known human carcinogen (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004). Based on animal and human reactions, they have proposed an air quality standard at 0.1 mg1[m,sup.3] (roughly .1 parts per million [ppm]) and a dnnking seater standard of 900 [mient]g/lite[ A World Health Organization study (WHO, 2002) found that formaldehyde acts as an irritant at low levels art' exposure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, 2008) has placed form aldehyde on its list of toxic chemicals with a permissible exposure limit of 0.75 ppm ever the course of an eight-hour workday. If formaldehyde levels exceed this, a warping must be posted which says, part, "irritant and poterrtial cancer hazard" A 19% publication by the National Institute for Occupatione[ Safety and Health states that embalmers are exposed to an average of 9 ppm while embalming. At levels between 10 ppin and 20 ppm, formaldehyde causes more severe symptoms; at levels of between 50 ppm and 100 ppm, it causes fluid on the lungs and deat,. https://www.thefredibrary.can/CDrinking+grandma/3A-a the+problem-0-of+emb3lmino.-aol91418223 1/5 i 1) Chirk "Dounicaer ,44 Unk2at�e d Ein tr £ i : The Origin and Spread of Embalming in the United States While embalming has origins going back to ancient Egypt, its roots are not as deep in the United States. The modem practice of embalming owes its origins to the American Civil War. Faced with the problem of shipping dead soldiers home, the army commissioned or Thames Holmes to develop a method of preservation (Roach, 2003). He came up with and emblaming told that used arsenic as the main ingredient because it was effective in killing the microorganisms responsible for decomposition (Knoefes & McGee, 2002). [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] After the Civil War, the practice of embalming spread and became increasingly common. The final train ride of Abraham Lincoln's embalmed body form Washington, D.C., to Illinois raised awareness even more. Open -casket funerals became the norm (Roach, 2003). The era of arsenic -based embalming lasted until the early 19005 when it was banned because of harmful health effects (Knoefes & McGee, 2002) and because it interfered with criminal investigations of cases where arsenic poisoning was suspected (Iserser, '1994). This firs era of embalming provides a clear example of the impact of embalming on the environment, Studies in Iowa and New York found elevated levels of arsenic in the groundwater "downstream" of late -19th -century cemeteries, as well as higher levels of copper, zinc, and lead–elements associated with caskets (Knoefes & McGee, 2002). pilfir i� _..... Despite this, embalming and opencasket funerals continues to he the nom in America. A number of rationales have been given for the expansion of these practices. Urban population density prevented traditional funeral practicus such as leaving the body in the parlor and holding the funeral service at home, And as life spans increased and contact with death became less common, the fear of death increased. When death did occur, people had a desire to render death more aesthetically pleasing. The most likely reason for the continues practice of embalming is that it fueled the expansion of the funeral industry. Dempsey (1977) wrote, "Economically speaking, there is no doubt that viewing the corpse is one of the fundamentals of economy of the funeral industry," When you make the body the center -piece of the funeral, you incurcosts in dressing and preparing the body a viewing room with attendant chapel, floral costs, expensive caskets, and grave vaults. Today the funeral industry in the United States takes in approximately $13 billion per year (Harrington & Krynski, 2002). The funeral industry remains the driving force behind embalming. Harrington & Kryneki`s 2002 study confirmed that funeral directors do induce costumers into burial and embalming over cremation. This inducement is aided by state regulations that tacitly encourage embalming by linking funeral home licenses with embalming certifications. Modem embalming entails replacing the blood with an embalming fluid. A slit is made in an artery and the embalming hose, is inserted. The blood is drained and disposed of via the regular sewer. Roach (2003) notes, "Just as blood In the vessels and capillaries once delivered oxygen and nutrients to the calls, now those same vessels, emptied of Used, are delivering embalming fluid" Red -slating is added to the emba rujup fluid to give the bodies a natural coloring. I he primary ingredient in most modem embalming fluids is formaldehyde. It takes roughly 3.5 gallons to embalm the average adult (Cook, 1999}. The National Funeral Director's Association estimates that two million Americans are embalmed each year That translates into roughly seven million gallons of formaldehyde being deliberately placed in the soil each year, In addition, at least 42 oth-tradmally regulated "dangerous chemicals are also commonly used in embalming and body preparation ([.arson, '1994).°' All of these dangerous chemicals also end up in the ground or being burned in a crematorium. Because formaldehyde makes up the largest percentage of embalming Fluid, it will be the focus of this article. Download This To PDF ku r -d c. nn '. Formaldehyde breaks down first into formic acid (which is itself hazardous) and then into carbon dioxide. It is unclear how long formaldehyde remains in the soil before it degrades or what damage it does in the meantime {Cook, 1999). Formaldehyde has a big advantage over arsenic and other alternalivee in that it helps stiffen the body and helps fir, the body in a desired position. The more embalming find used the bogs - the body lasts but in a less lifelike condition (Mitford, 1994 Undertakers attempt to find just the right balance of diluted embalming fluid to preserve the body in a lifelike condition long enough for the funeral. Embalming "is designed to keep a cadaver looking fresh and uncadavemus forthe funeral service, but not much longer (Roach, 2003)." The Dangers of Formaldehyde to Public Health and the Environment Formaldehyde is used in the production of resins, plywood, permanent press cotton, certain molded plastics, and a variety of other uses (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1997). It also occurs naturally during combustion. Most studies on the effects of formaldehyde on public health and the environment focus on airborne exposure rather than groundwater or waterborne exposure. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that formaldehyde is harmful to public health and probably not a good thing to be adding to the environment. In June 20CAh the International Agency for Research on Cancer upgraded formaldehyde from a probable human carcinogen to a known human carcinogen (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004). Based on animal and human reactions, they have proposed an air quality standard at 0.1 mg1[m,sup.3] (roughly .1 parts per million [ppm]) and a dnnking seater standard of 900 [mient]g/lite[ A World Health Organization study (WHO, 2002) found that formaldehyde acts as an irritant at low levels art' exposure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, 2008) has placed form aldehyde on its list of toxic chemicals with a permissible exposure limit of 0.75 ppm ever the course of an eight-hour workday. If formaldehyde levels exceed this, a warping must be posted which says, part, "irritant and poterrtial cancer hazard" A 19% publication by the National Institute for Occupatione[ Safety and Health states that embalmers are exposed to an average of 9 ppm while embalming. At levels between 10 ppin and 20 ppm, formaldehyde causes more severe symptoms; at levels of between 50 ppm and 100 ppm, it causes fluid on the lungs and deat,. https://www.thefredibrary.can/CDrinking+grandma/3A-a the+problem-0-of+emb3lmino.-aol91418223 1/5 i 1/16/2017 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. -Free Online Library The National Cancer Institute has reported that exposure to formaldehyde Increases the risks of brain cancer and leukenafa and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) ties listed formaldehyde as a probable carcinogen since 1967 (Welton, 2003). U.S. EPA also regulates formaldehyde as a hazardous waste. Embalming manufacturers also recognize the occupational danger of formaldehyde (8edino, 2004). High formaldehyde exposure makes embalmers more susceptible to chronic bronchitis and eye and skin imitation. A number of studies have found "that embalmers are at significantly greater risk than the general populace of getting cancers of the skin, brain, colon, sinuses, nose, throat and bleed, kidney failure, arteriosclerotic heart disease, chromosomal damage, and cintzosis of the liver (Iserson 1994)" Crematory workers were found to have slightly elevated risks for some diseases that formaldehyde is also known to cause. A 1980s White House groundwater task force report raised the possibility that cemeteries would be a potential pollution source, but concems were dismissed because of the lack of studies about the problem, not lack of evidence (Cook, 1999). At present, U.S. EPA guidelines dent include recommendations about testing ?or formaldehyde and no safety standards have been set. Cook reported that studies in Canada have turned up law, concentrations of formaldehyde outside of cemeteries and that a study in Great Britain turned up extremely high concentrations in water that collected in the bottorn of freshly dug grouses. A literature survey for the Institute of Oocupaffanal Medicine revealed a number of similar studies of groundwater near cemeteries from around the world (Creely, 2004). Studies of cemeteries in regions where embalming is practiced found low levels of chemicals used in embalming fluid. Cicely noted that a study of an Ohio cemetery found dramatic levels of arsenic and other heavy metals associated with various embalming fluids as well as casket materials. Embalming fluids also end up in the wastewater of forams[ homes. This has been studied mare because of the potential health risks of draining blood and bodily fluids into the sewer system, These studies have found that targe wastewater treatment facilities can adequately handle the relatively small volume of diluted embalming fluid and blood (Green, 2003). A 2003 study by the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) found that a properly installed septic system can reduce formaldehyde levels to a safe level in facilities not connected to a sewer system (Green, 2003). Formaldehyde also enters the atmosphere through cremation. Because all combustion creates some formaldehyde the contributions of cremation are assuredly de minimis. Nonetheless, cremating are assuredly de minimis. Nonetheless, cremating embalmed remains would release a larger quantity of formaldehyde into the air. Once in the air, formaldehyde can last for up to 250 hours in good weather (WHO, 2002). Because formaldehyde is highly soluble, it readily attaches to atmospheric moisture and washes out in precipitation. Embalming also renders the remaining ashes slightly carcinogenic. The environmental impacts of formaldehyde are less known. WHO (2002) found that formaldehyde injured or killed developing marine plant life as well as the root systems of some plants. They did not find any impact on larger wild animals through waterborne exposure. Embalmed bodies buried at sea take longer to decompose because fish and other marine life are repelled by the odor of the chemicals (Iserson, 1994). Formaldehyde is on a U.S. EPA. list of the top 10% worst chemicals for hazardous impact on the environment ([iodine, 2004). Fortunately, formaldehyde does not appear to be bioaccumulative (WHO, 2002). only a small percentage of the total formaldehyde manufactured and consumed each year finds its Quay into embalming fluid. Nonetheless, this small percentage is placed almost directly Into the environment despite potential harm and questionable benefit. The Current Legal Status of Embalming Misconceptions on the legal status of embalming abound. For instance, more than half of Americans believe that embalming is legally required or that. embalming is required before cremation (Iserson, 1994). Another common misconception is that embalming is required when transporting a body across state lines. None of these claims is true. The funeral industry stood to gain from these mistaken beliefs and may have. spread misrepresentations stent the law. To prevent this, the Federal Trade Commissinn passed a rule in 1984 forbidding the practice of claiming that embalming is legally required. Currently, embalming and embalming fluids are exempt from a number of federal environmental laws. Embalming fluids are included in the same exemption from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that exempts natural pesticides like cedar, peppermint, and garlic. Wastewater discharge from the manufacture of embalming fluid is specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act. A pomtit is required under the Clean Water Act when burying a body at sea or spreading cremated remains at sea, but otherthan a requirement that the burial be done more m than three miles from, the coast and that the body be weighted so that it doesn't rise up again, the regulation is silent on embalming. By contrast, some environmental laws do cover key ingredients in embalming fluid. The, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines formaldehyde as a hazardous substance, and as such, spills over 100 pounds by canters and transporters must he reported under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In the context of wood furniture manufacturing operations, the Clean Air Act lists formaldehyde as a "volatile hazardous air pollutant" In defining hazardous waste, U.S. EPA has devised a toxicity mixture test. If you add something toxic to something nontoxic, the whole thing becomes Loxie. This becomes relevant to the embalming process twice. The mixture rule first applies during the embalming procedure where wastewater containing a mixture of embalming and bodily fluids is flushed into the sewer system. A number of hazardous chemicals are used in the process and inadvertently mixing them in too high a proportion can trigger a violation (Green, 21 Applying the mixture test Games up a second time with the embalmed bodies. When you add embalming fluid, which is toxic, to a dead body, which is nontoxic, the whole becomes toxic waste. Understandably, this is upsetting for mourning families and U.S. EPA seems to have modified their position. Under proposed emissions standards for crematories, U.S. EPA has come to the conclusion that the human body should; notbe labeled or considered "solid waste." The biggest government regulation of the funeral industry is a 1984 Federal Trade Commission rule designed to stop certain unfair practices used by the funeral industry. Most relevant to this discussion are rules against embalming bodies without authorization and forbidding claims that embalming preserves the body forever. In Harry and Byrant Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, which upheld the rule, the court found that even the funeral industry's own study indicated that "Heady ten percent of the funeral buyers in a given year would decline embalming if allowed to choose." Aside from the FTC rules and federal environmental laws, most laws regulating the funeral industry come at the state level. Twenty-eight states require that funeral directors also be embalmers in order to get a license and 33 states require that funeral establishments maintain embalming facilities (Harrington & Krynski, 2002). Other licensing regulations require additional education and training. Harrington (2003) explained that these state regulations serve mostly to impair the entry of new firms into the funeral market and preserve a quasi monopoly for existing firms. The Rationale for Embalming Only in Canada and the United States is the practice of embalming widespread, although it is spreading to England and Australia (6Nellon, 2003). This immediately raises suspicions about the supposedly apparent necessity of embalming. Two main arguments have been put forth as to the necessity of embalming: embalming as a public; health measure and embalming as psychnlogically necessary for the maturing process. Public Health The first argument is that embalming is necessary as a public health matter (Mitford, 1998). Common sense would suggest that ratting corpses are indeed a public health risk. Because embalming floods the body with disinfectants, it kills any infectious organisms that may remain. While this general theory is partially accurate, it overstates the role of embalming. The only health risk from corpses comes from communicable diseases, such as typhoid, cholera, orthe plague (Mitford, 1996). In some ways, however; dead bodies are safer because, as Mitford puts it in The American Way of Death Revisited, dead bodies "don't excrete, inhale, exhale, or perspire.' Embalming alone is not foolproof; "Other infectious organisms are virtually unaffected by normal embalming practice, including those that cause anthrax, tetanus, and gas gangrene (Iserson, 1994).,' A study in the United Kingdom suggests that rather than helping the public health, embalming actually harass the public health by exposing embalmers to the bodily fluids of the deceased (Creely, 2004). The same UK study provides a list of bioodbome diseases such that any body with these diseases should not be embalmed, which further undercuts the public health rationale of embalming. Diseased blood in a hospital would be treated as medical waste and death with accordingly, yet when that same blood is extracted during the embalming process, it is simply dumped Into the sewers (Mayer, 2000). Absent embalming, neither blood nor embalming fluids would be entering the wastewater. Psychological Benefit The second argument in favor of embalming is that by preserving the body and having a viewing it enables the mourning family to form a "memory picture' that will somehow help with the grieving process (1 2003). As the public health benefit claims have been criticized, more emphasis has been placed on this psychological benefit. "[Viglth great candour it is now conceded ... that the sole function of embalming is to produce a short-term, superficial but aesthetically pleasing preservative effect for the benefit of grieving relatives" says Wilkins (1990). hffps://www.thefreelibrary.com/Drinking+grandma%3A+the+problem+of+embalming: a0191®18223 D-873 2/5 1/16/2017 Chinking grandma: the problem of embalming. - Free Online Library Occupational Safety and Flealth Administration. 16 C.F.R. [section] 453.3 (e), 29 C.F.R. [section] 1910.1048.(2008). Reseume Conservation and Recovery Act. 40 C.F.R. [section] 302.4 (2008). Roach, M. (2003). Stiff: The curious lives of human cadavers. New York: WW. Norton. U.S. Consummer Product Safety Commission. (1997). An update on formaldehyde. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http:llwww.epsc.gmlcpsepubtpubsf725.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Standards Of performance for new stationary sources and emission guidelines for existing sources: Other solid waste incineration units, 69 Fed. Reg. 71472, 71479 (Dec. 9, 2004) (to be Codified at C.F.R. of, E0). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 C.F.R. [section] 261.3. (2008). Welton, N. (2003, Marchi Embalming toxins. E: The Environmental hAagazine. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http:7lfindar-ticles.comlp/articles/mi lnl594lis lai 9846993D Wilkins, R. (1990). Death: A hlstwy of man's cibscasious and fears, p. 139-140. New York: names & Noble Beek, World Health Organization. (2002). Concise international chemical assessment document 40, formaldehyde. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from httpf/www.inchem.orgldocumentsicicads/cicads/cicad4O.htm Jermiah Chiappelli, J.D. Ted Chiappelli, Dc P.H., Mt LA., M.S.S.M. i , I'M 1 x lot . Ct „ri F' , Ip v t.ifvntr , r I/ ��Please bookmark with social Meana, your votes are noticed and appreciamit: TI(le Anttotatian: SPEell, REPORT Author: ul�tae', r31p 1- Iry,�{y� Fubliay[ion: SLti^_s){cf Erv_irornn`al Heaivh Genyrtrhiu Cade: IUSA Words: 4122 Prsvousmrrrq Tre r"rr �r th t yll �: n,�lin. ..ems t ;emalc in�rai as wart-,. Fp a exps avt .r�_CAor�, ,,yy, h xC Article: Ev;1 U. zendL_S, s-7;_=dy, _lin 'n s�tam -tye-Etpt I r..p _ Topics. Vii_ �ualiitinv ��`'�^11llNll,.421 �±-i¢eFL3 - MntnaPyd� C,�m -�WdLt �i�bfyC hs•elilt i r '14 Lexus RX 350 $27,088 CarGurus Great Deal, Ad —i,,—cent. BRd b—x, ptt t Advertisemorit R,,a barvter? please f3i us I. nota jri [; Fx I'tn'ery I1-1-ih'Hee'tf n '>-1a-"W yf,E k' entalH LL,, ecernhe't 2r C�{i' https:/(www.therreelibrary.com/Drinking+grandma%o3A+fhe+problem+of+embalming: a0191618223 4/5 111612017 Chinking grandma: the problem of embalming. - Free Online Library Some funeral industry surveys of mourning families indicate that the viewing of the body does have important positive psychological effects by allowing the grieving families to grasp the finality of death (Dempsey, 1977). By allowing the incoming family to see their loved one, they can be assured that their loved one is truly dead and that there hasht been any mix-up in the morgue (Roach, 2003). Miami to Embalming "A body will keep, under normal conditions, for twenty-four hours," according to Jessica Milford (1998). Two exceptions to this general rule are if the body is opened or has been floating in the ocean, it keeps for less time. Freezing is the most viable alternative for preventing decomposition in the short term. it preserves the body in a way that does not require toxic chemfoad. At present many funeral homes and hospitals are already equipped with refrigeration facilities (Funeral Consumers Alliance, 2003). Other alternatives that preserve the body and prevent odors include packing the body with dry ice and placing the body in a waterproof pouch with lime pselemn, 1994). Another alternative to the open -casket funeral is known as green burial. The goal of green burial is to respect the natural course of decay and minimize the impact of the body an the environment. One of the rules of green burial is that the body can not be embalmed The reason for this, as Joshua Slocum, executive director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance, puks it, is "from a common-sense standpoint, putting a chemical that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration deems toxic into the ground certainly can't be beneficial to the emironment" Cremation is making great advances, being used in approximately 25% of all deaths in America (Iserson, 1994). These percentages have risen dramatically in recent years and the reasons given are illuminative. The lower cost of cremation is the single largest reason given, followed by what can be broadly called environmental reasons (Horton, 2003). It can be inferred that the increased use of cremation is a direct consumer choice away from embalming. This inference is given mom weight in the study by Hartington and Krynski (2002), which demonstrated that in states which require funeral directors to be embalmers or have embalming facilifies- cremation rates decrease due to funeral director inducement. if preservation is truly the goal sought by embalming, two alternatives reported by Iserson offer much more practical promise, The first is by completely encasing the body in plastic and the second is mummificalion by dehydration. Both will preserve the body for a much longer time than the current embalming practice. Situations Where Embalming Is Still Useful Some cases exist •.where the benefits of embalming outweigh the health and environmental risks. Every first-year medical student must some face•te-face with a human cadaver for purposes of medical education. Because the bodies need to last longer than the Icnglh of a funeral service, anatomy departments use a much higher concentration of embalming fluid. The corresponding increase in health risks for anatomy students can be dealt with by increased ventilation and greater diligence. A need still exists for embalming in cases where the mourning family desires an open -casket funeral or viewing and the body needs to be transported over along distance, such as when dead soldiers are shipped home from overseas. Another case is when the viewing lasts over a longer period of time, such as President Reagan lying in state in the Capital or Pope John Paul h lying in the Sistine Chapel. Conclusion The costs of embalminq to the public health and environment are at best mild, and the benefits of embalming are cosmetic or illusory. Severely curtailing embalming would have a number of immediate benefits for the public at large. It would remove a minor, yet blatant, source of pollution. Cemeteries would become less of a nuisance la live next to. Potential long-term health consequences can be avoided. The inclusion of an embalming requirement in the licensing of funeral establishments has served as a large impediment to any person desiring restart a funeral home. By removing embalming from the equation, it allows easier entry into the funeral market and the consumer benefit of lower prices and more options. "[Formaldehyde] is going to show up, but it's going to take a while. We're probably drinking great-grandmother Maude right now more than we are someone who died last Saturday night," says Julie Weatherington-Rice, an environmental consultant who has studied arsenic in groundwater (Cook, 1999). Frankly, that should be enough. Corresponding Author. Dr. Ted Chiappolli, Associate Professor of Health Sciences, Weslern Carolina University, G-05 Moore, Crdio-whee, NC 28723. E-mail: Ichiappili@email.wcu.edu REFERENCES Berlins, J.H, (2004). Formaldehyde exposure hazards and health effects: A comprehensive review for embalmers. 650 Champion Expanding Encyclopedia of Mortuary Practices 2633, Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http:/lwww.champion-newom.comlCI-IAMP PDFS/encyclo650.pdf#tsearch= °embalming F20hmith° Clean Water Act, 40 C.F.R. [section] 229.1, 40 C.F.R. [section] 414.11; 40 G.F.R. [section] 6%Subpt. JJ; This, (2008) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 49 C.F.R. [section] 172.161, App. A. (2005) Cook, J. (1999, JarlFeb). Dead in the water Mother Jones. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from www.motheeones.com/mother-,jones/JF99lcook.html C—ly, K.S. (2004, March). Infection risks and embalming (Institute of Occupational Medicine Research Report 714104/01, part 8.2). Retrieved February 27, 2008, from httpllwww.iom• .odd. org/pubs/l OM_TM0401. pdf Dempsey, D. (1977). The way we die: An Investigation of death and dying in America today (p. 171). New York: McGraw-Hill. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 40 C.F.R. [section] 152.25 (2008), Federal Trade Commission. 16 C.F.R. [section] 453.3 (a), 16 C.F.R. [section] 453.3 (e), 16 C.F.R. [section] 453.5 (2008). Funeral Consumers Alliance. (2003). Facts about embalming. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http/lwww.funerals.orgyfaglembalm.hlm. Green.. C.L. (2003, November). Worry -free wastewater. The Director. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http/ www.nfda.orgldirectorArtkcio.php?e)D=2119& are= t Harrington, D.E. (2001 Breathing life into the funeral market. Regulation, 26(1), 14-18. 1-larringtoo, D., & Krynski, K.J. (2002). The effect of state funeral n:gdations on cremation rates: Testing for demand inducement in funeral markets. Journal of Law & Economics, 45, 199. Harry and Bryant Go. v. Federal Trade Commission, 726 F2d 993, 996 (4th Cir. 1984). Horton, K. E. (2003). Who's watching the cryptkeapec The need for regulation and oversight in the crematory industry. Elder Law Journal, 11, 425, 429-436. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2004). IARC classifies formaldehyde as caroinogenic to humane Retrieved February 27, 2006, from httpl/www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr 153a rnmil Iserson, K. (1994). Death too dust What happens to dead bodies? Tucson, AZ: Galen Press. Kilaefes, J.L., & McGee, M. (2002). Old cemeteries, arsenic, and health safety. Retrieved February 27, 2008, fron www.waledndustry.org/arserfic-3.htm Mayer, R.G. (2000). Embalming: History, theory, and practice (3rd ad., p. 65). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Milford, J. (1998). The American way of death revisited New York: Knopf. National Environmental Protection Act. (1902). occupational exposure to formaldehyde, 57 Federal Register 22290, (May 27, 1992) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1916) (Environmental impact assessment;. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1998). Controlling formaldehyde exposures during embalming. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http:lhvww.cdc.gov/nimwpdfslg8- 149.pdf ht%ps:lAvww.thefreelibrary.comiDri nki ng+grandm a / 3A+the+problem+of+em balm i ng. -a®191018223 D-875 315 1/16/2017 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. -Free Online Library ..: FdS.LJ.. ,bU_M>Sdence and 7eehnolugv'Fn+ilU�3iut.Rtltd�.AS,xflBS>AULMIm�;pyisIIeieiltci.NNsfFl�h. n camber+ '..,.Q... ��Y ��nnmenaLtk4 II& 'uIN cdr9�'n by Namn "'bik ti x by Date fuithcre Litatdt�ae .S!kME_=4:] `Lti:L`u`!.':723.2 flHS:RE=Si::Ald X.l.„i A..1.1!dRLF.SS H!! -:1K1 nl2Ji':Ci!7A'at2:1S!11'" �- C14 G37.BP..S 4'.il^{K16 y8E.62H3Si!Y.'d'�YL _-.'t�ir. i alt :zoar �ax.an.�,IEs9ksshlFor mg4;,ma� hitps://www.thefreelibrary.com/Drinkirig+grandma / 3A+the+problein+of+embalming.-a0l91018223 5/6 D-877 1/1712017 Not So Clean, Not So Dry - ButterRies and WheelF Not So Clean,, Not So Dry Jun 21st, 20111 By Josh Slocum and Lisa Carlson Category: Afficles Ireisionriornagn g lasnionable and religious nonsense, but you don't want ta, miss your daily dose of sanctimony, look no further than the American funeral business. YbuWseldom find a culture as steeped in faux tradition, self -regard, mythology andjargon as the Dismal Trade. What the typical American endures—and pays for—when a family member dies would strike most readers from other countries as having a through -the -looking -glass quality. It would strike Americans that way, too, if most of us knew what went on behind the formaldehyde curtain. Well, here's a little peek for you. The following extract is from my book, co -written with Lisa Carlson, Final Rights: Reclaiming the American Way of Death. —Josh Slocum Are you afraid of bugs? Does the thought of burial in the dank, dark earth leave you cold? Well, maybe a mausoleum is for you. Or maybe not, Crypt space above ground has long been marketed as a "clean and dry" alternative to earth burial. Mausoleum operators aren't shy about exploiting your squearnishness to sell you a slot, But from an engineering perspective, shelving whole human bodies behind an inch of wall space and inviting mourners to come "visit" them was never a good idea. Dead people decompose, and unless the mausoleum is properly engineered, they do it in a particularly nasty way. A well -engineered mausoleum promotes air flow to dehydrate the bodies, with crypt slots angled backward to drain fluids that can breach the casket and run out the front. Yet many of these posthumous high-rises are shoddily constructed, and using the wrong kind of casket can lead to disaster. So-called sealer ,faL:1.rotectiveI,, caskets hav, the lid and the bottom. That is exactly what you don't want: Trapping moisture and gases causes the body to rapidly putrefy into a festering soup. People from around the country have filed suit against funeral homes, casket companies, and mausoleums for duping them into believing these "protective" caskets and above -ground crypts would keep mom dean and dry. Horrified farnifies have sent us photographs showing liquefied remains inside the Gasket and gushing out onto the sidewalk. Many in the industry know the truth, but conceal it in order to kee sellin totheunwa at JIMP Mj 111712017 Not So Clean, Not So Dry -Butterflies and Wheals Let Nature 'rake Its Course We know what happens after the crypt is sealed. Your clients do not know, or do not want to know. Provide comforting visits over decades with Ensure -A -Seat's new and improved Casket Protector. Durable and strong, the cover is designed for both metal and wood caskets. The ONE-WAY check valve allows gases to escape. The NEW seamless, chemically hardened fiberboard tray contains liquids. Don't let natural processes destroy your facility's reputation. Carlson's Funeral Ethics Organization newsletter unearthed a 1994 study on mausoleums by the Monument Builders of North America that examined how caskets held up over time in above -ground crypts: AI found that the Catholic Cemetery Association was documenting an 86% failure rate for problems with wood and cloth -covered caskets, 62% for nonsealing metal, and 46% for 'protective" or 'sealer' caskets. Even with the somewhat better results, the report states in bold print, 7t is highly unlikely that such protective sealer metal caskets employ sufficient mechanisms to contain body fluids or gases,' "The crypt was open to put his casket in and when we looked in, we saw that my mother's casket was propped open with what looked like 2x4s. And I was hysterical," she said to a reporter for WKRC in Cincinnati. 111 ......... for placement into the mausoleum crypt. e woman ii n i need to waste money on a heavy 18 -gauge casket. Slocum asked the saleswoman why the mausoleum required embalming, "For preservation," she said. He then asked Stewart's regional sales manager why Forest Hills required an 18 -gauge casket. Bill Baggett tried to claim "bylaws from the state of Florida" required an 18 -gauge; it took some pressing for him to admit these were merely the cemetery's own bylaws (rules) that had been filed with the state regulatory office. So, why the 18 -gauge? "Well, our 18 -gauge caskets seal," he said. Given the problems associated with sealer caskets in warm climates, Slocum asked why the cemetery would even want a sealer in its crypt. httV://www.butterfliesandwhecAs.orgf2011lnot-so-rlean-not-so-dry/ 2/7 1/17/2017 Not So Clean, Not So Dry - Butterflies and Wheels "Over the years we've transferred many of our patients to different spaces and we've never had that problem," Baggett replied. - ---------- MM M-- -01,11alWAIMMU"i I U IC U&SM31 St:�d �YUU Know, ine ruWer-gasketyou paid hundreds more for because it would "Protect" Your loved one) was an idea from Curt Rostad, a well-known funeral director and industry commentator. If you feel you must have mausoleum burial, take these precautions: * Tour the buildings, and note any odors and any stains on the front of crypts or the floor or sidewalk beneath them. - Do not purchase a sealer casket. If the mausoleum tells you these are required, you know all you need to know to cross the mausoleum off your list. - It's probably worth a few hundred dollars to buy an enclosure bag to zip up around the casket About the Author Josh Slocum is Executive Director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance. Lisa Carlson is Executive Director of the Funeral Ethics Organization. 1/1812U17 Everything You Went To Know About Embalming... And Even the Things You Don't N O -WS (RRWff—WMW--Phi-1 1Y,�Gk,, Embalming is the treatment of a deceased individual to (htti3.-://P.n imikinprliq nrs-Awiki/R—m--bs'a—m-in91 and forestall decomposition. In 1867, chemist August Wilhelm von Hofmann discovered formaldehyde, replacing the use of arsenic in the 20th century, and became the foundation for modern methods of embalming. Modern embalming cocktails contain a mixture of formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, ethanol, humectants and other wetting agents. Jump to a topic using a link below- Whgt i canaan-h� he body -a e� �balmiu? iembalmed? (10 RnhULLi�win� of an Steps) �nntim�balm d-bod ? I hftp:lAovww.philly.conilphillylblogslimsorrytohe,rl2Ol6O426–ISTH–Everything_Ycw__Want _Tc_Knok_About _B-nbalmirc—ArrO–Even Lthe �_Things _YoLLDc,r�_. . . 1/13 1/1812017 Everything You Wont To Know About Embalming. -And Even the Things You Don't When did l---l--g Alternatives to IEmbalmin-costs? �exnbalnlin ? -----------..__.d How long Embalmin s does 1pactonthe j embalming enviroxllxtent? Last? 11 ii! III!'s 1 There are three eornznon uses (haps //en wikipedia or wilei [-Prnbalmin€T_) for embalming: temporary presei-oration of the body, restoration or presentation, and "sanitation". f1, MIMI M=11 „r The Civil War Era heralded in the modern day embalming service we have today. Embalming began in the late 1800's ihttns°//en wikinedia orlw0ki/Embal in ), during the Victorian era, as a means to preserve human remains for scientific study. It grew steadily in the 19th century in the funeral industry as demand increased by those who wished to be buried in remote locations and display the body of the deceased.- In the United, States, embalming became popular during the Civil War when returning deceased servicemen and officials home for local burials. The CTS and Canada are the only countries where the practice of embalming is so widespread that it is considered routine and ordinary (Final Sights�http° fear zn tof 1VHs4al9 and Funeral%= jhttr�s°11 funer�lsor�jfre€�uerrtly-asked-e�rions��8-what-°iron-should-know-a.laout- ernbal How long does embalming i. /1 ,,.,;ti„ / ,1 '„l"'s the body for? riap:i/www.philly.comiphilly/blogs/imsorrytohear/20160426 ISTH-Everything-YoWant To_Know AbOut_Emb8lming_And_Even the Things You_Don_ . 2113 1/18/2017 Everything You Want To KrKw About Embalming ... And Even the Things You Don't Embalming for funeral purposes can. last from a, day to a week or so, depending on the chemicals, strength and methods used and the temperature and humidity of where they are being stored(Fi_n_al 1211 _.9L28aQ_42679,9A2 The length of preservation depends greatly on the rate of lhttn Icascc ®remhin �-fa-_�html . ®dies embalmed for medical donatio�httt�:f� ion- ev r iD-donation use a much stronger solution of chemicals than mortuary -embalming in order to preserve the bodies from 6 months to 2 years, resulting in a leather -like texture, undesirable for cosmetic -purposes such as a funeral. Embalming is an invasive procedure that involves the injection of chemical solutions into the arteries, tissues and sometimes organs and draining of the deceased's fluids to slow decomposition and restore the, physical appearance of the deceased for cosmetic Purposes. Mortuary embalming is a complex process and involves these comm Step 1: Lay them down to sleep. ')1tP:/1wWW- Phill Y=m/phil IY/blOgs/i msoffytohear/20160426-ISTFI-Everydhing_YMLWant_Tq._KnoW_About-EM balm i ng--Alld-Eveli-tF�_Things__YotLDor�_. . . &13 1/18/2017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming. ..And Even the -Things You Don't To begin, the deceased is undressed and placed on their back, with private areas covered, on a mortuary table with the head. elevated by a head block. Step 2: Check the vitals. The next step, possibly the most important, involves checking vital signs to prevent premature burial. Embalmers check for clouded corneas, lividity, rigor mortis, and a pulse in the carotid or radial artery. Step 3: Bathe and massage. The death of the cadaver confirmed, embalmers then wash the deceased with disinfectant and germicidal solutions while bending, flexing, and massaging arms and legs to relieve rigor mortis. Step 4: Setting of the face. Feature setting tools. Ruth Bonneville / Winnipeg Free Press Before any incision is made, embalmers will set the features of the deceased, often times using a photo provided by the family or friends to set the eyes and mouth.. The eyes are posed using an eye - cap, which keeps the eyes shut and in a "natural" expression. The mouth is then set by wiring the jaw shut, suturing the lips and gums and then adhesive is used to make the expression look as relaxed and natural as possible. http:lAuww.plilly.corniphillyiblogslimsorrytohearl2Oi6o426-ISTH-Everythin�YoLLWanLTcLKriow-AbouLF-t,nbalming_AnLEverL[he_Things_yotLDorl_... 413 1118/2017 Everything You VVant To Know About Embalming ... And Even the Things You Don't Once the expression is set, arterial embalming begins.. rterial embalming is the process of Figure 6-1. Substances that may be found in the majority of embalming, fluids, draining the blood vessels while simultaneously injecting embalming chemicals into arteries. This is done using a centrifugal pump, which mimics the beating of a heart, while massaging the body to break up blood clots and ensure thorough distribution of embalming fluid. The blood, which is expelled as the -fluid is injected, is then sent down the drain and into the sewer. Step 6: Cavity embalming: asQ Following arterial embalming is cavity embalming. Cavity embalming involves removing any built up gas and fluids in the organs with an aspirator and filling them with concentrated embalming chemicals using a trocar (a large-bore hollow needle). Other orifices are plugged with cotton or a special. A/V tool to prevent undesired leakage as the body decomposes. Step 7: Hypodermic embalming; for those hard to reach places. Hypodermic embalming is a supplemental method of embalming in which fluid is injected into the tissue using a hypodermic needle and syringe to treat areas where arterial fluids did not reach. Hypodermic embalming is used on a case-by-case basis. Step 8: Surface embat ining and washing. hltp:/Aivww. philly.com/philly/blogshrnsorrylohear/20160426 ISTH_Everything_Yau_1Nant Tc Kraw About®Embalmi ng_AncLEverLthp-Things_YcLLDorL_. 5113 111812017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming ... And Even the Things You Don't Surface embalming utilizes embalming chemicals to restore surface damage due to decomposition, cancer or other epidermal injury and is applied directly to the skin. This is an `as needed' step which is either followed or replaced by re -washing and drying the deceased. Step 9: Moisturize and make-up. ,"Makeup Mortuary make Lip A moisturizing cream or lotion is applied to the deceased and makeup is applied to the face, neck and hands to mimic a natural complexion. Hair gel or baby oil may be applied to the hair and styled while baby powder is applied to the body to eliminate odors. Sometimes wax, plaster of Paris, and other cosmetic techniques are used to reconstruct features. Step 10: Dress and situate for viewing. The deceased is dressed for visitation or funeral service and placed in the coffin. or casket of choice. Shannon Jackson, is a licensed funeral director and embalmer with Mosaic Funeral Home. Ruth Bonnevi Ile / Winnipeg Free Press http:l/vvww,philly.con)/philly/blogs/imsorrytohearl20l6O426 ISTH-Everythii-q_YoLLW-,)nLTq__KroW_AbouLErnbalming_AncLjEver�--the,_Things_YoLLDor�__... 6113 1/1812017 Everything You Wad To Know About Embalming... And Even the Things You Don't A typical embalming takes 45 minutes to an hour to complete. Cosmetology, dressing, and "casketing" of the body may prolong the process to several hours. .Prices ffi=Ufcasocal�.org er�nbalmin �-facts�-html for mortuary embalming vary and range from $495 to $1.290 and m ay include additional charges for dressing, casketing (placing the body in the casket), and cosmetology work. Embalmers are typically paid by the hour and fees take into consideration the high-risk nature of the work. What impact does embalming have on the environment? Embalmers are required to wear full-body covering and a respirator while embalming due to the high toxicity of formaldehyde. Embalmers and their methods are not strictly regulated, however, and the blood and other fluid waste are disposed of in the sewer system or septic tank. Although the blood waste is mixed with powerful disinfecting chemicals and is not a direct threat to public health, it does have an adverse effect on the environment. Approximately LO -a -M -inion Hasid is used each year in the U.S. and the contents (haps /en wikipedia oreAvik range from 5-35% formaldehyde and 9-56% ethanol. Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, is on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of top 1.Q% most hazardous and damaging chemicals. When an embalmed body decays, the fluid can seep into the ground and affect surrounding soil and water ecosystems, and if cremated, the formaldehyde enters and remains in. the atmosphere for up to 250 days. Formaldehyde, a know n carcirloen in humans and animals http:/iwvvw.philly.Gom/phillyNogsfimsorrytohear/20160426 ISTH-E-verythin_q_YoLLWanLTcL-Know �_,About Embalming____AncLEverLthe Things_Ycu_DorL_... 7113 1/18/2017 Everything You WantToKnow About Embalming. -And Even the Things You Don't jhttns �cfub.e , is water soluble and when. found in the atmosphere, combines with condensation and rains down onto plants, animals, and water supplies (Chiappelli, Jeremiah; Chiappelli, Ted (2008). "Drinking Grandma: The Problem of Embalming". Journal of Environmental Health), Various National Cancer Institute studies reported an increased risk of death due to lymphoma, leukemia and some brain -cancers Lhiln-awww .cdc., v rion, cjd funeral-�&�rectors�.html in those exposed to formaldehyde in their oo professions and the chemical is featured on the US, Environmental Protection Agency's list Of tap 10% most hazardous and damaging chemicals to the environment. Can you have a public viewing of an unembalmed body? in all U.S. states. There are According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control embalming provides no public health bene,fit and may contribute significantly to the spread of directors.htmi) and of cancer amongst funeral care practitioner. So, no, unembalmed, natural bodies are not dangerous! Alternatives to embalming revolve around the necessity to keep the body cool and dry to temporarily inhibit decomposition and preserve the body. This includes the use of dry ice, gel packs, freezer packs, or refrigeration as an effective, cost-conscious and eco -friendly substitute to embalming. By eliminating this service you could save hundreds of dollars. Not all funeral homes have refrigeration facilities so call and check ahead. ht[p-./Mww.phiIly.com/philly/blogs/imsorrytohearl2Dl6O426-ISTH-Everything_YokLyVant_Tq--j<now_AouLErnbalm!ng_ArA-Even the -Things _You�j[Dor�_... 8/13 1/18/2017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming—And Even the Things You Dont Refrigeration. is the easiest, most economical method of body preservation. For instances when embalming is the desired option, consider embalming with Enigma, a more eco -friendly alternative to formaldehyde. Otherwise, burial or cremation within 48 hours of death, known as a "immediate burial" and "direct cremation" eliminate the need for embalming and cut costs significantly. Both services are required to be offered by every funeral home in the USA. i Ir no Elm" W hatis1when the body is man you have a embalming? pjjb�licyiewinf &n Lmbalmed? (10 i Steps) IhniombalmeLl body" The does PEU-0 Haw I o ng. A IIsan mkaalmed L ambalming? hod --yAa—ne_erous? When did erribalmin jEmbaln1in start? �,8-1-1—oinativeslo —enab ming? — jZmhalmings dDg—s impaQLon the mbalming last? — i For more funeral planning tools and resources, visit the frn S®rr �toHear www-'meor-r3d-0-h-ol-'r —CoM4 download a hecktisO, review theiinsarrvtoheat.com/resoatrcsjcasket-, aided,see your ,a-tate-end--of-life- gaides , get information on How-to PayfoL: a _ _ Funeral view Funeral Ptanni dag —TIP -s http:l/www.philly.corn/phillylblogs/msorrytohear1201G0426 ISTIi_Everything-You Want TO Know About_Embelm1 ng_Aro_Evetl_ti-,E�-Thingsk-YOLLDorL—. 9113 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming... And Even the Things You Don't Lhtt2W.—wwwAmsorWoheax com resouree--s —timsl and access Zrt ueral Consumer Advocarl, L--- J links all from our Resources jLjttp�-.ww�.imsorrvtohear.coin res urc�es area. The post appeared first on khjLt �:www�Amsorr� toheancomL ()91. U - Published: September 14,2016 —10:53 AM EDT (cl�Cri Int �htt : �www- ill �.corn �hfllabo t �co H �ht 2017 Philadelphia Media Network (Digital), LLC Termsof http:liwww.philly.comiphillylblogslimsarytohearl2Ol6O426jSTH_Everything_yoq__Want _To_K-wLAbouLEmbalming_Ar4_Even_the _Things _YoL�_Dor�_..10113 From: Doua Willmore To: So Kim Subject: FW: Green Hills - Follow Up Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:12:17 PM From: Thomas W. Frew [mailto:TFrew@ghmp.comj Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:09 PM To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: Green Hills - Follow Up = Thought I would share a photo with you. This is where the dirt pile was and now removed. After the Planning Commission, it was clear we could gain some ground with a few neighbors by clearing this from their line of site. It was not a budgeted expenditure at this time but we hope it will create some value. In regards to the appeal of our project, is it permissible for Green Hills Memorial Park to ask for a continuance? It would be preferred to have this scheduled after our CUP review but I don't know the protocol. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! Have a good evening. Tom Thomas W. Frew General Manager, Sales and Administration Direct Line (310) 521-4412 Fax Line (310) 519-8236 Main Line (310) 831-0311 www.ereenhillsmemorial.com � i � From: Kit Fox To: So Kim Cc: Gabriella Yan Subject: FW: Green Hills CUP Compliance Hearing Date: Monday, January 09, 2017 8:08:30 AM Kit Fox, MCP Cifti of Raricho Palos Verdes (510) 544--5226 kitfPQ2vca.Aov From: Matt Martin [mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 1:43 AM To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; daleshire@awattorneys.com; PC <PC@rpvca.gov> Cc: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov> Subject: Green Hills CUP Compliance Hearing City Council and other RPV Representatives: The CUP compliance hearing should first be heard by the Planning Commission, not the City Council. According to RPV Code 17.60.050 8: Conditional use permits may be granted for such period of time and upon such conditions and limitations as may be required to protect the health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions shall take precedence over development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning of the subject site. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/rancho®palos verdes/codes/code of ordinances? nodeld=TIT17ZO ARTV11DEAPRE CH17.60CCUSPE 17.60.020AP According to resolution 2015-102 section 2: The annual compliance review for the Green Hills CUP shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission http://www.rDVca.aov/DocumentCenter/View/7616 As a result, the CUP rule shall be applied over the municipal code. This is my second time sending this information to the City and I've received no response Can Mr. Aleshire or another representative from the City contact me and let me know why this clause of the municipal code can be applied to not require a variance but not applied to Annual CUP compliance hearings? Thanks, Matt Martin MatthewHMartinyahoo.com � i � 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. From: Noel Weiss To: Dave Aleshire; Carla Morreale Cc: Doug Willmore; So Kim; "Ellen Berkowitz"; AnthonyR. Taylor; "Brogan, Kevin H." Subject: Re: Resolution Per Your Request Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016 7:45:22 AM Attachments: Google Map Deoectina On -Going Zoning Violation Re Location of Mausoleum and Roof Top Burials Lying Within Mandated 40 Ft. Setback From Vista Verde Complex.pdf Dave: My thanks for forwarding to me the signed Indemnity Agreement when you receive it.... . Dave, this is not a dispute between private entities... The City occupies a special role vis-a-vis its citizens .... particularly with regard to the social contract between the people and their government and the need for proper openness and transparency in its public policy dealings. Doesn't your experience with the corruption in Bell engender in you a high degree of sensitivity to this fact? The City is a public trust and the City Councilmembers are trustees of that public trust. As the attorney for the City (the public trust), my belief is that you owe a fiduciary duty to the City, and to the Councilmembers in their capacity as Trustees of the public trust...... The role of the City Attorney in that context is not to make policy or give the City Councilmembers political cover under the guise of giving legal advice...... or to provide legal cover for the policy choices the (unelected) City Manager (or any other bureaucrat)) might wish for the council to make. In my view, that is precisely what you did here....... give political cover for the political decision to "screw" my people at the behest of the powerful local special interest bully Green Hills by proffering a legal opinion which was sorely lacking in analytical coherence, competent case law citations, or objectivity relative to the facts; including, but not limited to, the omission of the specific factual conclusions set out in the City's Investigation Report of March 11, 2015 (see page 25 of the Report). Nowhere in your opinion did you state why the prior City Attorney's contrary opinion was erroneous. That opinion stated that Green Hills needs to (at least) apply for a variance to legalize Green Hills' failure to abide by the 16' burial set -back limits Green Hills itself sought by way of the 1991 variance (from the zoning law's 40' set -back development standard) which the City granted Green Hills at the time the City approved Green Hills' Master Plan (of Development). Dave, Green Hills knew enough to have procured a variance in 1991 so as to allow it to deviate from the 40' set back (burial) development standard incorporated into the City's cemetery zoning code. Green Hills' purposeful choice to bury people inside that (already shortened) 16' set -back was callous and calculated. Then, to add insult to injury, Green Hills figured it could leverage its own error by being able to contend that 16' foot set -back limit breach now justified the "legalization" of that violation via the issuance of a conditional use permit when the specific zoning law (Section 17.28.040(A)(2)) omits any mention of the use of a conditional use permit as a substitute for the use of a variance (contrary to the specific reference in Section 17.28.030(B) where deviation from the building height standard of 16' is allowed if the criteria for the issuance of a conditional use permit is satisfied (which requires a finding that there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property and that the issuance of the conditional use permit is otherwise required to protect the health, safety and general welfare of those adversely impacted by the development). The bottom line: Green Hills knew it needed a variance to deviate from the set -back rules. It purposely violated the rules, and then leveraged that violation into an authorization (unlawful) for a wholesale exemption from the set -back rules despite the fact that the City's variance rules under Chapter 17.64 provide for a specific protocol on how to deal with such a circumstance.... that is, to procure a variance in order to "legalize" a zoning violation premised on "significant error" in the issuance of the permit where the applicant commences construction in (reasonable) reliance on the error (Section 17.64.050(B)). This analysis was completely omitted from your opinion to the City Council. After all, it is through the variance process that all of the underlying facts come out. By ignoring its own laws and exempting Green Hills from this process, the City Council (following your distinct recommendation) has denied the public the benefit of a full public hearing as to what occurred. Dave, you allowed Green Hills to "rig" and "game" the process; not on the substantive legal merits, but as a cover for a political decision by your employer (the Council), thereby denying the public the benefit of a a � i � process which should be open, transparent, and informative. What the variance process does is to enable the City Council to fairly reconcile the conflicting legal and practical interests that exist between the parties so that the City's broader policies can be maintained and sustained. In addition, where appropriate, proper mitigation factors can then be imposed and implemented, again based on a full discussion and consideration of the facts. By denying my people (and the citizens of RPV) the benefit of this process, the City has aided and abided (rather than abated) the public nuisance created by Green Hills' unlawful conduct. This has caused my people serious financial, personal injury, and property damages. The protocol you set up vis-a-vis the indemnity (in private negotiations with Green Hills — the special interest the politicians and bureaucrats (evidently) wish to protect over the broader public interest of the citizens of RPV) is particularly prejudicial to the City and incredibly favorable (needlessly so) to Green Hills because it gives Green Hills a veto on whether the City can settle separately with my people and thus mitigate and cap the City's exposure. Rather than discuss muzzling me at public comment, let's figure out a way to resolve my clients' claims against the City. There is absolutely no reason for the City to expand and extend its liability exposure here by giving Green Hills a veto power on whether the City should settle with my people independently. It makes absolutely no sense from a public policy standpoint.. .unless you are telling me that the City Council wishes to shield and protect Green Hills at all costs. If so, we have truly entered into a "1984 (bizarre) world" where Green Hills' indemnity obligations to the City are really just a disguise and a ruse for the City's running interference for Green Hills. Dave, I challenge you to show me one Indemnity Agreement where the City gives away its right to independently settle three-way litigation to an indemnitor. It makes no sense from a public policy perspective, or from a cost -benefit perspective. The City's budget expenditures in this instance should be determined by the City, not by Green Hills. Again, that is a policy issue which the Council should directly address instead of hiding behind this contrived (and prejudicial from the City's standpoint) so-called "indemnity" agreement. Because this Indemnity Agreement is so bad, it should be independently reviewed and separately adopted by the City Council so that each Councilperson goes on record allowing Green Hills (someone who practiced deceit and bad -faith on the City) this kind of special privilege. At a later date, after your firm has been paid to defend lawsuits which the City could have avoided if it had acted to cap its liability exposure, it will become evident how poorly served the City is by this "so-called Indemnity Agreement (which should be labeled the "Disguised Green Hills Political Giveaway Agreement"). If the thinking is that all of this money will come back anyway from Green Hills.. well, good luck with that one... Basing an economic judgment or policy decision on the fact that the City has a great lawsuit against Green Hills for indemnity when the City could and should otherwise be able to cap its damages is poor public policy and poor governance... .. unless that is, the politics of a powerful local special interest adept at employing bully tactics overrides the exercise of sound public policy. If that is really the case with this council and with this City Manager, then the people of Rancho Palos Verdes need to know it. At a minimum, Green Hills should have to put up $400,000 up front to secure this otherwise unsecured indemnity promise; and then replenish the pot when it gets down to $200,000. Again Dave, we are not talking here about a business dispute between private entities; nor does this circumstance involve the City's acting on a business deal in a proprietary capacity. The dispute involves the City's exercise of its police powers and the City's errors and omissions with respect to the grant of very valuable land use entitlement rights to a very local powerful special interest. Where is it written that I cannot advocate my clients' position in public comment relative to the resolution of this matter? I decline to accept your invitation to be silenced in public comment. Dave, I read your email as another attempt to silence the public in favor or closed door, back -door dealings so that the bureaucracy can try to control or "game" the outcome in a manner which the unelected bureaucracy feels is in the City's interests and the politicians can avoid doing their jobs and otherwise hide behind a legal opinion. This enables bad government and political prevarication. Giving the politicians cover to be able to say to Green Hills after the City loses in Court: "Oh well, we tried; so sorry" is a bad alternative from a public policy standpoint. Elected officials need to take tough votes when required (tough because they go against the desires of a local special interest). Across this country, from Sacramento to Washington DC, the special interests continue to narrow the circle of liberty. Yet, so far at least, a certain degree of government accountability still remains. Government accountability in this instance derives from the rights of my people and myself to address the council in public comment. There is nothing at all improper or unethical about negotiating in public with a duly elected governmental entity. Your efforts to continue to run interference for these politicians and bureaucrats (and Green Hills) by promoting back-door, closed-door negotiations and otherwise muzzle me are what is wrong with government. It is something which enabled the corruption in the City of Bell. Your ethical duties, as noted above, run to the broader public trust, and do not involve protecting the political interests of councilmembers. We have enough pander, pretense, and prevarication already in our state and national politics. There is no need to encourage it further on a local level. We have enough here to discuss without getting into a debate over whether I am precluded from making public comment on this matter directly to the Council. If you wish that I not do so, then put together a Resolution for the Council to debate and pass, which directs that I be precluded from public comment under the Brown Act, and we can hash out publicly whether such an action is even lawful. The citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes need to know which of their councilmembers wish to hide from their responsibilities by taking cover under the kind of nonsense you are perpetrating here. Dave, I could understand Green Hills showing up to challenge me publicly and trying to bully me into silence. But Green Hills finds comfort hiding under its rock; so I do not expect Green Hills to show up. Under the circumstances, therefore, I see no need for you to continue to do Green Hills' bullying for it. Unlike a private board of directors or any other private group of individuals involved in a business matter, matters of public policy and the conduct by government of how it exercises its powers are properly the subject of public comment. The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes (and you) work for the people. It is not the other way around. The fact that Green Hills may have captured the City's bureaucracy (as is clearly evident in the City's own investigation report (a fact you conveniently omitted from your opinion)), or the fact that the former City Council caved to political expediency is a proper subject of discussion before the Council. The rights of the people to address their government are not obviated, conditioned, or precluded by the fact that there is a legal dispute over the legality of how the government exercised its police powers in this instance. That includes and extends to matters attendant to the settlement and resolution of this matter, including whether it is appropriate for the City to cap its exposure and to try to settle with my people independently of Green Hills. Again, this is not an instance where the City has acted in a proprietary capacity. This is a case where the City has acted unlawfully and abused its discretion in the administration of its police powers relative to the zoning issues at issue in this case. If there is a provision in either the Brown Act or the State Bar rules which precludes my making public comment to the Council on such matters during the pendency of the dispute, then please point it out to me. The Brown Act gives the Council the right to discuss (as a collective) certain aspects of the litigation in private; but nothing in the Brown Act empowers the City Council to reject the right of the citizenry to publicly address the council on such issues; nor does the State Bar Act. Dave, I can make a 3 Minute public comment, or I can have 5-10 of my people say exactly the same thing and take 15-30 minutes doing so. Which would you rather have? What difference does it make in this context whether the comments are made by me or by my people? Are you (the attorney who helped clean up corruption in Bell) going to try to silence them also? Dave, you pride yourself (and justly so) on having helped clean up the corruption in Bell. One source of that corruption was a lack of transparency, opaqueness, and open discussion of important public issues. Don't you feel that if the citizens of Bell had spoken out, the chances of corruption would have been less? Here, in our case, aside from the moral questions raised, the potential for corruption is tremendous. We have a special interest, Green Hills, who procured valuable land use entitlements from the City via deceit and bad-faith. You and I both know that Green Hills' plan here is obvious... To repeat on a broader scale what it did to the Vista Verde condo owners so as to "game" the system and to "screw" the RPV homeowners whose property lies to the north of the cemetery. It will do that by citing this broader "exception" created by the City's having closed its eyes to the violation of the (burial) set- back rules in this instance (backed by your contra legal opinion) to justify the same 8' burial set-back zoning standard "exception" on the Green Hills property which lies immediately adjacent to the RPV residences on the Cemetery's northern border (see enclosed attachment).. .. now using your opinion in support of that effort. You then go to the City Council and tell them that unless the City caves, Green � i � Hills will sue the City and the City will likely lose in Court, having already created this special exception for Green Hills vis-a-vis the Vista Verde situation. This, of course, makes a mockery of the City's zoning laws and de facto amends the cemetery zoning law without the Council having to do its job directly and make the tough decisions (how convenient for Green Hills and for the Council). Dave, Green Hills is not entitled to special treatment. If Green Hills wants the zoning laws amended, it should advocate for those desired amendments straight away.... and not employ phony, deceitful ruses, bully tactics, or raw political power to do so. The verbal whipping Jerry Duhovic took in the parking lot after the September 1 st vote from the Green Hills people was as pathetic as it was outrageous. I felt bad for Jerry. But regardless, Jerry and the other Council members owe a fiduciary duty to the public to do the right thing and not allow Green Hills to maneuver them into a situation where the City's zoning laws are undermined; where a special interest gets special favors in contravention of what the law contemplates and allows for. If the Council wishes to revise the zoning law, then it should do so directly, openly, and honestly; by way of a proper vote, after debate and due consideration. Otherwise, public policy gets messed up; the social contract between government and the people is weakened; and the moral and political viability of our core institutions (in this case the RPV City Council) is undermined. The people deserve better here Dave. This new Council should not be a facilitator of further bad conduct by Green Hills. If past is prologue, as noted above, what can reasonably be expected here is for Green Hills to obtain its de facto zoning amendment, develop the area to the north of the cemetery in violation of the current zoning law and development standards; after which Green Hills will be possessed of the dollars to take care of my people.. only this time, at the expense of the voting RPV residents whose property is adjacent to the undeveloped Green Hills acreage noted in the attachment. What a contemptuous and contemptible racket Green Hills is employing here.... to the prejudice of the citizens of RPV..... who will, by the way, be testifying regularly before the Council in public comment. ... just to remind the community and the Council what an absolutely devilish and devious undertaking is in the works here.... and why the City Council should not be embracing Green Hills at the expense of its citizens. There is an important and obvious public policy issue here relative to the Council's expenditure of City funds and the City's obvious need to preserve its right and prerogative to cap its exposure without tying its fortunes to that of this entity, Green Hills, which the City's investigation report (unreferenced in your opinion) found practiced "deceit" and "bad -faith" on the City. If the City chooses to occupy the cavern (buried under the rock) occupied by Green Hills and also supply the shovel Green Hills needs to dig an even deeper hole for itself, then that should be a matter of public debate by the Council, because the difference will be many, many millions of dollars to the City's detriment. Dave, it is not for the bureaucracy to decide, it is for the Council to decide; and trying to maneuver me into a position where everything takes place behind closed doors so the Council can be kept ignorant of the issues is perverse, prejudicial, pretentious, preposterous, and galling... particularly coming from someone who prides himself on having acted to assist in the cleansing of the City of Bell from corruption. There is no reason why as a matter of public policy, the City should not be able to independently decide whether to cap its exposure to my people. Yet the indemnity protocol you crafted in private negotiations with Green Hills does precisely the opposite. . . It denies the City the opportunity make a separate deal and gives Green Hills a veto over the City's decision - perfect for Green Hills (whom no one elected to anything) .... not so good for the City or its taxpayers (who elect the City Council)....... Now you are telling me that I cannot address the Council directly on this issue.. that I must go through you only! I don't think so Dave.. and if you wish to make an issue of it, then give it your best shot...... and include in a public statement on the record that you do not consent to my addressing the Council directly in public comment... so I can respond to that as well... and we can have it out.... in any and all available forums.. . including the Court of public opinion. Green Hills is a classic bully. I expect bully tactics from them.. . But not from you..... or from the members of the City Council. We will get this resolved.. . But the costs to the City will increase over time should the City refuse to settle independently with my people. Rather than spend time doing Green Hills' bidding, why don't you work with me to organize a mediation over the issue of how the City can cap its exposure to my people? We can mediate this through Retired Judge Peter Lichtman... just my people and the City (not Green Hills). The claims of my people (financial, property, and personal injury) are being worked-up as we speak. My latest deadline to get them to you is on or before January 15th. If that deadline is not met, the claims will be presented to the full City Council at its meeting on the 19th along with my public comment relative to the same. Again if you wish to do Green Hills' bidding and muzzle me, that will be your choice... But honestly Dave, Green Hills has able counsel... It does not need any Councilmember, City bureaucrat, or yourself to be its advocate, spokesman, or mouthpiece. Since Green Hills is being copied on this email, I invite its representatives to show up on the 19th. My prediction: They will pass an decline the invitation. I would also suggest that the Council act to specifically approve the terms of the Indemnity Agreement, and that the matter of approval of the Indemnity Agreement be agendized before the Council so the citizens of RPV can learn whether their Council has chosen to give a local powerful special interest a veto power over the Council's ability to independently cap and control the City's damage exposure for the personal injuries, property damage, and financial injuries my people have incurred as a result of the City's failure to abate the public nuisance created by Green Hills' refusal to abide by the City's zoning laws and the development standards incorporated therein. Green Hills is playing a dangerous game here and it has a lot at risk because as I understand it from the commentary at the November 17th hearing, a cemetery's violation of zoning laws (and the development standards incorporated into zoning laws) exposes the cemetery to the penalty of being barred from being able to conduct any further burials. So Green Hills has no choice but to try to "bully" its way through this situation given its egregious, bad -faith, deceitful, and immoral conduct (documented by the City's own independent investigation). However, other than crass politics, why should the City be embracing and thus encouraging Green Hills in its efforts? According to you, it is because the City faces exposure to Green Hills for having wrongfully issued permits which contravened the City's zoning laws (and the development standards incorporated therein), notwithstanding the fact that the circumstances which occasioned the issuance of the permits were infected with the deceit and bad -faith practiced upon the City by Green Hills,all as documented in detail in the City's investigation report. So far Dave, you have provided zero (-0-) case law citations in support of the proposition that the City can be estopped from revoking permits wrongfully issued, or permits issued as a result of an applicant's deceit and bad -faith. As noted above, your report to the Council was pretty much of a factual white -wash because it excluded any specific references to the findings of the City's independent investigator. No Dave, what this is is a callous, cruel, calculated and immoral attempt by the City Council (perhaps encouraged by the City Manager) to "screw" my people at the expense of Green Hills, figuring that there is a greater likelihood of my people giving up or settling for relative "peanuts". The Green Hills' appraisal is a 'joke" because it fails to evaluate the unique nature of my people's circumstance... they own Lomita property with an "RPV view"..... That makes their property unique and special. Comparing one Lomita property without an "RPV View" to the Vista Verde condos (which have an "RPV View") is comparing the proverbial "apples and oranges".... The appraisal undertaken by Green Hills means nothing. If my clients' claims are not compromised and settled after "one-on-one" negotiations (via a mediation paid for by the City) between the Visa Verde homeowners and the City, then it will fall to a jury to determine what is fair compensation .... To accomplish that objective, I will associate in other counsel to assist me; lest you or Green Hills believe you can exhaust either me or my people from prevailing in this effort. The facts, the theme, and the damages are compelling. That is what juries are for... to provide some degree of justice and compensation to the people who have had to endure the adverse effects of the public nuisance which the City has wrongfully permitted to continue. Meanwhile, we will pursue an independent writ of mandate action overturning the November 17th Resolution so that the City is directed to follow its lawful protocol and require Green Hills to apply for and procure a variance (after the fact) to legalize its wrongful conduct in violating the burial set -back limits and height limits incorporated into the City's zoning laws, as modified by the 1991 Master Plan variance given Green Hills. Green Hills knows (and knew) it needed to procure a variance. It applied for and received a variance in 1991 permitting it to vary from the 40' set -back (burial) requirement and abide by a 16' set -back (burial) requirement incorporated into the variance grant. However, in its own imperious, bullying -like way, Green Hills could not even see its way clear to abide by the simple 16' set -back (burial) requirement it was granted. Green Hills decision to violate its own variance was callous, calculated, cruel, oppressive, and malicious. It was not accidental... and it will give rise to a punitive damage component of the case as to Green Hills. In short Dave, the matter "stinks" to high heaven.... resembling the "smell of (the City of) Bell"... . We have a new City Council now... It deserves a second look at this.. If the City bureaucracy wishes to deny the Council that option, then I intend to ask the Council (at public comment) to consider revisiting the November 17th decision to exempt Green Hills from the law's requirement (endorsed by the prior City Attorney, the Planning Commission, and the City Council on September 1, 2015) to apply for an procure an (after the fact) variance. My view is that the imposition of this variance requirement constitutes a good -faith effort by the City to abate the public nuisance.... precisely because it is through the variance process that the City is best positioned to be able to make the most informed decision regarding Green Hills' right to walk between the raindrops here..... If the City rejects my invitation at a second bite of the apple, then so be it. But the record will then be clear, and this new Council will fully "own" the matter, politically, morally, practically, and in every other way. Green Hills is not going to sue the City for damages... It has suffered no damages from anything the City did.... There is no good -faith reliance by Green Hills on the City's action in issuing the permit, unless one wishes to redefine "good -faith" to include Green Hills' "honest" reliance on its ability to practice deception and bad -faith and get away with it; and having done so, is now free to be rewarded for it. Dave, this kind of reasoning is as absurd as it is aberrational. My view is that Green Hills knows it will be denied the variance..... again given the City's investigation report.. so Green Hills is going for broke here... employing classic bully tactics in order to intimidate its way around this problem; this time with your acquiescence ..... I say that because the Council's September 1st action gave us the right result.. a fair mitigation and abatement of the public nuisance. The November 17th decision was the result of calculated deception by the former Council; appeasing Green Hills while hiding behind your opinion, all in the hope that my people can be bought off with profits made by Green Hills as it continues to evade its legal responsibilities toward the RPV homeowners whose property lies just to the north of the cemetery, in the path of the Green Hills development machine... . No Dave, those RPV residents need the protection of the law.. .something the City Attorney should be standing behind, rather than caving into... Make Green Hills go for a variance.. Then, if Green Hills wants to screw the RPV residents whose property adjoins to the north, it will have to procure a variance for that undertaking as well..... rather than be able to cite your opinion justifying which, de facto, gives Green Hills a special privilege based on the City's fear of being sued by Green Hills .... It represents a de facto (and improper) amendment of the City's zoning law. If the City does not wish to require Green Hills to procure a variance, then the City should at least want to cap its exposure to my people and settle independently. If the City wishes to give Green Hills a veto over the City's ability to solve this problem independently of Green Hills, then the City will end up paying dearly for that choice..... My objective is to give the City a second (and last ) bite at the apple. That is the right thing to do here. My request, therefore, is for you to focus in on this latter objective. If the City follows my suggestion, the City will end up saving money in the long run. If not, so be it. Thanks again for your forwarding me a copy of the signed Indemnity Agreement once you receive it. Please let me know if you are prepared to recommend to the Council that it enter one-on-one exclusive � •11 negotiations (via mediation) with my people. Noel (310) 822-0239 From: [m)LUsa... Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:39 PM To:°INoI.....yV� a z.°. ; Cc: ID yU 1 Irnnou aII�Gun, °I I[ in I , ul�owi ,° ;Ain lraoin;,y I ,Fad ; °IC.0 cJaina Il�oviira IH..° Subject: RE: Resolution Per Your Request Noel—I wanted to send you the fully executed indemnity agreement rather than the unsigned draft and I did push Green Hills to sign it before I left on Dec 19 for the Christmas Holiday—but they did not do so. I was up at Mammoth for 10 days and they finally gave us the execution pages around Dec 29—but when we inspected the indemnity agreement it turned out there were alterations so we rejected it and it is being corrected. I expect we will have the document and be able to send it to you by Friday. Normally I try and establish a good working relationship with the attorneys I deal with. In this instance I am not aware of any email or inquiry from you on the status of this—I'd have thought a direct inquiry of us would have been appropriate. Evidently, you prefer to deal with our office through the public comment portion of the council agenda. I've never had to deal with an attorney who preferred making all our communications public or doing it through council communications. If that is how you intend to continue conducting yourself then I will not make special efforts to communicate in the future and will leave you to communicating through public records act requests. This is a disappointing lack of professionalism from my standpoint. Of course, there are special ethical rules for attorneys dealing with public agencies and you are free to continue in the path you have chosen, but I'm quite sure you would not appreciate me dealing with your clients in this manner—and which I could not ethically do anyway. But in one's relationships with their peers, the golden rule is a reasonable standard in terms of respect. Again—as of this moment I do not have a fully executed version of the indemnity agreement so there is nothing to provide to you. Dave From: Noel Weiss [mailto:noelweiss@ca.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 10:51 AM To: Carla Morreale Cc: Doug Willmore; Dave Aleshire; So Kim Subject: Re: Resolution Per Your Request Thank you Carla.... I am still looking for the City's response to the second item to which my Public Records Request referred: The Indemnity Agreement to which Condition 41(c) on page 21 refers.... . Lastly Carla, can you please confirm the date the Resolution was signed by yourself and Mayor? D-901 Thanks again Carla. Noel (310) 822-0239 From: Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:31 AM Cc: ID Irnoreirnore , Il , v� A[ Ihiu '.I .n FW: Resolution Per Your Request Mr. Weiss, Please see below; I mistyped your email address below. Carla CITY OFL RANG City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: Carla Morreale Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:26 AM To: noe Weiss@cc.rr.com<.r. loelweiss ............................................................. Cc: Doug Willmore <E)W. .rnor'e r.�vca'Dave Aleshire' <daleshire.(l........a..w................................................................................................So Kim ......................................................................................................................... Subject: Resolution Per Your Request Mr. Weiss, Please see the attached City Council Resolution that was adopted on November 17, 2015. I understand you are requesting the resolution (attached), Conditional Use Permit, and Indemnity Agreement. I spoke with Senior Planner So Kim in the Community Development Department who is the Project Manager for Green Hills Memorial Park. She provided the following link to our City website which contains updates to the Green Hills Memorial Park hrtr,�(/vwwv„„r,wc�,. ov/!7G/�' r��r� Hills Va„>;le,r;,;;;[?,I„ 11 i. which she believes contains the information you are seeking. I know that City Attorney Aleshire will be D-902 providing the Indemnity Agreement to you separately. Please advise if this satisfies your request, regarding items other than the Indemnity Agreement, and contact either me or So Kim (copied on this email) for additional information. Regards, Carla 14 CITY OFL RANG City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 This 4fiemail $hdansv� been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. .......................................................................................................... me - This 4fiemail $hdansv� been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. .......................................................................................................... D-903 Green Hills Memorial Park - Google Malas https iNii-%v..€ oogle coi-a/mapsiplace%'Gi-een+Hulls+Memorial+Park--- Go glure Nlaps Green Nibs Memorial Perk Imagery 9i2Q1',.5 Google, Map data 5.-)2'0"15 Google 200 Et Overview of Portion of Green Hills Cemetery Adjacent to Vista Verde Condos (to the Northwest) and the Undeveloped Portion of Green Hills Cemetery Adjacent to the Homes of RPV Residents due North of the Cemetery. .~uo „ Ile Miaps Green Hills Memorial Park Imagery 02015 G<mgle, Map data 0� 2015 Google 50 fk Google Map Depicting Cemetery Development Adjacent to Visa Verde Condo Complex Where Mausoleum Unlawfully Within 40' Set -Back Mandated by Zoning Law (i.e. 8' instead of 40') (Section 17.48.020 of RPV Municipal Code) Putting Burials On Roof -Top of Mausoleum Too Close to Vista Verde Residential Complex and Residents. g��e '-Jap $ Green Hills Memorial Park lmageryc2ois GuOgW, mop do W C)P2015 GougW 100 ft Google Map Depicting Undeveloped Area of Green Hills Cemetery Adjacent Along Northern Boundary Adjacent to Homes of RPV Residents. D-905 From: Noel Weiss To: Caula-Muzeale Cc: Doug-Wilboore; Dave AUeshire; So Kim Subject: Re: Resolution Per Your Request Date: Wednesday, 3anuary 06, 2016 9:19:28 PM Thanks Carla for the clarification and confirmation on the date of the execution of the Resolution. Noel (310822-0230 From: Sent: VVeUnesUaK]anuaryO0 2016 2:06 PM To: o .1_ .?.. Cc: ��lSubject: RE: Resolution Per Your Request The Mayor and | signed Resolution 2015-102 on December 1, 2015. Regards, ME L RANG CITYOF City Clerk's Office 3O94OHawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, [A9O275 Phone: 81(D544-52OQ Fax: 81(D544-5291 From/: Noel Weiss [mai|to:noe|weiss@ca.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January U6,2Ul6lU:SlAM To: Carla Mornea|e<[ar|aM@rpvca.8ov> Cc: Doug VVi||more<DVVi||more@rpvca.8ov>;Dave A|eshire<da|eshire@avvattorneyccom>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.8ov> Subject: Re: Resolution Per Your Request Thank you Cada.... I am still looking for the City's response to the second item to which my Public Records Requestreferred: The Indemnity Agreement to which Condition 41(c) on page 21 refers.... . Lastly Carla, can you please confirm the date the Resolution was signed by yourself and Mayor? Thanks again Carla. Noel (310) 822-0239 From: Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:31 AM Cc: Il 011rirnore , Il , v� A[ Ihiu '.I .n FW: Resolution Per Your Request Mr. Weiss, Please see below; I mistyped your email address below. Carla 14 CITY OFL RANG City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: Carla Morreale Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:26 AM To: 'noelweiss@cc.rr.com' <noelweiss@cc.rr.com> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>;'Dave Aleshire' <daleshire@awattorneys.com>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Resolution Per Your Request Mr. Weiss, Please see the attached City Council Resolution that was adopted on November 17, 2015. I understand you are requesting the resolution (attached), Conditional Use Permit, and Indemnity Agreement. I spoke with Senior Planner So Kim in the Community Development Department who is D-907 the Project Manager for Green Hills Memorial Park. She provided the following link to our City website which contains updates to the Green Hills Memorial Park h�tr,�(/vwwv„„r,w� �,. ov/ �7G/�' r��r� Hills Va,>;lc,r;,;;;f?,I .l.ii, which she believes contains the information you are seeking. I know that City Attorney Aleshire will be providing the Indemnity Agreement to you separately. Please advise if this satisfies your request, regarding items other than the Indemnity Agreement, and contact either me or So Kim (copied on this email) for additional information. Regards, Carla CITY OFL RANG City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 This email _vti__tt$hddannsvv�� been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.a vast k.on. This email has v been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. wwway.8Y sI k.o In. 4 From: Nick Resich To: So Kim Subject: fan timer Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:25:06 PM Attachments: ahmp Iogolacb40 So See attached fan timer for P.T. mausoleum. I tested the fans and turned them off and on to make sure the timer wasn't stuck or to see if the fans were making a different noise. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, From: Nelsonaang To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: From Nelson: Re: Green Hills Correspondence Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:55:34 PM So, copy Joel So, I am reasonably certain no one envy's your role in our Green Hills saga but I must say your professionalism comes through very strong. We've had similar complaints here with our HOA and it was run down to a pool pump that lost its lubricant and was whining away in the middle of the night - some 20 feet from our resident's bedroom! Again, thank you! Enjoy your Christmas break! Bob Nelson -----Original Message ----- From: Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Cc: VVOA HOA <vvoahoa@gmail.com>; Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov> Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2015 2:41 pm Subject: Re: Huge mausoleum fans Thank you very much So Kim! I'm the person who takes care of the timers of pool and spa pumps :) We have similar timer control devices. They sound pretty different but still that was one of the reasons I went down to the pool to check if something went wrong with them. I hope we would not have at least this issue anymore. Thank you again! Best Regards, Nadia On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:53 PM, So Kim <SoK2rpvca. ov> wrote: Hi Nadia, Based on their our email exchange, there could only be two explanations, 1) the fan may have been on after hours and they may have quickly fixed it before responding to me or 2) the noise may have been generated by something else, such as the pool pumps near the pool. Either way, Green Hills has been put on alert of this matter and you can notify both their security and myself if this happens again. If it becomes a repeated occurrence, we will find another method to address matter. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvgeor (@email.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:48 PM To: So Kim <Sol<(@rpvca. ov> Cc: VVCA HOA <vvoahoa(@gmail.com>; Kit Fox <I<itF(@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC D-912 Joel Rojas Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: Huge mausoleum fans Thank you for your response SoKim! They show you a pictures, I don't have any, just my ears. And, I went down to our pool area to make auno |'m not complaining for awrong noaaon, they were on at 1OPK4 at night. In short, they are saying that I'm lying :) but I know what I've heard... Oh, well, I'll call the security next time. thank you for your time and help! Nadia OnThu, Dec 17.2O15at127PM, SoKim wrote: In response tuyour email, | contacted the Park Operations Superintendent for Green Hills. He told me that the purpose of the fans is to ventilate the mausoleum and they are on a timer set turunun|yduringthehuuoufupenadunufthecemeterybeeattachedpicturesi Additionally, he checked the timer and tested the fans and confirmed that they are working property. Nevertheless, if you find the fans malfunctioning and operating after hours, please contact their security at 310-995-6306. |fyou have additional concerns urquestions, please feel free tucontact me. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 AM To: NadGv [[ P[ Cc: VVOAHOA So Kim Subject: RE: Huge mausoleum fans Dear Nadia: Thank you for your e-mai|. Senior Planner SuKim isnow the City's project manager for issues related to Green Hills Memorial Park. | have copied her on this reply. You may contact Su at (310) 544-5222 or Sincerely, Kit Fox, AjC Senior Administrative Analipt CitgMann8er's Office Citgof Rancho Palos Verdes 3O94O Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1(.310) 5445226 F: (.310) 5445201 E: kitfQrpvca.gov L,,,RAM,',H)FAt( 'O'INM From: Nad Gv [mai Ito:nvaeorai From: &aiGv To: So Kim Cc: VVOfdiQ8; KitFo ;�C;LC; Iugi fboLas;8oa Mizomniam Subject' Re: Huge mausoleum fans Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:47:38 PM Thank you for your response SnKim! They show you u pictures,ldon't have any, justn\years. And lwent down tnour pool area to make sure I'm not complaining for uwrong reason, they were nnut|0PM at night. In ohnd they are saying fhut I'm lying i vvvv but l know what heard... Oh, well, call the security next time. thank you for your time and help! Nadia On Thu, Dec |7,20|5 at 1:27 PM, So Kim wrote: In response tuyour email, | contacted the Park Operations Superintendent for Green Hills. He told me that the purpose of the fans is to ventilate the mausoleum and they are on a timer set to run only during the hours ufoperation ufthe cemetery (see attached picturesi Additionally, he checked the timer and tested the fans and confirmed that they are working property. Nevertheless, if you find the fans malfunctioning and operating after hours, please contact their security at 310-995-6306. |fyou have additional concerns urquestions, please feel free tucontact me. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, December l7,2UlS7:46AM To: NadGv [[ P[ K�—�� / 1�� x� Cc: VVCA HCA <vvoahoa(b-)gmaiI.com>; So Kim <SoK(b_)rQvca.g2v> Subject: RE: Huge mausoleum fans Dear Nadia: Thank you for your e-mail. Senior Planner So Kim is now the City's project manager for issues related to Green Hills Memorial Park. I have copied her on this reply. You may contact So at L310l 544-5222 or sok(b_)rQvca.eov. Sincerely, Kit Fox, Ajcp Senior Administrative Analtjst Citij Mana8er's Office Citij of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 (310) 5445226 F: (310) 544-5291 E: kitfgr-L)vcaAov From: Nad Gv [mailto:nveeore(@email.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 10:13 PM To: CC <LL2 rQvca. eov>; PC < DVca.eov> Cc: VVCA HCA <vvoahoaC@RmaiI.com> Subject: Huge mausoleum fans D-916 Hi, I'm writing about the Green Hills. The huge mausoleum fans on the Pacific terrace mausoleum (right in front of our building) are on again at night. They make noise which is heard as low annoying hum. This is not the first time they leave it on at night even though they are not supposed to work at night... It seems that GH get away with anything they do.... Please, do something - it is in your power to make them follow the rules. It is 10:1 OPM on Wednesday night. Good time to rest if we had the quietness we lost... Thank you Nadia (207 Vista Verde condominium ) D-917 From: Bill Gerstner To: So Kim Subject' ns: Huge mausoleum fans Date: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:42:53 PM Does this mean Nad Gv is lying and they were not running. That sounds like what we are saying. V", 0 01 Yztn1� SQUARE ON F From: SoKim [maiKn:SoK@rpvca.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 17,2O15 1:28 PIA To: NadGv Cc: \8/OAHOA; Kit Fox; CC; PC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Huge mausoleum fans In response tuyour email, | contacted the Park Operations Superintendent for Green Hills. He told me that the purpose of the fans is to ventilate the mausoleum and they are on a timer set to run only during the hours ufoperation ufthe cemetery (see attached picturesi Additionally, he checked the timer and tested the fans and confirmed that they are working property. Nevertheless, if you find the fans malfunctioning and operating after hours, please contact their security at 310- 995-6306. |fyou have additional concerns urquestions, please feel free tucontact me. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5222 From: Kit Fox Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 AM To: NadGv [[ P[ Cc: VVOAHOA�oKim Subject: RE: Huge mausoleum fans Dear Nadia: Thank you for your e-mai|. Senior Planner SuKim isnow the City's project manager for issues related to Green Hills Memorial Park. | have copied her on this reply. You may contact Su at 810> 544-5222 or Sincere|y, Kit Fox, MCP Senior Administrative Analipt Citij Mana8er's Office Citij of Rancho Palos Verdes .30940I-1 wthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (.310) 544-5226 F: (.310) 544-5291 E: kfl..tj.��.�YLO,4Du From: Nad Gv rrra Hca r14g .ca_L: j yrnai .::carr Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 10:13 PM To: CC <C PC cav>; PC <.P,�; .(l:?..:.:)vr::a.oy.c Cc: VVCA HOA <vvca..a..1,ca....(l:?.. .......�.....�:.`: rn> Subject: Huge mausoleum fans Hi, I'm writing about the Green Hills. The huge mausoleum fans on the Pacific terrace mausoleum (right in front of our building) are on again at night. They make noise which is heard as low annoying hum. This is not the first time they leave it on at night even though they are not supposed to work at night... It seems that GH get away with anything they do.... Please, do something - it is in your power to make them follow the rules. It is 10:1 OPM on Wednesday night. Good time to rest if we had the quietness we lost... Thank you Nadia (207 Vista Verde condominium ) D-919