The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_01_20_01_Green_HillsCITY OF L RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 SUBJECT: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK'S APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON20030086); Location: 27501 Western Avenue RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing on Green Hills Memorial Park's appeal from the Planning Commission's decision; 2) Determine whether Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") misled the Planning Commission, Staff and the public in 2007, in connection with the Master Plan and related documents that Green Hills submitted for review and approval by the City, or whether the City was not misled so that Green Hills has a vested right to maintain the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum ("Mausoleum") in its current location within eight feet of the northern property line; 3) If the City Council finds that Green Hills did not mislead the City and has a vested right to maintain the Mausoleum in its current location, determine whether the plots located in the northern -most row on the roof of the Mausoleum violate the condition of approval that required all below -ground burials located between the western property line and the maintenance yard to be located at least sixteen feet from the north property line; 4) Direct Green Hills to submit a Variance application within 30 -days to seek approval to: a) allow the existing Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line setback; and b) allow, within the 16 -foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery site between the west property line and the maintenance yard, only the 13 existing below -ground interments and 6 companion spaces identified in Exhibit B of the Planning Commission's Resolution; and, 5) Impose a number of operational conditions on the cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining neighbors from burial activity on the roof of the Mausoleum. 1-1 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION Green Hills Memorial Park cemetery is located at 27501 Western Avenue in the northeast corner of the City, bordering the City of Lomita, the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and the City of Los Angeles. The cemetery was first established in 1948 and, at the time, was located within an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The site became part of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes when the "Eastview" area was annexed in 1984. The property is approximately 121 -acres in size, and is a privately owned and operated cemetery facility. The cemetery operates Monday through Sunday, from sunrise to sunset, and consists of ground burials, mausoleum buildings, an office building, mortuary, chapel, flower shop, and a maintenance yard and related buildings. BACKGROUND The City has taken three significant actions regarding Green Hills Memorial Park that have bearing on the appeal currently before the City Council. Each of these, the 1991 Master Plan, the 2007 Master Plan Revision, and the 2014 Annual Compliance Review, are described below: 1991 Master Plan On September 25, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 93, allowing the construction of a new 16 -foot high mausoleum building and lawn crypt interment area with 7,900 cubic yards of backfill at Green Hills Memorial Park, known as Park View Terrace, in what is now known as Area 12 of the property. The mausoleum building, however, was never constructed and the approval expired. Subsequently, on July 12, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Grading Permit No. 1129, allowing 13,300 cubic yards of grading necessary for new lawn crypts in the cemetery. To avoid future incremental projects similar to those described above, it was determined that a master plan was a more efficient tool to allow a phased development of the cemetery site over an extended period of time. Therefore, following the submittal of Conditional Use Permit No. 155, on August 14, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a Master Plan for a portion of the site development and the entire grading plan for the Green Hills Memorial Park cemetery site. The Master Plan segmented the cemetery site into different "Areas" where mausoleums and/or ground interments were approved, including an estimation of the total amount of grading necessary to develop and improve each Area. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by the applicant, citing concerns with several conditions of approval relating to phasing, setbacks, and placement of a proposed mausoleum expansion. Residents of the Vista Verde Condominiums appeared at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and voiced opposition to mausoleum buildings and ground interments being located too close to their properties. On February 19, 1991, the City Council upheld the appeal, thereby approving a Master Plan for the entire Green Hills Memorial Park property with several modifications to the 1-2 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 3 Planning Commission's original decision (Resolution No. 91-7, attached). The 1991 Master Plan called for phased development of the cemetery site that was contemplated to occur over the next 100 -years. The Master Plan allowed 194,340 cubic yards of grading (97,170 cu. yds. of cut and 97,170 cu. yds. of fill) to be balanced on site (i.e., no import or export), including re -grading of the remaining 45 -acres of undeveloped area on the property. The Master Plan also allowed construction of 2.44 -acres of mausoleum buildings, 11.87 -acres of "garden" burial sites, 27.21 -acres of ground burial sites and 3.72 -acres of roads. Before proceeding with the Background discussion, an explanation about the City's Cemetery District setback requirements is needed in order to understand subsequent events: Prior to 1997, the City's Municipal Code required a 40 -foot setback if an interior rear or side property line abutted a residential zoning district. At the time, the Code did not designate whether this setback applied to interments or structures. The approval of the 1991 Master Plan appears to support the interpretation that setback requirements only applied to structures. For example, a proposed addition to the Pacifica Mausoleum did not meet the Code required setback from the western property line; therefore, a variance was approved in conjunction with the 1991 Master Plan for that mausoleum to encroach into the required setback. The 1991 Master Plan also established a larger setback for mausoleum buildings approved adjacent to the northern property line. The original condition from 1991 (Resolution No. 91-7) states that above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums and crypts, shall be no closer than 80 -feet from the north property line or no closer than the perimeter road, whichever is greater. At the time, the increased setback applied to the mausoleum in what is now Area 2 (Inspiration Slope) and the mausoleum in Area 11 (Pacific/Memorial Terrace). Further, while the Code at that time did not require any setback for ground interments, the 1991 Master Plan established an 8 -foot setback for below ground interments, except in the northwest corner of the property, where the setback was established at 16 feet. Subsequently, in 1997, the Code was amended to eliminate any ambiguity regarding whether the setback applied to interments or structures. Code Section 17.28.040(A) currently reads: "The following setback provisions apply to all structures and below grade interments." The language in this Code section has been unchanged since 1997. On March 28, 1995, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Revision "A" was approved by the Planning Commission. Revision "A" modified a condition of approval regarding mausoleum building height, thereby increasing the maximum downslope building height from 25'-0" to 30'-0". On March 10, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Revision "B" to allow the removal of three underground fuel tanks that were not anticipated in the original approval of the Master Plan. In addition to the two Conditional Use Permit revisions described above, between 1991 and Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 4 1998 several other approvals were granted for projects at Green Hills at the staff level because they were deemed to be consistent with the Master Plan. However, sometime shortly after the City's original approval of the Master Plan and commencement of the first phase of grading, Green Hills encountered contaminated soil in the southwesterly portion of the site in what is now known as Areas 5 and 6 on the property. Over the next few years, Green Hills worked with the appropriate State and regional agencies to develop a plan to remediate this condition, culminating in the completion of a draft Remedial Action Plan in December 1996. The draft Remedial Action Plan was refined and finalized over the next eighteen months and received final approval from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in July 1998. On August 18, 1998, the City approved Grading Permit No. 2050, allowing Green Hills to import material to the site to "cap" the contaminated soil area in accordance with the final remediation plan approved by SCAQMD. As a condition of approval, the total quantity of import was limited to 4,999 cubic yards. During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999, the City received complaints from nearby residents regarding noise, dust, and other impacts related to the remedial grading operations. Eventually, the City became aware (through Green Hills' own admissions) that the remedial grading had exceeded the scope of activity approved under Grading Permit No. 2050, and a "Stop Work" order was issued on October 27, 1999. After a meeting between City Staff and Green Hills, the "Stop Work" order was lifted with the understanding that Green Hills would perform only minor grading to complete the remedial buttress fill that was necessary to properly complete the remediation, would not import any additional material, and would properly apply for an amendment to the Master Plan. In response to further unauthorized grading, the City issued additional "Stop Work" orders between 2000 and 2002, which were ultimately lifted based on continued assurances from Green Hills that an amendment to the Master Plan was forthcoming. Ultimately, on February 19, 2003, Case No. ZON2003-00086 was submitted, which was a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan. 2007 Master Plan Revision Following submittal of the Master Plan Revision in February 2003, the application remained incomplete for several years. During this time, the applicant made further modifications to the original request, including refining the amount of grading that would be necessary to construct each of the future proposed mausoleum buildings. Staff deemed the project complete for processing on November 22, 2006. Once deemed complete, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to assess the project's environmental impacts. The intent of the 1991 Master Plan was to allow for the orderly development of the cemetery over a 100 -year time frame. Unfortunately, implementation of the Master Plan was plagued by an underestimation of grading quantities necessary to construct the mausoleum buildings and preparation of the ground interments throughout the cemetery site. Therefore, the intent of the 2007 Master Plan Revision was to better specify the areas 1-4 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 5 of development and the grading quantities necessary for ultimate build -out of the cemetery site. The Master Plan Revision included an acknowledgement that the actual quantity of grading that had been conducted between 1991 through 2004 was 288,814 cubic yards (cut and fill), which was an increase to the 194,340 cubic yards of grading approved by the 1991 Master Plan. In addition, it proposed a total of 643,259 cubic yards of additional grading, which includes 97,964 cubic yards of import for all the various proposed mausoleum buildings, and all cut and fill associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery site for the life of the Master Plan. The imported fill material would be conducted in phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over the next 30- to 50 -years. Another significant aspect of the 2007 Master Plan Revision was that it proposed a number of modifications to the mausoleum buildings approved in the 1991 Master Plan. The 1991 Master Plan site plan is depicted on page M -E of the attached Green Hill's "Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package," while the 2007 Master Plan Revision site plan and grading plan are shown on pages M -A and M -B, respectively, in this same document. Of specific interest to this appeal was the request to make a sizable addition to the previously approved mausoleum building in Area 11, known as the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. The original mausoleum location was south of the existing maintenance yard and had a 22,187 square foot building footprint. Apparently, the initial application submitted in 2003 proposed to increase the building footprint to 33,668 square feet, which is also reflected in the February 27, 2007 staff report. However, as shown in the attached Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package, the building was actually proposed to increase to 60,548 square feet in size (1.39 acres), as indicated on Roman numeral page V, and extend significantly to the west and to the east of its originally approved location, as can be seen by comparing page M -E (1991 site plan) with page M -A (2007 site plan). Furthermore, the Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package makes the first references to the interments on the roof of the mausoleum in the description of Area 11 on Roman numeral page 5 and the building cross sections depicted on pages 11-C and 11-D. The final Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package submitted by Green Hills, which eventually was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, was only provided to staff on January 30, 2007. With a scheduled hearing date of February 27, 2007, it would have been nearly impossible for staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the information submitted in time to prepare and release the environmental document and a staff report with staff's recommendations. As discussed further below, this is evident by the fact that February 27th staff report describes the mausoleum in Area 11 with a building footprint of 33,668 square feet, rather than 60,548, and did not identify the reduced setback from the north property line or the interments on the roof of the building. On February 27, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted the first public hearing regarding the Master Plan Revision. While the staff report did not address each mausoleum building proposed in the Master Plan Revision individually, below are excerpts from the February 27th report that relate to setbacks, building height, and view impacts: 1-5 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 6 Excerpt from the discussion of Conditional Use Permit Findings: "With approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for mausoleum buildings and ground interments were established. These setbacks will not be modified or reduced with the additional mausoleum buildings. The additional buildings requested through the revision include additions to the already approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However, they will continue to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site, rather than along its perimeter. Further, the heights of the buildings will not be taller. The Mausoleum buildings in the southern portion of the site (in Area 6) will have a better design than the original Master Plan since there will be 5 buildings distributed throughout the area that will be one-story above grade and one-story below grade. Further, since the improvements will be conducted over a period of 30- to 50 -years, the impacts will be minimized. Thus, the setbacks and heights of all proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established by the prior Master Plan as approved through Resolution No. 91-7 (attached), and the conditions contained therein will remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified by this Master Plan Revision." Therefore, this analysis suggests that the 80 -foot building setback from the north property line that was imposed in 1991 was not proposed to be changed. Excerpt from the discussion of Grading Permit Findings: "In regards to significant impacts to views from neighboring properties, Staff believes that the grading will not adversely impact any views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausoleum buildings and ground interments. The locations of the mausoleum buildings and the associated backfill continue to be within the internal portions of the cemetery site, and no mausoleum buildings are proposed along the perimeters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and south. The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site. Further, with the exception of the Inspiration Slope mausoleum building, the existing Master Plan limited the heights of buildings, and this Revision does not modify nor requests to modify, the previously approved heights." Again, this analysis suggests that no reduction in the required building setbacks was proposed. Further, the analysis suggests that the mausoleum buildings were proposed in sloped areas of the site and would be set into the hillsides to minimize view impacts to surrounding properties, rather than being constructed as free-standing buildings, particularly in the higher elevations of the cemetery site. At the February 27, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from the applicant and the public, and briefly discussed the merits of the project. Due to the lateness of the hour, and to allow additional time to discuss the item, Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 7 and to allow time for the applicant to present requested modifications to Staff's proposed conditions of approval, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to April 24, 2007. The City received the list of Green Hills' proposed modifications to the conditions of approval on April 10, 2007, a total of eight calendar days prior to the publication of the staff report for the April 24th meeting. On April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission took additional testimony from the applicant and the public, and considered staff's analysis of the document entitled: "Modifications to Conditions of Approval Proposed by Applicant." In its report, staff indicated which modifications to the conditions of approval proposed by Green Hills were acceptable to staff, those that would be acceptable with further modification, and those that were unacceptable to staff. The proposed modifications to Condition No. 7 regarding the minimum required setbacks for above -ground structures was listed, along with a number of other conditions referred to only by condition number, as a change that was acceptable to staff, but was not specifically discussed or analyzed in the report. The proposed change is as follows, with the new language show in underlined and italicized text: 7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision) and crypts shall be as follows: North: 80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater (8'-0" for the western -most portion of the Mausoleum shown in Area 11). South: 40'-0" East: 25'-0" West: 5'-0" At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved an update to the Green Hills Master Plan (P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33, attached), which incorporated the proposed modification to Condition of Approval No. 7 shown above. The Planning Commission's decision was not appealed to the City Council. The updated Master Plan approval in 2007 also included a condition requiring the Planning Commission to perform an operational review of the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan on an annual basis. On November 28, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted an annual review of the cemetery operations, and found no outstanding issues or complaints with the operation of the cemetery site. In addition to the review, the Planning Commission approved a revision to the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan Conditional Use Permit, which approved the relocation of an historic church building from San Pedro onto the cemetery property. Since that time, staff continued to monitor the cemetery operations, and as issues were raised, the cemetery addressed them. It is important to note that although a formal review had not been conducted since 2008, Green Hills did come before the City for requests to extend the SUP approval of the temporary modular buildings that are being used as offices by Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 8 cemetery staff. During these reviews, staff assessed the operational activities of the cemetery, but did not identify any issues that warranted a formal review before the Planning Commission. In accordance with Condition of Approval No. AQ -1 and provided the property owner complies with the Planning Commission's approved Master Plan, the cemetery may move forward with obtaining permits and constructing the improvements identified in the Master Plan without a public hearing. Since approval of the Green Hills Master Plan Revision in April 2007, the Community Development Department has issued approvals for construction of different components of the approved Master Plan. Most notable among these, as related to the current appeal, are the following: • • • February 2008 — First phase of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11. However, plans were not submitted into the Building and Safety Division, and the Planning Division approval expired. May 2008 — Preparation of lawn crypts in Area 1, located between the existing Pacifica Mausoleum and the proposed mausoleum building in Area 11 at the northwest corner of the cemetery site. This approval included the grading and construction of a tractor ramp to provide access to the top of the future mausoleum building in Area 11. This project was completed. In November 2011, Planning Division approval was again granted for the first phase of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11. A building permit was issued in February 2012, and construction began in April 2012. The project was constructed and completed in September 2013. With the completion of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11, the City began receiving numerous inquiries and complaints from residents in the adjacent Vista Verde Condominium complex regarding the mausoleum's visual and view impacts, and the close proximity of burial preparation and ceremonial activities on the roof of the mausoleum building. In response, staff brought forward an operational review of the Green Hills Master Plan to the Planning Commission to address the concerns with the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, as well as with any other concerns raised by the public concerning the operation of the cemetery. 2014 Master Plan Operational Compliance Review On February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed staff's suggested mitigation measures and conditions to address operational concerns raised by condominium owners in the adjacent City of Lomita, regarding Green Hills' Memorial Terrace/Pacific Mausoleum building located in Area 11 of the approved 2007 Green Hills Master Plan (see attached 1-8 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 9 staff report). The Commission also heard some options from the Green Hills representatives that they believe could be implemented to address some of the concerns, and heard testimony from some of the Vista Verde Condominium owners regarding the impacts associated with the mausoleum building and the activities that are conducted on the rooftop, including burials. After hearing public testimony and discussing the cemetery operations, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 11, 2014, to allow staff to draft a resolution imposing up to a 90 -day moratorium on all rooftop ground interments/burials on the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, while staff finalized mitigation measures to address specific noise, visual, and privacy impacts identified by the Planning Commission based on public testimony. However, the Planning Commission did not impose the temporary moratorium because at the March 11th hearing, the attorneys representing Green Hills and the Vista Verde Condominium Association requested that the hearing be further continued to the April 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the parties to meet and come to an agreement on mitigation measures to address operational impacts associated with the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. In accordance with both parties' request, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to April 22, 2014. On April 22, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to May 13, 2014, again at the request of both parties, so they could have additional time to resolve some remaining issues. On May 7, 2014, staff received an email from Ms. Ellen Berkowitz (attorney representing Green Hills) requesting the opportunity to make a presentation before the Planning Commission of the concepts and methods they had developed to address the concerns raised by the Vista Verde Condominium owners. On May 13, 2014, the Planning Commission heard the presentation from Green Hills regarding possible methods to address concerns raised by the Vista Verde Condominium owners. Although it appeared that some progress and common ground had been achieved between Green Hills and the condominium association, individual residents continued to voice their concerns and opposition to what Green Hills was proposing. In order to allow the parties to continue to meet to address the issues, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to the August 12, 2014 meeting, with the direction that the parties continue to work toward an agreement on the mitigation measures to address the operational impacts associated with the burials on the roof of the mausoleum building; otherwise, it was indicated that the Planning Commission will need to impose mitigation measures to address the issues raised by the adjacent property owners. On August 4, 2014, staff was notified by Ms. Berkowitz via email that the parties had not reached any agreement and that the condominium association had advised them that the only agreement they are willing to accept is that the cemetery no longer would conduct any burials on the roof of the mausoleum building. Given that no agreements had been reached between the parties, staff recommended that the Planning Commission impose 1-9 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 10 specific mitigation measures to address the observed visual, privacy, and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials and to amend the Green Hills Master Plan to prevent further expansion of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, which had been suggested by Green Hills. On August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered staff's recommendation contained in the staff report that the Planning Commission impose specific mitigation measures to address the observed visual, privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials and to amend the Green Hills Master Plan to prevent further expansion of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. In addition, the Commission considered Staff's oral recommendation made at the meeting that the submittal of a variance application was necessary to allow the mausoleum to encroach into the Code -required, 40 -foot setback. After hearing public testimony and discussing the cemetery operations, the Planning Commission directed Green Hills to submit an after -the -fact variance application to seek approval to allow the existing Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line setback and directed staff to review Green Hills' existing Master Plan, including the conditional use permit and variance, to make sure that Green Hills was in compliance with all of their conditions of approval. This motion was approved on a 7-0 vote. The Planning Commission also agreed to close the public hearing and directed staff to bring back a Resolution on the consent calendar at the next Planning Commission meeting to impose a number of operational conditions on the cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining neighbors from burial activity on the roof of the mausoleum. This motion was supported by a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting. The Resolution implementing this directive was presented to the Planning Commission on August 26, 2014. Although the draft Resolution was placed on the Consent Calendar, staff suggested that it be removed, as staff had some additional comments regarding the Resolution language and because there were requests from the public to speak regarding the item. Since the public hearing was closed, the discussion on August 26th was limited to the language in the draft Resolution and whether it accurately reflected the motion that passed on August 12th. During the August 26th meeting, there were many questions from Commissioners regarding additional potential violations of the Master Plan. Since the public hearing was previously closed, the Planning Commission agreed to continue the item to October 28, 2014, and directed staff to re -notice the public hearing to allow for continued discussion of all aspects of the operational review of the Master Plan. On October 28, 2014, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and considered additional public testimony, and also considered a Master Plan Compliance Review prepared by an independent third party reviewer (Lilley Planning Group). The compliance review confirmed previously identified CUP violations (i.e., the encroachment of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within the required setback, and the below grade 1-10 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 11 interments in the northwest corner of the cemetery and on the roof of the Mausoleum within the required sixteen foot setback), and revealed additional CUP violations consisting of structures, including structures that contain urns, and trellises in connection with family plots, which have been placed within the five foot structural setback area along the west property line where the Master Plan only allows below -ground interments, low garden walls (i.e., walls less than 36 -inches in height, which were further defined as such in revised Condition 1.i) and headstones no taller than 6 -feet in height. As a result of the additional information revealed from the third party compliance review and deliberation by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission directed staff to return on November 11, 2014 with a Resolution that memorialized the following actions: 1) Impose a moratorium on ground burials/interments and sales of burial plots on the rooftop of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building located in Area 11 of the Master Plan, and impose a moratorium on above -ground burials and placement of other large structures within the 5 -foot setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building, which shall remain in effect until final City Council action is taken on the issue of said interments and structures in the required setbacks; 2) Direct Green Hills to submit a variance application within 30 -days to seek approval to: a) allow the existing Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line setback; b) allow the existing 13 below -ground burials and 6 additional burials in companion spaces that are located within the 16 -foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery site between the west property line and the maintenance yard; and, c) allow existing structures and above -ground burials within the 5 -foot setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building; 3) Impose a number of conditions on the cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining neighbors from burial activity on the roof of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan (Condition 1.3), if the moratorium on rooftop burials is lifted by the City Council; and, 4) Allow Green Hills to proceed with submittal of construction plans into Building and Safety plan check for the administration building addition that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2014. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 11, 2014, to allow continued discussion of the proposed actions. At that meeting, after further discussion and further modifications to the Conditions of Approval, which were read into the record, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29 (see attached). Within the 15 - day appeal period, Ms. Berkowitz submitted an appeal letter dated November 25, 2014 on behalf of Green Hills appealing the Planning Commission's decision to City Council (see attached appeal letter). Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 12 DISCUSSION Staff's analysis of Green Hill's appeal has been segmented into five major topics: 1) structures that were improperly constructed within the 5 -foot setback along the west property line; 2) interments within the required 16 -foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery; 3) the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 encroachment into the required 40 -foot setback from the north property line; 4) Interments on the roof of the Mausoleum in Area 11; and, 5) operational conditions of approval required by the Planning Commission related to the mausoleum in Area 11. Each of these topics is discussed below. 1. Structures that were improperly constructed within the five foot setback along the west property line. As was discussed above, during its hearings on the operational review of the cemetery, the Planning Commission requested a review of Green Hills' compliance with all of the conditions of approval that the City had imposed previously. As part of its review of Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of approval, Lilley Planning Group reported that several large trellises of approximately 12 -feet in height and other structures of approximately 6 -feet in height that contain human remains had been constructed within the 5 -foot setback along the west property line in violation of the 1991 Conditions of Approval. (Condition 2 b, which was renumbered as Condition 7 in 2007, prohibited above -ground structures within 5 feet of the west property line, other than the Pacifica Mausoleum, and allowed only below -ground burial sites, small garden walls and headstones.) The Commission addressed that violation by requiring Green Hills to apply for a variance to allow those structures to remain within the 5 -foot setback. However, Green Hills recently notified Staff that all of the structures that were erected in violation of the conditions of approval have been removed from the setback along the west property line following the Planning Commission's determination. Staff has made a visual inspection of the area and it appears that all of the structures have been moved out of the setback area. Accordingly, there is no need for the City Council to address that issue as part of the appeal from the Planning Commission's decision. 2. Interments within the Setback in the Northwest Corner of the Cemetery. It was previously brought to the City's attention by an adjacent resident, Mr. Matt Martin, that below -ground interments had occurred within the 16 -foot setback from the north property line in the northwest corner of the cemetery in violation of the Conditions of Approval (Condition 2 a of the 1991 approval, which was renumbered as Condition 6 in 2007). In reviewing the Green Hills file, it is interesting to note that in 1991, Green Hills applied for Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 13 an 8 -foot setback from the north property line for below -ground interments in that area of the cemetery. The City Council denied that request and established the setback for below - ground interments between the west property line and the maintenance yard at 16 -feet. After the public hearing had been closed, Green Hills sent a letter on December 31, 1990, requesting a revision to the conditions of approval to request an 8 -foot setback instead. The public hearing was reopened, and Green Hills' request was considered and denied by the City Council. In May 2008, Green Hills submitted a grading permit application to the Community Development Department for the preparation of the northwest area for ground interments. The plan approved by the Planning Division included a notation by staff on the plan stating that below -ground interments shall maintain the 16 -foot setback from the north property line, consistent with the Master Plan's conditions of approval. The grading permit approval also included a condition that memorialized the 16 -foot setback requirement. Although these plans illustrated the access ramp to the top of the mausoleum in Area 11, the Planning Division approval did not specify that the access ramp was part of that approval, since it had not been reflected in the Master Plan that was approved in 2007. Nonetheless, in 2009, after Planning Division approval, Green Hills submitted grading plans to the Building and Safety Division for "plan check" (the precursor to obtaining a permit to conduct construction and/or grading activities) that included both the ramp and the interments in the northwest corner. Prior to Building and Safety Division permit issuance, the plans were returned to the Planning Division so that its approval could be revised to acknowledge the location and approval of the access ramp. These plans were stamped to acknowledge the access ramp, and all conditions of approval remained the same, including the condition that requires the 16 -foot setback for below -ground interments. When the plans that were submitted to the Planning Division in 2008 are compared with the plans that were submitted to the Building and Safety Division in 2009, the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division in 2009 depicted a new row of ground interments within the 16 -foot required setback area, which was not consistent with the conditions of approval or the plans that were approved in 2008 by the Planning Division. Unfortunately, when the plans were later returned to the Planning Division in 2009 for acknowledgement of the access ramp, staff did not realize that the new row of burial plots had been added within the 16 -foot setback, and the building and grading permits were issued. Nonetheless, the 16 -foot setback requirement still was a condition of the project, and the Grading Permit issued by the Planning Division in 2009 expressly contained this condition, notwithstanding that Green Hills had added to the grading plan the additional row of plots within the 16 -foot setback. Green Hills proceeded to sell plots and inter individuals within the 16 -foot setback in violation of the condition of approval. Green Hills has not contested that this violation exists and has advised the City that it will not sell additional plots in this area of the cemetery. Green Hills also has stated that it will relocate the owners of any unoccupied plots to other locations within the cemetery. Green 1-13 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 14 Hills has advised the City that it wishes to retain the right to keep the thirteen individuals who already have been interred in that area and allow up to six spouses of individuals who already been interred to be interred in companion plots in that same area. Green Hills also has advised the City that they will bring up with those six families the possibility of relocating the person who already is interred within the setback when his/her spouse passes away, since the plot will need to be opened at that time to inter the second person. In order for Green Hills to keep individuals interred within the setback and to allow the six additional individuals to be interred in the companion plots, Green Hills should be required to submit an application to amend the variance and conditional use permit. Accordingly, the Planning Commission included this directive within its decision. It is within the discretion of the City whether to approve an application for a variance and amendment to the Master Plan. However, if the City does not allow the remains of the sixteen individuals to stay within the 16 -foot setback by granting the variance and conditional use permit revision, disinterment of those remains would be required. It is accurate to say that disinterment of remains is not favored and should be undertaken only in extreme circumstances and in accordance with the law. However, Green Hills has created a misimpression that the City is without the power to have the remains that were located impermissibly in the northwest corner of the cemetery moved elsewhere within the boundaries of the property. As discussed by Ms. Berkowitz, a court order would be required to be obtained before remains may be moved without the permission of the family of the person who was interred within the 16 -foot setback. Courts generally are disinclined to order such drastic relief, unless there are extremely compelling reasons to do so. Until Mr. Martin raised this issue, staff had not received any complaints from the neighbors about the interments within the 16 -foot setback. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council require Green Hills to apply for a variance and amendment to the Master Plan to allow the individuals who already are interred within the setback in the northwest corner and the six additional companions to be interred in that location. Staff is making this recommendation because submission and approval of the variance and conditional use permit application will avoid disinterment of the individuals who were interred improperly within the sixteen -foot setback. 3. The Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 ("Mausoleum"). As previously discussed in the Background section, in 1991, Green Hills requested approval of a Master Plan to allow for more efficient, phased development of the cemetery over an extended period of time. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council established an 80 -foot setback from the north property line for above -ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts (Condition 2 b). By approving that condition, Green Hills could construct a mausoleum to the south of the Green Hills maintenance yard. However, a mausoleum could not be 1-14 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 15 constructed immediately adjacent to the Vista Verde Condominium complex. Subsequent to that approval, Green Hills did not construct a mausoleum to the south of its maintenance yard. Instead, as was discussed above, in 2003, Green Hills submitted an application to revise its Master Plan to encompass grading that had occurred in violation of the conditions of approval and other proposed revisions, including an expansion to the previously approved mausoleum in Area 11. The project description and public notice stated that the addition would be to the mausoleum located "southeast of the Green Hills maintenance yard." This project description, which was provided by Green Hills, was not accurate, because the mausoleum that had been approved in 1991, which was never constructed, was to have been located immediately to the south of the maintenance yard. The 2007 Master Plan proposed additions to the mausoleum both to the west (in front of the Vista Verde Condominiums) and to the east. In addition to the inaccurate description in the public notice, Green Hills' "Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package" contained cross sections of the three parts of the mausoleum in Area 11 (west, center and east) that depicted a large retaining wall that purportedly was necessary to support a large slope behind the mausoleum. However, because of the existing topography of the land, unlike the slope to the south of the maintenance yard, there was no large slope adjacent to the western portion of the Mausoleum that was to be located adjacent to the Vista Verde Condominiums. Because the slope diminished moving in the westerly direction, only a partial retaining wall was needed at the back of the building, and at its highest point, the mausoleum is 21 feet in height above finished grade to the top of the guardrail at the rear elevation facing the Vista Verde Condominium complex. Therefore, the Green Hills plans that were reviewed by the Planning Commission were not accurate. Moreover, Green Hills' representatives, including the architect, did not alert the Commission or staff of the potential view impairment that would be caused if the mausoleum were expanded to the west adjacent to the Vista Verde Condominiums. The plans, however, did show that plots were proposed to be located on the roof of the mausoleum. Following the public hearing on February 27, 2007, Green Hills pointed out some conditions that it wished to have revised. One of the revisions was to reduce the size of the setback from the north property line from 80 -feet to 8 -feet. Again, the view impact that would be caused by that proposed revision was not discussed by Green Hills' representatives and was not analyzed in the staff report. Based on representations by Green Hills, staff's acceptance of the proposed change without analysis or discussion, and the absence of testimony from any adjacent residents, the Planning Commission approved the Master Plan with the 8 -foot setback from the north property line requested by Green Hills. Following that approval, Green Hills applied for, and the City issued, building permits to build only the western portion of the mausoleum located in front of the Vista Verde Condominiums. The mausoleum was constructed and completed in 2013, and interments have occurred on top of and within the mausoleum. Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 16 The Vista Verde residents contend that Green Hills does not have a vested right to maintain the mausoleum in its current location due to the errors in the notice and the plans that were submitted to the City. Some residents have stated that the mausoleum should be torn down or moved to the east; others have stated that the height should be reduced, and the plots on the roof of the mausoleum should be eliminated. Green Hills, on the other hand, contends that it has a vested right to keep the mausoleum in its current location and the plots on the roof of the mausoleum because: the Planning Commission approved an 8 -foot setback along the north property line in 2007 as part of the approval of the 2007 Master Plan Revision; the City subsequently issued building permits to Green Hills to construct the mausoleum in that location, and Green Hills relied on those permits and constructed the mausoleum. Green Hills also asserts that the permits that were issued, upon which it relied, along with the passage of time, means that it should not be required to obtain a variance to allow the mausoleum to encroach thirty-two feet into the forty -foot setback required by the Municipal Code (Municipal Code Section 17.28.040 A 2). Green Hills correctly states the rule that a vested right typically is obtained by a party when it expends substantial sums to construct above -ground improvements in reliance on a building permit that is issued by a governmental entity. However, the courts have held that in order for a party to obtain a vested right, there must be good faith reliance on the permits that were issued. (See, Stokes v. Board of Permit Appeals, 52 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1357 (1997), and Smith v. Kraintz, 201 Cal. App.2d 696, 699-700 (1962) [city may revoke building permit based on false statement in application].) Because good faith reliance is a required element of a claim of a vested right, the facts that led up to the approval of the mausoleum are extremely important. Green Hills also asserts the equitable principles of estoppel and laches in support of its assertion that it has the right to keep the mausoleum in its current location. However, the Court of Appeal in Stokes rejected a similar claim that was asserted against the City and County of San Francisco stating: "The vested rights doctrine is but a specific application of the doctrine of estoppel against a governing body. (See Avco, supra, 17 Ca1.3d at p. 793.) One of the elements of estoppel is that the party to be estopped [the City] must be apprised of the facts. (County of Sonoma v. Rex, supra, 231 Cal. App.3d at p. 1295.) As discussed in part 11, ante, Stokes misrepresented the true facts about the present use of the property to the City in his building permit applications. Accordingly, he cannot claim equitable estoppel." Likewise, in County of San Diego v. California Water and Telephone Company, 30 Ca1.2d 817 (1947), the California Supreme Court stated: "It is clear, however, that neither the doctrine of estoppel nor any other equitable principle may be invoked against a governmental body where it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. McKinnon, 20 Ca1.2d 83 [124 P.2d 34, Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 17 140 A.L.R. 570], and cases cited therein; Pan Amer. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 456, 505-506 [47 S.Ct. 416, 71 L.Ed. 734]; American Surety Co. of N.Y. v. United States (C.C.A. 10th), 112 F.2d 903, 906.) In the American Surety Company case the court stated that the government could not be estopped so as to `frustrate the purpose of its laws or thwart its public policy.' (112 F.2d, at p. 906.)" (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court's discussion could be found to be applicable to this situation because the 80 -foot setback from the north property line that was imposed by the City Council in 1991 specifically was designed to prevent activities or development occurring on the Green Hills property from having an adverse impact on adjoining properties. This is an important public interest. Turning to other legal issues raised by Green Hills, Green Hills challenges the moratorium that was imposed by the Planning Commission on burials on the roof of the mausoleum until the City Council has had the opportunity to hear and make its determination regarding this appeal. Since the appeal hearing is being conducted now by the City Council, these issues appear to be essentially moot. However, they are addressed briefly below. Green Hills asserts that Government Code Section 65858 prohibited the imposition of a moratorium by the Planning Commission. However, that Section pertains to a moratorium that enacts an urgency zoning ordinance while a new zoning ordinance is being prepared and adopted. No new ordinance, interim or permanent, that regulates the development or operation of cemeteries is being proposed by the City. Accordingly, Government Code Section 65858 is not applicable to the Planning Commission's determination and imposition of the moratorium. Green Hills also cites to the Monks case in support of its assertion that the Planning Commission's moratorium, which has been in effect for a little over two months, is invalid and causes a taking of Green Hills' right to inter individuals on the roof of the Mausoleum. The Monks case, however, addressed issues regarding the City's landslide moratorium, which has been in effect since 1978, and other regulations affecting development in the landslide area; it is not applicable to a brief hiatus on burials on the roof of the Mausoleum while this appeal is heard and determined. Several courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have held that reasonable delays that are caused by the time that it takes for a governmental entity to process development applications, some of which lasted more than a year, do not constitute a taking of private property for which compensation is required to be paid. (See, Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 535 U.S. 302, 332 (2002).) Green Hills further asserts that the vested right it obtained prevents the City from requiring a variance to encroach into the required 40 -foot setback from the north property line. Green Hills, however, is not correctly interpreting the conditions of approval of the project or the Municipal Code. Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 18 As set forth in Resolution 91-7, that approval included a conditional use permit, a variance and a grading permit. Condition 4 of the 1991 Conditions of Approval states: "Any development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision. A noticed public hearing and review and approval by the Planning Commission shall be required." Condition 1, which is specifically referred to in Condition 4, addresses the "master plan of development and site grading." Condition 2 of the 1991 approval, on the other hand, contains all of the required setbacks for the Green Hills property, including the variance that was granted by the City Council for certain of the setbacks. Conditions 1 and 4 did not address the setbacks that are required by the underlying Cemetery Zone or the variance that was issued by the City Council to reduce some of those setbacks, which was memorialized in Condition 2. Thus, Conditions 1 and 4, by their own terms, were not intended to apply to the variance from the setbacks, which was articulated in Condition 2, nor could they supersede all of the other provisions or requirements of the Municipal Code that are applicable to Green Hills. In support of its argument, Green Hills cites to Municipal Code Section 17.60.050 B, which states: "B. 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." It is the view of staff and the City Attorney that this Section allows the City to impose, as part of an approval of a conditional use permit, more stringent development requirements than otherwise are established by an underlying zoning district, but does not allow lesser requirements to be imposed without the approval of a variance. Green Hills, on the other hand, contends that this Section allows the City to decrease setback and other requirements of an underlying zoning district simply by granting a conditional use permit. Green Hills' interpretation of the Municipal Code essentially would nullify all of the requirements of Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code regarding variances, including the findings that must be made to grant a variance. However, the rules of statutory construction, which require sections of a code to be read in harmony so as to give meaning to all of their provisions and not to nullify the provisions of one or more sections, do not support Green Hills' interpretation of the Municipal Code. (See, Ingredient Communications Council, Inc. v. Lungren, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1480, 1492, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 216, 224 (3d Dist. 1992), rev. denied (April 23, 1992).) Accordingly, staff believes that Green Hills should submit an application for a variance to 1-18 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 19 address the below -ground interments in the northwest corner and for the 8 -foot setback from the northern property line for Mausoleum. Green Hills can submit an application for a variance at the same time that it submits its application to amend the conditional use permit revision for the Master Plan to reflect these changes. Alternatively, the City Council could continue this public hearing and direct staff to add a notice of the hearing on the variance, so this matter can be resolved expeditiously and concurrently with this appeal. 4. Interments on the Roof of the Mausoleum. There are two issues regarding the plots on the roof of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. The first is with respect to the row of plots that is the closest to the northern property line. This row of plots is within the 16 -foot setback for below ground interments that the City Council imposed as a Condition of Approval in 1991(Condition 2 a, which was renumbered as Condition 6 in 2007). Because this row of plots violates that condition of approval, those plots should not be available for use by Green Hills. Green Hills has advised the City that none of the plots in that row have been sold, and no one is interred there. Accordingly, the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval stating that this row of plots is eliminated and shall not be available for use by Green Hills (Condition 1.3 o). Staff recommends that this condition of approval be upheld by the City Council. The second issue is with respect to all of the other plots that are located on the roof of the mausoleum. Green Hills contends that it has a vested right to sell the unsold plots and to inter individuals within the plots that have been sold. If Green Hills has a vested right to keep the mausoleum in its current location, then it also has a vested right to use the plots on the roof, other than the last row of plots. If the City Council determines that Green Hills can continue using those plots, the Council should review and uphold the operational conditions that the Planning Commission imposed in connection with burials, services and other activities that occur on the roof of the mausoleum to mitigate the impact of those activities on the residents of the Vista Verde Condominiums. Those conditions are discussed in the following section of this report. 5. Operational Conditions of Approval Required by the Planning Commission Related to the Mausoleum With the adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29 on November 11, 2014, the Planning Commission added a number of Conditions of Approval to the Green Hills Master Plan to minimize the impacts to the adjacent residents in the Vista Verde Condominium complex resulting from burials, services and other activities on the roof of the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. Conditions of Approval 1.3.a through 1.3.o are listed below. If the Council determines that Green Hills has a vested right to keep the Mausoleum in its current location, staff recommends that all of these conditions of approval be upheld by the City Council. 1-19 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 20 1.3 The following conditions are applicable to the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building and Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan and shall supersede any conflicting conditions that govern other areas of the Green Hills property: a. The entire length of the tractor ramp shall be left clear at all times when not in use. No vehicles, landscaping equipment, construction equipment, storage containers, etc. are allowed to be parked, stored or allowed to be left on the tractor ramp. b. The Northern (rear) wall of the mausoleum building shall be screened by a type of wall vine landscaping. Said landscaping shall be planted and allowed to grow on the wall only, to the satisfaction of the Director, and shall not grow above the wall. c. With the exception of ground cover, and the vines on the northern wall of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building, which shall be allowed with the concurrence of the abutting Vista Verde Condominium Association, no vegetation shall be planted in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007. d. The guardrail along the tractor ramp and along the top of the mausoleum building along the north (rear) shall not be a solid wall and shall be maintained as a wrought iron guardrail. e. No new mausoleum or addition to the existing mausoleum shall be constructed within Area 11. Prior to submittal of grading plans and/or building plans to the Building and Safety Division "plan check" for any improvements in Area 11 (i.e., the northwest area of the cemetery site between the western property line and the maintenance yard, including the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building), the applicant shall submit the proposed improvement plans to the Director of Community Development for review by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. Notice of said public hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500 -foot radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations (including the Vista Verde Condominium Association located in the City of Lomita), and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. If the moratorium is amended or repealed to allow burials to resume on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building, the following additional conditions shall apply: f. Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm, Monday through Sunday. g. Burials and all associated services on the roof top ground interments of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 1-20 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 21 10:OOam and 3:OOpm, Monday through Sunday. h. Limit the use of the mini -haul vehicle (which is illustrated in Green Hills' power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014) for pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments to between the hours of 10:OOam and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. i. The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. This prohibition shall not apply to the amplified sound for the playing of "taps" as part of funeral services for military personnel and for police, fire and other first responders. j. All services on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall be conducted within temporary covered tenting that is enclosed on a minimum of 2 sides, as illustrated in Green Hills' power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014. One of the two covered sides shall be the north side facing the Vista Verde condominium complex. Said temporary tenting shall be erected no earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within 2 hours after the burial service. k. Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof -top ground interment plots on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11, only between the hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm Monday through Sunday. I. Every week, small flags shall be placed on any burial site located on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum that is scheduled to be utilized for an interment within 7 days, thereby providing neighboring property owners with advanced notice of scheduled interments and burial services. Green Hills shall also post on its publicly accessible website (www.greenhillsmemorial.com) additional details concerning the anticipated time and date of scheduled burial services. m. At least one employee of Green Hills shall attend and monitor every service occurring on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum for the entirety of all burial services to ensure that the services are orderly and comply with these conditions of approval. n. Green Hills shall not sell any additional plots on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum until it has submitted an application and received approval for a variance for the location of the mausoleum in its current location and shall disclose this restriction to prospective buyers of plots on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. o. No interments shall be allowed on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building that are within 16 -feet from the northern property line. Specifically, plots illustrated in sections 540 through 553, as depicted in the attached Exhibit C of this 1-21 Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 22 Resolution, are hereby eliminated. CONCLUSION As was found by the Planning Commission, the plans and description of the mausoleum in Area 11, which were submitted by Green Hills in connection with the revision to the Master Plan that was considered in 2007, did not accurately describe the western portion of the mausoleum or the topography of the property where the mausoleum is located. These facts, along with Green Hills' pattern of disregarding conditions that were imposed by the City, undermine Green Hills' claims that it has a vested right based on its alleged good faith reliance on the permits issued by the City. However, because the consequence of moving the mausoleum or reducing its height is the disinterment of remains, staff does not recommend that option to the City Council. Instead, staff recommends that the City Council find, based on Green Hills' conduct, that the City Council adopt a condition of approval that prohibits further burials on the roof of the mausoleum, with the exception of burials in companion plots where an individual already has been interred. Because additional individuals could be interred in companion plots, staff also recommends that the City Council uphold the operating conditions that were imposed by the Planning Commission, including elimination of the northernmost row of plots. Staff further recommends that this item be continued and re -noticed so that the City Council can issue a variance to Green Hills regarding the interments that already have occurred in the northwest corner of the cemetery and the interment of the six additional companions in that location and for the encroachment of the mausoleum 32 feet into the required 40 -foot setback. ALTERNATIVE If the City Council finds that Green Hills did rely in good faith on permits that were issued by the City, then staff recommends that the City Council take no action regarding the plots located on the roof of the mausoleum, other than eliminating the northernmost row of plots, uphold all of the operational conditions that were imposed by the Planning Commission, and continue and re -notice the public hearing so that the City Council can issue a variance to Green Hills regarding the interments that already have occurred in the northwest corner of the cemetery and the interment of the six additional companions in that location and for the encroachment of the mausoleum 32 feet into the required 40 -foot setback. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Due to the extended history related to the subject appeal, the administrative record is quite voluminous. Therefore, the attachments to this report have been organized in a manner to avoid duplication of multiple copies of the same documents, and to aid the City Council in navigating through the large amount of materials related to the project. Rather than organizing the attachments strictly in chronological order, they have first been organized Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal January 20, 2015 Page 23 into several broad categories, and then chronologically within each category, from newest to oldest. The attachment categories are: 1) appeal letter and additional correspondence from the appellant; 2) public correspondence received in response to the public notice for the January 20, 2015 hearing; 3) adopted resolutions; 4) staff reports; 5) staff PowerPoint presentations; 6) excerpt minutes; 7) third party reviews; 8) prior public correspondence; 9) public PowerPoint presentations; 10) plans. Attachments: 1) Appeal letter and additional correspondence from the appellant 2) Public correspondence received in response to the public notice for the Jan. 20, 2015 hearing 3) Adopted resolutions 4) Staff reports 5) Staff PowerPoint presentations 6) Excerpt minutes 7) Third Party review 8) Prior public correspondence 9) Public PowerPoint presentations 10) Plans 1-23 Appeal Letter & Additional Correspondence from the Appellant Attachments 1-1 GRESHAM SAVAGE November 25, 2014 VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tllen.Berkoitiifa@GresleamSavage..coin • Los Angeles (213) 213-7249 • fax (213) 213-7.391 Re: Green Hills Appeal of the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014 Decision, issued in connection with the Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086 (Green Hills Master Plan) Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") and pursuant to City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") Municipal Code (the "Code") Section 17.80.070, this letter appeals the November 11, 2014 decision of the City's Planning Commission (the "Commission") as set forth in: (i) P.C. Resolution 2014-29 and (ii) the Commission's Notice of Decision dated November 12, 2014 (collectively, the "PC Decision"), issued in connection with the Commission's annual review of Green Hills' 2007 Master Plan Major Conditional Use Permit Revision (the "2007 Major CUP Revision"). While we recognize the Commission's interest in responding to the complaints of neighbors in the adjacent City of Lomita (which was the original and underlying impetus for the Commission's annual review), the PC Decision overreached by purporting to: (i) impose a moratorium on burials and plot sales on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum") and (ii) require Green Hills to apply for a variance to allow the Mausoleum to exist in its current location (notwithstanding that the City legally approved the Mausoleum's current location nearly eight years ago and continued to approve plans for its current location up to the building's construction in 2013). In adopting the PC Decision, the Commission has violated well- established legal principles, contravened doctrines of fairness and equity, and has taken positions that are squarely at odds with state law and provisions of the City's own Code. 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 » San.13ernardinu California 92408 3 5i) University Avenue. Susie 250 » Riverside, California 92501 550 West C Street, Suite 1810 ®,San Diego, California 92101 • 33:1 South sluice Street, :351" Floor = Los Angles, California 90071 Ore: 3 aratw. ttnn G583-000 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-2 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 2 Regrettably, much of the PC Decision appears to stem from staff's and the Commission's interest in shirking responsibility for past City actions — actions they apparently now believe were committed in error — by casting Green Hills in the role of provocateur and by requiring Green Hills to "pay" for its alleged misdeeds through the imposition of unreasonable and punitive measures. This attempt to rewrite the past, however, is completely improper, and the Commission's actions as set forth in the PC Decision are not only illegal and misguided, but also have the potential for sending the City down a path that endeavors to correct past perceived missteps by committing new and even more egregious mistakes. Accordingly, we request that the City Council overturn/reverse the PC Decision in its entirety. While there are certain provisions of the PC Decision that are acceptable to Green Hills (notably, certain operational measures designed to reduce potential impacts on the Lomita neighbors, many of which were in fact proposed by Green Hills itself), we believe that a de novo review of the entire PC Decision is in order. The grounds upon which this appeal is based are numerous. Many of them have been articulated in detailed letters to staff, the Commission, and the City Attorney over the past 10 months, and we hereby incorporate these letters by reference. Green Hills' main arguments are summarized below. Additionally, Green Hills reserves the right to submit additional evidence, information, and arguments in support of this appeal as the matter moves closer to hearing. The "Moratorium" Allegedly Adopted by the PC Decision is Invalid and Inappropriate. ➢ The PC Decision's "immediate" moratorium failed to satisfy statutory requirements for an urgency measure and is thus void. The Commission is under the mistaken belief that it can adopt a resolution that: (i) cites a few alleged "impacts" to privacy and views, (ii) makes some veiled assertions about inconsistencies between the conditions of approval and the constructed building, (iii) claims the need for relief is "immediate" — and voila — declare that it has enacted a valid moratorium. Not so fast. Not only is this "immediate" moratorium inconsistent with statutory mandates and the City's own Code, but it is wholly inappropriate given the nature of the conduct at issue. Because moratoria often walk a narrow line between a legitimate governmental action and constitutionally prohibited taking of private property, California 0583-000 -- 1490149.1 Attachments 1-3 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 3 state law establishes specific statutory guidelines to protect against the improper use of moratoria. Specifically, California Government Code §65858, mandates that a "legislative body shall not adopt ... any interim ordinance [(i.e., a moratorium)] unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare... ." State law imposes additional statutory requirements to ensure that moratoria — an extreme legislative action that can have serious economic and other consequences on property owners — are not to be imposed except under carefully articulated and defined circumstances, and for specifically proscribed time periods. These requirements were not followed here. Thus, on statutory grounds alone, the moratorium is illegal and void > Even if the moratorium were valid, it is not effective immediately. The PC Decision purports to make the moratorium effective immediately by essentially stating that it is so, and by citing to an inapplicable Code provision related to the effect of appeals on development projects. However, the PC Decision expressly states that the PC Decision is not final if it is appealed. Accordingly, even if the moratorium were valid, once this appeal is filed, the PC Decision — including the moratorium — is not in effect. > Even if the moratorium were valid and effective, it is inappropriate to stop a lawfully approved use, particularly when other far less draconian measures could address the alleged harms. If effective, the moratorium would have a sweeping impact: it would not only stop all sales of Mausoleum rooftop plots, but it would prohibit burials of individuals who purchased plots with the expectation that the Mausoleum would be their eternal place of rest. Such a result would completely undermine and disregard the expectations and interests of those individuals who purchased plots that were approved and constructed pursuant to the authority of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. If the PC Decision is allowed to stand, it would signal to the community that the City's word is meaningless. As discussed above, Green Hills is not insensitive to the complaints of its Lomita neighbors. Not only did Green Hills voluntarily suggest most of the operational conditions adopted by the PC Decision, but Green Hills has also voluntarily implemented the majority of them even though it has not yet been formally required to do so. The Commission should have allowed for additional time to determine the effectiveness of the conditions before declaring the need for such a catastrophic remedy. Moreover, the moratorium G583-000 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-4 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 4 is completely inappropriate as there is nothing illegal, harmful, or unreasonable about Green Hills' use of its property for typical cemetery uses, especially where such uses are specifically designated for the property under state law, the City's zoning code and Green Hills' Master PIan.l Accordingly, the PC Decision's efforts to impose a moratorium are invalid, arbitrary and discriminatory. > The PC Decision's Effort to Impose a Moratorium and Require Green Hills to Apply for a Variance for a Lawfully Approved Building Violates Green Hills' Constitutionally Protected Vested Rights. > More than seven years after approving the 2007 Major CUP Revision, the Commission may not insist that Green Hills obtain a variance for the Mausoleum. After working with City staff, Green Hills submitted an application for its 2007 Major CUP Revision to the City in late 2006. The application included the proposed expansion of the Mausoleum and clearly depicted the proposed eight foot setback of the building. Staff determined that the application contained all necessary entitlement requests, and accepted it for presentation to the Commission. Staff never mentioned that the request necessitated a "variance."2 After two properly noticed and lengthy public hearings, at which the project was described using large maps and drawings, all of which clearly depicted the Mausoleum's layout on the property, the Commission approved the 2007 Major CUP Revision. Neither the Commission nor the City Attorney ever mentioned that the approval necessitated a "variance." As discussed further below, we believe the variance was not mentioned for the simple reason that no one — not staff, not the Commission, and not the City Attorney — believed at the time that a variance was necessary. In any event, based on the presumed validity of the Commission's approval of 1 To put the Lomita neighbors' complaints into perspective, we note that there are on average about 3 burial services per month on the Mausoleum roof, which last (including pre and post preparation) approximately 1 hour. This means that on average, for about 3 hours each month, the neighbors hear some noise and observe activity on Green Hills' property across the way. Given the many intrusions most people residing in cities experience, the relative "disturbance" for a few hours a month is not substantial and not significantly different from those disturbances common to all residential neighborhoods. In truth, the extent of the disturbance is no greater than a neighboring park hosting baseball games a few times a month. 2 Had a variance been required, a failure to so advise Green Hills would constitute a breach of a mandatory duty owed to Green Hills by the City pursuant to Code §17.60.020. 0581-000 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-5 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 5 the 2007 Major CUP Revision (including the approval of the Mausoleum) and the subsequent issuance of building permits by the City's Building Department, Green Hills constructed the Mausoleum. The PC Decision violates Green Hills' vested rights. California law recognizes that after a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a validly issued permit, that property owner acquires a vested right to construct and use the development in accordance with the terms of that permit.3 Here, Green Hills' construction and operation of the Mausoleum, performed in clear reliance on its validly issued CUP, establishes a vested right to use and operate the Mausoleum in accordance with the CUP as previously issued (including for rooftop burials). The PC Decision, which purports to prohibit Green Hills from using the Mausoleum roof as approved, as designed, and as constructed, violates Green Hills' constitutionally guaranteed vested rights.' > The PC Decision constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation. Given that Green Hills has a vested right to reasonably operate, maintain and sell plots on the Mausoleum roof, the PC Decision to prohibit further use or sales constitutes the illegal taking of private property without just compensation in violation of both the Federal and California constitutions. A California Court of Appeal ruled against the City of' Rancho Palos Verdes in connection with a similar moratorium, advising the City that "by implementing the moratorium and continuing to prevent [the property owners] from building on their properties, [the City] `deprive[d] [the property owners'] land of all economically beneficial use.."' Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 270. For the City to enact a similar moratorium in this instance would be to repeat the nearly identical action that 3 See Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 785, 791-799. See also Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 359, 367 (the granting of a CUP, with subsequent reliance on that CUP, creates a vested right to continue the use authorized by the CUP); Stanson v. San Diego Coast Regional Commission (1980), 101 Cal. App. 3d 38, 49 (an owner of property acquires a vested right to construct a building where the conduct of the government amounts to a representation that such construction is fully approved and legal, and in reliance on such representation the owner materially changes position). ' Such protections also apply to the use of all burial plots, both sold and unsold. See City of W. Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Ca1.3d 1184, 1189. 6583-600 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-6 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 6 was the subject of a multi-year legal battle, one that the City ultimately lost; in that case, the court required the City to pay the property owners $4.25 million in damages and allow them to go forward with the construction that had been the subject of the moratorium. The PC Decision threatens to put the City on a similar course. > The PC Decision's Effort to Require Green Hills to Apply for a Variance Violates the City's Municipal Code and Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion. > When Green Hills originally applied for the 2007 Major CUP Revision, the City did not mention the need for a variance because none was required based on the express terms of Green Hills' existing variance and the City's Municipal Code. Although largely ignored by the Commission, the fact is that Green Hills has already received a variance which explained how Green Hills was to process further revisions to the Master Plan. Variance No. 262, which was approved in connection with Green Hills' original Master Plan and its 1991 Conditional Use Permit plainly states that "lidny development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan... shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision." Throughout the Commission's approval of the 2007 Major CUP Revision, this mandated procedure was strictly followed, and the CUP was properly processed and approved consistent with those mandates. As Green Hills' existing variance did not require it, no new or additional variance was necessary. This procedure is also consistent with the express terms of the City's Code, which provides that a variance is not required to modify setbacks for properties that are subject to a CUP. (See Code §17.60.50(A)(6)(a) "(Conditions of a CUP] shall take precedence over development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning of the subject site. ") Thus, conditions granted or imposed by CUP, including those relating to setbacks, take precedence over the "development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning," confirming that no additional variance was required for the Commission to approve Green Hills's 2007 Major CUP Revision. The City Attorney now claims neither of these provisions is applicable to Green Hilts' situation, and that a variance is required for the reduced setback. If so, then someone at the City — whether staff, the Commission or the City Attorney — should have mentioned that requirement at some point during the approval 0583-000 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-7 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 7 process for the 2007 Major CUP Revision. For these individuals to sit silently and acquiesce to the processing of the 2007 Major CUP Revision without ever once even suggesting the alleged need for a variance, particularly if the need was as plainly obvious as they now claim, only to fault Green Hills for not obtaining a variance, is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. > If the City nonetheless insists it erred by not requiring a variance, the City may process one pursuant to Code Section 17.64.050(B). The Commission may not re -write history by simply "erasing" its prior approval of the reduced setback and pretending it never took any such action. If the City believes it erred in not requiring a variance in connection with the 2007 Major CUP Revision, it has the ability to process one on its own accord pursuant to Code Section 17.64.050(B).5 This Code section is plainly intended to address instances and issues of this exact nature. Instead of pursuing this option, however, the Commission has tried to re -write history, by effectively "erasing" its approval of the reduced eight foot setback for the Mausoleum in the PC Decision, and substituting a new 40 feet setback requirement. This effort to close its eyes and pretend its prior approval never existed defies logics and constitutes an abuse of discretion. ➢ The PC Decision is Improper and Unenforceable Based on Equitable Principals of Estoppel and Laches. > The City is estopped from enforcing the PC Decision. As a fundamental matter, it is understood that "[w]hen the government tells you something, you should be able to rely on it, and if the government changes the applicable rules after its representation to you and your reliance in good faith to your detriment, you should not be subject to the changed rules, and instead should be held only to the rules applicable when the government's representation and your reliance occurred."6 Here, consistent with the Code, the City approved the 2007 Major CUP Revision for the Mausoleum and issued building permits 5 See Code §17.64.050(B) — Findings. A variance may also be granted if the applicant demonstrates significant error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or determination made in the administration or enforcement of this title or any ordinance adopted pursuant to it and the applicant has commenced construction in reliance upon the error. If a variance is granted under this subsection B, required filing fees may be waived pursuant to the fee waiver provisions described in Section 17.78.010 (Miscellaneous) of this title. 6 3 Local Government Law § 16:64. 0583-000 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-8 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 8 after multiple public hearings and plan checks. For seven years, the City has treated the 2007 Major CUP Revision as validly issued, fully approved and operative; the City knew and intended that Green Hills would rely on subsequent approvals and permits granted in relation to the CUP. Based on these principles, the City is estopped from enforcing the PC Decision and requiring Green Hills to apply for a variance. ➢ In the event Green Hills were to seek a variance, the City also would be estopped from denying it. Because of the City's prior actions approving the 2007 Major CUP Revision and the Mausoleum, the City could not now deny a variance to allow the Mausoleum even if Green Hills were to file such an application. In other words, based on the principles articulated above relative to vested rights, estoppel and laches, if Green Hills applied for a variance, the City would have no choice but to approve it. For that reason, any efforts related to a consideration of a variance by the City would be idle. It is a well- settled maxim of jurisprudence that that the law does not require idle acts; likewise, equity does not require idle gestures.' In view of the City's inability to deny the variance under these circumstances, it makes little sense to require Green Hills to apply for one. > The PC Decision is barred and unenforceable based on the equitable principle of laches. After being approved more than seven years ago, the principle of laches bars the PC Decision and its requirement that a variance be sought in connection with the modified setbacks. The law recognizes that laches will apply to prohibit a City's enforcement action where there has been an "unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which [the City now] complains or prejudice to the [property owner] resulting from the delay." Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Ca1.4th 61, 68.9 Here, the City's delay in "enforcing" what it now believes it should have done seven years ago (i.e., require a variance) is unreasonable to both Green Hills and its patrons. See Anderson v. City of La Mesa (1981) 118 CA.3d 657 (local government estopped from denying after the fact variance). 8 California Civil Code § 3532; See also Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Com'n (2d Cir. 2005) 402 F.3d 342, 350Citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1012 n. 3 (stating that an application for a variance is not required when it would be "pointless"). 9 See also City and County of San Francisco v. Pacello (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 637 (court deemed zoning administrator's eight year delay in pursuing enforcement action unreasonable and prejudicial and as such, barred by laches). 0583-000 -- 1496149. Attachments 1-9 Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 25, 2014 Page 9 After approving Green Hills' 2007 Major CUP Revision, and after subsequently issuing several building and grading permits, CUP revisions, and other approvals, all in reliance on the seven year old CUP, the City may not now undermine the validity of the 2007 Major CUP Revision by requiring Green Hills to apply for a variance. As noted, Green Hills expressly reserves the right to augment the record of this appeal with additional information prior to the City Council hearing. We look forward to the opportunity to present Green Hills' entire position on the issues in a new forum that endeavors to find positive and productive solutions to this matter. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF 0583-000 -- 1496149.1 Attachments 1-10 RE HA SAVAGE December 11, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms. Carol W. Lynch City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes 355 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Ellen.Berl<MA' ll.z@t rresha.atSavage. COM • Los Angeles (213) 213-7249 • fax (213)213-7391 Re: Communications with City Council Members Regarding Green Hills' Appeal (Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086) Dear Ms. Lynch: We have been advised that your office has directed members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to refrain from speaking with representatives of Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") on any issues related to Green Hills' appeal. This directive is not only extremely prejudicial to Green Hills' First Amendment rights, but it is also in conflict with the City's own rules and standard procedures regarding "ex parte" contacts. Prohibitions against communications with elected representative are, as described by one Court, "patently offensive to the First Amendment" and "tread heavily upon the right of citizens, individual or corporate, to confer and discuss public matters with their legislative representatives..." Clifton v. Fed. Election Comm'n (1st Cir. 1997) 114 F.3d 1309, 1314. Because of this, the Brown Act contains a special exemption for communications between legislators and their constituents. (See Government Code § 54952.2(c)(1)). As described by the California Attorney General (in the Brown Act Pamphlet the office publishes), "individual contacts between a member of a legislative body and any other person are specifically exempt... to protect the constitutional rights of individuals to contact their government representatives regarding issues which concern them." We understand your office appears to believe the restriction is justified because Green Hills' appeal involves "quasi-judicial" matters. There are several problems with this reasoning. 550 Eat Hospitality lane, Suite 300 W San Bernadino. ('11111010 92408 S0 University Avenue, Suite 250 + Riverside, California 92501 West C: Street, Suite I810 * San Diego, 04lifornia 93101 33 Sc,utkt hope SiretA, 35' Floor * Los Angles, California 90071 0583-000 -- 1504398.1 Attachments 1-11 Ms. Carol W. Lynch December 11, 2014 Page 2 First, Green Hills' pending appeal in this matter deals with both legislative and quasi- judicial matters. As we made clear in our letter of appeal to the City Council, one of the primary topics at issue in the appeal is the illegal and improper moratorium that the Planning Commission endeavored to impose on Green Hills. The enactment of a moratorium is a legislative act. (See 75 Acres, LLC v. Miami -Dade Cnty., Fla. (11th Cir. 2003) 338 F.3d 1288, 1296) Thus, as with any legislative action being considered by a legislative body, contacts between the legislators and their constituents are fully protected by both the state and federal Constitutions. Second, even if Green Hills' pending hearing is partially quasi-judicial in nature, the prohibition on speaking with City Councilmembers is completely inconsistent with the City's Municipal Code and its policy regarding ex parte contacts. As you may recall, this issue was discussed by the City Council at its October 2, 2001 hearing, wherein the Council agreed that mandatory written disclosures were unnecessary for addressing any potential bias created by ex parte contacts. Ultimately, under your counseling, the City Council agreed that there is nothing inherently improper about ex parte communications, so long as such contacts are disclosed during the hearing. Now, in unilaterally determining that the City's traditional procedure for pre -hearing disclosure is not sufficient for this matter, and by attempting to eviscerate the Councilmembers' discretion to meet with their own constituents, one can't help but infer that this prohibition was intended to bias the Council against Green Hills and to prevent them from learning the true facts of this matter. This is particularly troubling given City staff's involvement in the facts and circumstances leading up to this appeal. As you know, one of the primary questions at issue in the appeal is the extent of the City's responsibility in approving the Mausoleum and issuing building permits, knowing that Green Hills would rely on these approvals to construct the Mausoleum the City now claims was improper. Additionally, of critical importance to this matter is the City's failure to require Green Hills to apply for a variance at the appropriate time, if indeed one was required, and the City's recent effort to "erase" its express approval of the Mausoleum's setback by altering Green Hills' CUP. Accordingly, in refusing to allow Green Hills to speak with its elected representatives, while simultaneously allowing City staff (the very people that created these problems and who are largely responsible for Green Hills' alleged "noncompliance" relative to the Mausoleum) to have full and unfettered access to the City Council, is unfair, improper, biased, and potentially puts the City at risk for conflict of interest violations. Furthermore, it undermines the very purpose of the Constitution's due process protections, and advances the interests of City staff at the expense of a City constituent. Although Green Hills continues to maintain the position that the CUP and the Mausoleum were all properly approved, if the City insists they were not, it is G583-000 -- 1504398.1 Attachments 1-12 Ms. Carol W. Lynch December 11, 2014 Page 3 the City, not Green Hills, who committed this error, a fact that will be muffled by this unprecedented prohibition on communications. Moreover, to the extent that the proceedings are "quasi-judicial," it is entirely inappropriate for the City Attorney's office to be both the "prosecutor" in this matter while simultaneously serving the function of the City's "advisor." Nightlife Partners Ltd. V. City of Beverly Hills, (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81. As you may recall, that case involved a City Attorney who acted as both the City's advocate in the decision to deny a business' application for a permit renewal, and then also acted as the City's advisor on an appeal of the same matter. The court held that this comingling of roles violated the business' due process rights. Id. Finally, we question whether the City Council is routinely advised not to speak with any residents or businesses that have pending "quasi-judicial" matters, such as applications for development permits, conditional use permits, variances, and the like. If this "do not communicate" edict is unique to Green Hills, this treatment is discriminatory in nature and violates the very spirit of the City's processes. Consistent with standard procedures and City policies, if City Councilmembers speak with Green Hills' representatives, the communications must be disclosed in the public record. This is regularly accomplished by a simple statement at a Council hearing identifying the participants in the meeting. All your City Councilmembers know, as Green Hills also knows, that any documents or other information exchanged or communicated that is not part of the public record must be submitted to the record and distributed to all Councilmembers. As we understand it, the City Council regularly follows these rules without issue, and there is no compelling reason why these rules would not be sufficient in connection with the Council's communications with Green Hills. In hearing this upcoming appeal, Green Hills should not be treated differently from others. Thank you for your immediate attention to this issue. Very tr, ours, len Be. •witz, of GRESHAM ` AVAGE) NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:dff cc: Honorable Councilmembers of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 0583-000 -- 1504398.1 Attachments 1-13 Carolynn Petru From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:28 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: CC Subject: Communications with Council Members Hi Carol — Thanks so much for your voice mail clarifying that there is no prohibition that would prevent constituents such as Green Hills Memorial Park from speaking with their elected representatives about issues involving their interests in the City. We understand the Council is aware that, should any such communications occur, the Council will — consistent with long-standing City practice and policy — disclose the communications on the public record. Moreover, also consistent with long- standing City practice and policy, the Council will need to disclose information communicated that is not already in the public record, if any. One other outstanding item raised in my December 11th letter to you involves the prohibition on a city attorney acting in a dual capacity as both a "prosecutor" and "advisor" to a city council, as occurred in the Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills case. We would be interested to hear your thoughts on this topic. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkowitz Shen'holder Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office main: (213) 213-7249 Fax: (213) 213-7391. I Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavage.com 1. Privilcgod and Confidential Communication. "I hF tntorratatr or, c:o, fai=a d rr; alis ern alt and any attctcYt ne;r;t = nta 'C' r >rrfic<eratrsal r ubjec:t to f privilege or attorney work product doctrine. if you are not ..he intended re ipient of i€,atir>n, you may not (ise. dis€;loco. prYnt, copy or same If you bravo received this in error, please notify tile sender and destroy all copios cf dO rr;esast 2. RS Circular 230 Notice. to accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenne'e `>, r ii€;e, ve it3 0051 vice cent ineri nilsi> 0 " includ.n1J any attr ch arents, i riot intended or written to be r. and, and cannot be r, sed, by you or any ottaerr recipient for the Yn.rr a fie; €,f taj avoiding penalties that may otherwise b., imposed by the, IRS, or (0) s ppori nq, promoting, marhoting, or recommending any trans 'on or rriatte1r to any third party. 3. True n€aesion of Viruses. Although this coirn°unnation, and any attached documents or fie, etre believed to be tree or array viiios re,spc. risibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus tree, and tete sender does not ,accept any responsibility tor any loss Or' damage arising li other y rr 4, Security of Email. Electronic retail is sel'it Queer the public internef and may not be secure, "'Niue, we cannot. guarantee the privacy or eonfiid€enfiuli information. 1 it 's the Attachments 1-14 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 2 Attachments 1-15 Public Correspondence Received in Response to the Public Notice for the January 20, 2015 Hearing Attachments 1-16 January 5, 2015 TO: Carolyn Petru Deputy City Manager Rancho Palos Verdes SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014 Decision Setforth in P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29. I live in the Vista Verde Condominiums, 8 feet north of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 at Green Hills Cemetery. My "front yard" is the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. I say this because this is exactly what is like living next to this structure. Vista Verde Owners were denied attendance at the 2007 meetings when this structure was approved, as we were not given notice of the meeting. We repeatedly asked questions as dirt was being moved in preparation for the building to be built, repeatedly given inaccurate information regarding the proximity of the building to our property, the height of the building and the rooftop burials that were planned. Now here we are, one year after completion and operation of the mausoleum that has been illegally built both in proximity and height. The noise, visual and privacy impact of the rooftop burials are immense and have impacted our quality of life drastically. We are not only exposed to the funerals that require grave preparation (a two day process), the actual funeral service and burial, but the frequent visits to the gravesites as well. We also feel the families who have loved ones buried on the rooftop have been negatively impacted, as they have their privacy impinged upon with the close proximity of the Mausoleum to our condominium. We often feel, out of respect for them, we have to curtail our daily activities, i.e. use of the pool and/or Jacuzzi, pool parties, entertaining guests on our patio's to limit noise and disruptions for their grieving activities. This can be difficult, as we cannot always know when these activities will occur. Attachments 1-17 I am writing this to verbalize my request to NOT grant the appeal as requested by Green Hills Cemetery in regards to the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014 Decision P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29. It is my belief that there is sufficient evidence that has been provided by Independent Reviewers, Staff Reports and Vista Verde Owners that has exposed enough discrepancies and existing violations to require those actions as setforth by the Planning Commission's Resolution 2014-29. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Debbie Landes Vista Verde Condominiums Attachments 1-18 Carolynn Petru From: Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 11:24 AM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: From a condo owner of Vista Verde regarding Jan 20th meeting (conserns about the apeal of the decission by Green Hills) Dear Carolynn Petru, here are attached as docs 2 presentations I submitted to the Planning commission in august and October in 2014. Please let me know if you can download them. I would like to express my gratitude for your time and willingness to listen to us! Thank you! Best regards, Nadia owner of unit 207 at 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lomita, CA 90717 Presentation_VV_GH.pptx Presentation_Oct_28_2014.pptx 1 Attachments 1-19 CD • to O C) • O 4)• U O r_iO ct cn O � T -•1-4C2• 1.0 I)) O 1) O ;•• 0 - , O i ct (.1— • r-.0 O E V) E . ,i 0 4-1 ca) concerns cc3 O O •O O U • Ct Li) O ••O trif) O •�• Attachments 1-20 CD a) "0 13 L _8 } O >. RT O ESU 73o L- E C cO Z.._ () to u) • t�U O `) c/) O ca . 'C O- N D O a 3 u C E' 2 .0 i`- U a? C -Ua)as.=o .0 -D c ._ C O O X (1) co ai ch (1) W U eco > c C C C C a>, ca to N -Q Z7 I: C 45, o 2 • O Ci O O v) -aa)41)`i CU Attachments 1-22 4- 0 4J L CO CL 1 L ra G) 0 C C 4-J C Vi 0 73 C L O C C C a, .o E 0- i EE V a 4- E O co cu V cn N W • 4-_J M (0 D 0 1 Attachments 1-23 pTo c 3 oc f-12(") ' c E E>Qa`O CD CD � O N 0 C O. N T O W • -0 C X cn Cti O) Q) f' as O O •C c _ O . 2 ocoOc`�Uo. C 73 16- tto Q. > 03 C • N — C N a) ca 2 CD 0- '5 •- 3 (6 a3-Cp 2co •= 03 m ▪ O cn O O n> L= C> O = O •.? U) C a co O' .0 C c/) Q 22 8. E 2 d co c� MOc 3 i) o a) c �.tJIJ 0a) a) > 03 _C N O E O) C 1-6 U 03 O cn • c/) p > }' -p 03 CI -di cprn3 w V'C a) —c) Q) co ._ cp . c E C p 03 .°-=(Ltor UC OpO ,_- � CV cn "0 .s • .E V) as � 0 13 O m 3 Ti . _ ca O VOi cOn = co L V O c > a) ON (1) a _> co)D O -Q= • O �i C_ m O' L E .O N Q. fl - 73 O N c' -pc S L �•al �c v 3 .v rnco.2� ro _c�'v>3�_a N ._J Cl -C O O v) E• 3 C (1) D Q) previous day for late pick up Attachments 1-24 O 1 - Cf; CDU 03 4 - CU t 0 CD dr U O CU Ni c O U r -▪ I N >. L c z 0_ -0 N O L O co `'- L (/) O co Q E Co C .;_J - CB 73N O f- -6 tab C CO O 92 CD a- 3 N CO • C _C CB I"- CC Attachments 1-25 cu co C 0 co w CIDCD 0 c L^ CD 0 0 z O 2 4A 0 c 0 Q N U X a) a) -= Q Q - o a) O L Q Q ca c 0 . N . > a) cc c CO L a) 4-J (o 2 a) 4- 0 li ll ca Q) Q c a) C co Q a) . > a) 4J tap c . (7.)0 See bushes additions Attachments 1-26 Attachments 1-27 EPII fehk.) snow . PL. Malt Attachments 1-28 73 (1) v �� ✓ co C __ C O ✓ `. co. _ ID • N (5 U c c 0 v ° �'oo O '�" • Q- 0 O +.., EU U V o g- o 0 'IJ c _ -o o -ii c al o ...tc O 7,-; ED_> o .475 U Uu9c 0)c X v •c— 0 -co • .c_ u) v .1 -a 0 0 U CL '2) c .} -oO -o 0 0 eL0 ..c 4) cr Cement dust blow ... On March, 27th, 2013 at 8:20 AM Attachments 1-29 Dust On November, 15, 2013 about 8 AM Dust On Aug, 26th, 2013, before 8 AM v L... aJ N C QJ QJ 1- (.) U N C'3 cn QJ 0 Ct3 L_ 0 C 0 U C L_ -I--+ VI C 0 U CLJ a- -+ MO C C▪ a C 0 C E O QJ o • • N E Ca N N QJ L QJ N taD C CO aJ U L QJ 4- C'3 L_ v co N ro zi N L C C0 4-1V) E.D. v 0 U -0 -0 C a) C a O a L •_ CIO L > °- 0 O C N CO QJ O O a--+ N u ▪ C6 LA 2N Q O ▪ N Attachments 1-30 co _c Z3 c 0 .� A Q. e..' C.c 0 Rf Q. a vim o 10 'D C -I( `�_ IO 65 .Q C N65 a) bp a) E >, _co O Pc ....cO'-' N C L. N a a) C O U O�caoai c a) 'a L. a) ^ N td w_G C V) E O a9 t� U Q- ?. L 4— Q. 2i O Q) cn Q .D C un u) NQ. Q O -13 Cc. N ..;_—:, . . ..„..1 -0 a) Q. c co QO t� 7 ,. • ›. W _0 — C 'Oa) - O Z3 C O C a) C 3 V) N N W-o as u) a)L L_ c::0tII-203 w ? C C n .r U m m . O s-. 'Q Q c '; Cc C VOi a) O O O E L cca)cfsov-� > Eca)cn Attachments 1-31 l-1 0 N -14 N > cn ca L.- -I-1 0 ca tIA •C > 0 4-1 LI --- (1.) c CD E 0_ 0- w 4J a) 0 D CT LU Attachments 1-32 -1-1 X aw C Q.) V_ 0- (1) aw 0 C 0 0 0 C c/) co i a--) M 0N -14 O >, co Z 'a Attachments 1-33 tbo .cc ,... 0 E L. co cu d- 0 N N a c 1 Attachments 1-34 2 ci_%-i0 CW _c' � 00 L co L CU LJ - Attachments 1-35 Attachments 1-36 • • • J • W E W V I� W 4--) -o Attachments 1-37 c 0 E a) cu0 2 0 m m L_ cu Li - co 0_ c a 0 w L_ I 4-1C a) > aw 4-- 1 LI - 0 0 0 v) 1 U c 0 4-1a 4- 4-1 4-1 aw 0_ c o co 4-1C a) 4T CU -, W E LE .4- l V ) cO CU co D D w > 0 in co c O E w Q U Q al CSA M Q vi D LI0 a) E 0 0 0 4- CI) 4-1 4- l • CU 4- -1 co c 0 - o co 0 c 0 E a) N U a) H a; - o ro o L_ 0 JLIZ 0 Q) CD v) CU W 4-1 4-1 J 0 W L) 0 z Q 4--+ V) co M N 4-1 (1) cn I— vi D L co 0 co 0 -u l -- 1 T 0 W D 0 ziU co 0 4- -J 0 > bA 0 4-1in 4J c 4-1 a) 0 to •O Cuo . 94-1 co c 4- -1 (/) co V / • E O 0 w H co > 0 a) E 0 0 1 v) D co e oW )0 tuo c • c L_ 0 E Attachments 1-38 bil U = 4 i O 0 O O� N OU v)w O CU •— v 0- c = CU _C v) c O - U O CU CU as - 0) c . co _c L▪ I- C6 , a; CSA a-' s-- c6 0 by -0 L._ � o = > s c 4▪ -1 c U a) O •— N c6 L >% C13 Oca O IC c 2 0_c E 2 1 ---co Attachments 1-39 Attachments 1-40 OOL TD — 2 E m (L) p cmO d) _ Q w 281 o_ 0) I@ acT c 2 o N o O O Q VVE cnW ma c to .c'_p ° 0-0 _Ec m Ca Q m O UoCD=M _ C7 C V 6 ft, c.--15-2 4-J 2_0 otcp L O 5 0 O O U 0 O3 E V tb›-E_go W Q � L p�oa) O c\i 920 0 N (a Lt co November 8th, 2013 at 8 AM Attachments 1-41 Li O _c W N c O 2 Q N _a -a a) O 0 4-- 2 Q Ol Cr) 0 N � CO ttO 00 < Attachments 1-42 November 15th 201 Attachments 1-43 c O co L i co L 0 4- C La CD hL 4o 2 W •oo o c M 4) `-i _c O a--' 1. N CSA 4) O U Attachments 1-44 L_ a co 4J o (1.) Ca o al -0 OD WC 'i L_ co O CU a 62 .N CU o o CL) -0 co N C CU .tn U C5 MO C _0 c C6 C -Q+ 6 L bA c6 co -. co 6 N O 0- O N c c Q W CLO cn Q C W 0_ CT5 C6 .N N _C -0 N C CO (13 CSA _c N C6 O cn -0 a-, o N S.- 0 a--+ U =C6 = L N 4- N >- C 0 N O C6 ft3 -C U — front in the mornings.... 8:OOAM on November, 8th, 2013 Attachments 1-45 m O N 2 Q 0 m 00 _c' 4-J 00 L...1 a) _oE a) > 0 z m 0 N 2.% Q O N 00 i N N 45 E au > O z Attachments 1-46 O CU N E v + f6 -' 74_J 4_, c C 111 a) to V CL LC5 _o E (13 a) ( E .� L fa N a) 4- -1 Cap C .N C To L 0 L CD C6 0. a) L Q ...• CU C .E O N 4-1C 0 ca vi ca L v C ro a) i- N Q) C LE U co E 0 4 a) CU L O 0 L) C .' cu a) O N N GU N LA -. a) –, C : : n C _c i cNi� O ▪ v v L L • > CL O Cn N al To L D C a) •E 1— co .t. than 50 minutes! V) 73O LU Attachments 1-47 CU W c C 0 5 0 M� C s_ 0 E L_ 03 a) cu U c co c ow c C6 • d- 0 N Attachments 1-48 C h1 W W l U •5 o.CU L._ a) O C cn Ca O V co co Od- O bO tvo c 01 vi O U O D 'j U o v) co cu Q co0 O L.() O " +-, CU N U .co O -0 N N _C .c E- 4 - gets money for Attachments 1-49 N a) 11) O 4J 4- O c O a) > U fQ E O N f6 0 N Q 0 Q N E 0 v 0) v U a) v N 0 - o ca N a) LE U (o E C6 CU 4-- -+ a) ai U c a' E vi 16 v v O O 4- CO •1-' co 0c E L (6 Q O i a--+ O O Q N ca f1 v a) (0 v c6 N LE a-.+ N co U Q 0 4-- 1 0 N L 4-1O N 4- 0 Q an 0 0 L 0 -a co (6 C1A >- a) 0 4-J 0 CO .co .1-+ (0 E 0 CO4-1 E 0 S L(0 ca O a) _cco cO ca 0 Q a' co cu N N O O v C (oE CU � N }' O (6 O N a) L (0 +-+ N O -0 •� v (4- 0 • cC13 co O 4_ a, aA +� cD E O E E 0 tin co 4-a N co CO N U a, .0) Q X N (13 (1) O 0 E v ca N O 0 CIO CID c O E 0 a) U CO CO a) Q (0 U (o L ) E 0 aJ0 E 0 s CIO 4- 4-' N N a, a) a 4--+ E O 4- O ca COa) > N Ca O N CO E 4--+ ca -a O v v N 4 -+ C 0) .1-+ N Q (ti. 7.2 O (0 -a ca 00 9 -o -o -1-+ 4 -+ 0 O (o 0) N I don't think it's right to put my life on hold because someone wants me to... Thank you very much for your time! Attachments 1-50 O . O Ct 74.5e 4J '' Uci) v) U ct ct O 4) O I) ;.-1 •o ri) C°Ii • E a) E O o 0u Mausoleum has affected our lives. 1J 0 WJ •O 1.) O U O - (i) O ct O - O . • ,--) O U CL) O U '"C: U � 0 • • • ct SIJ ct • O 2014, so I won't repeat myself. Attachments 1-51 'i • l / `. \- air -•�...i.%. Sea • ��.w. •. A ill, p �7rMwca;..- -t,•• r'. > an N E ca a-, N hhO t CUV) bD a) W W -o cu cu Q Q rottoO E LE O z 2 4-O tui E . a) 0 z O L 103 0 v v ▪ co E O Attachments 1-52 Attachments 1-53 ob c co -o L (6 L 0 N L co 0 4-J (o E z a) O (1) (o E 4-, L O c a) .4-- -J c 0 a) To N C a) L no 0 k.° E (6 0 to c L O Q) L (o N +-+ v N L O LL O (ti• .F3 L -o 4-- -+ C 0 C 0 L tJA O E a) L O +-J E 0 E a) 0 0 i N a-+ ca CUA C .0_ Q c co N c (6 4- Q) CUD D a a--1 4- 0 n 0 N CD d--+ 4- 0 a) N Q)(6 L) Q) E 117, Q) 4-1 (6 Attachments 1-54 • E D CD 0 N CO E Q) 4- 0 0 +-+ 4- 0 0 L v 4- 0 v V) -1--- , S- 0 0 C a) a--+ E 0 4- c W' - - CD N CO a) L n 41--+ L) 0 Attachments 1-55 A. -v ~rye t.; 1 `4 " fir* 44 131 wevPiAr .ieor-VA 0 S- 0 O LE 4-1 a, E 0 4-1 • +-+ 0 v v 0 0 ^Q W U(c)1)J cu 0 0 0 4-J 4- 0 0 E v 0 E 4-1 v 4- O L 0 U 4-, 0 V) E 0 4 - CU ca +-J co v 4-1 CLO O O CI) CU v 0 c6 a, N (o N L O .6 0 0 CLO a v v v U QJ0 -a v E 4- 1/1 4-1 ca -o (o -o v 0 Q Attachments 1-56 C O v .N C L -- a) L O C a) t C 0 Can C a) N L U N L- 0 O 4— N E 0 a- J CO Q C a) E a) U ro a) L (1) v 0 Q. a) L ro a) N a) H E C v 0 V) ro E v 4- O 0- 0 O CU V; L D 0 C CD a) 0 E N CU (6 C 0 E a) s_ a) U v a -J 4- O (B -o a) C 0 (a .L z CO L 0 Li— " 0 a) 4-- -' a CU bD C 0 To C a) v L U v) (B _> a) N Q E 0 0 a) 0 0 (a C O -o ro N .>— a) ; eft over es ui. ment from the da before. Au:ust 30 , 2014 Attachments 1-58 2 CL CO 0 +J a) o U -o a) N rl rl CU L 0 4 - CU CU S- CO cO 4J CO L D V) 2 CL 0 (NJ O m n 4A D Q (''• c 0 co L -- co co 0 v L r-. a, E (6 4-J 4) (6 c 0 U (o v +-J c 0 S- 0 0 0 0 0 a) CO aA C CU 0 C v D 0 0 0 s • ca D N c 0 L 0 4 - co a- J 0 +� cn L n 0 u) c (6 N L 0 E +-, • ai 0 v 0 4J L 0 co -o co L n 0 c (o n O a Attachments 1-59 C O O = a) E > O c6 4- t.O N a) - O 4- O qp N .I., N a) -, C (-,. 0 c C U O O Q (13 v a) 0 - i- (0 a) 4-) CD aA -0 CU a) a) o LE ago CU N C o O a, +S 0V) CU CU E 0 v U a) a)+J Q a_J v CU > n _c L N v 03 v N a) U a_' E a-+ c a) O Ca _c z 0 .1_, Attachments 1-60 ter 10 AM on a Sunda mornin:, 26 of October oud an • c ear the • astor s words. Attachments 1-61 s_ 0 a) • ..O -o co cu bD CD 4-, cu 00 0 '5. 4-, (13 C.‘ 63 0 0 Cr3 tin ; • C co cu CO •E 0 E _c co c (13 co •LT. cu s_ s_ 0 4-1 2 44(0 Attachments 1-62 is is a rose bush, not :round cover Attachments 1-63 L:. N > 0 U C 0 5- OA a --s 0 C Q) L Ct3 V) N V) C m • COL C 0 (I) (1) a-+ C 0 C6 Ct, N 4-+ CO v) N LE Attachments 1-64 Attachments 1-65 This is part of the minutes on April 24, 2007 O a E - fie 8p N • C C O -C -t0 8 E Rf E •C- 0 o ` ..Ca3coc �L• a) --'• = C • U C� U u• j Co • o n s O O L >, .• .0 8rnE m°ca �✓ ( • ca•V dw O U.).CD X ▪ T. CO N O C .0 a) E N O C .0 O U Em N .� O cin o .u. C 3 a) a) C a) E ., ..c Lis '> • +-+ a) ▪ (Qa) 86 L,- O L • ��-- c • .� to a) .E u).— 3i a I N N C- O .cU .12 -C ate) -C ▪ C c o c'3 Zi co (,) CO 1 u O rU • F 46 c O rn� cqs a) .CC' O • E rA '> 1) _0 •E O (U O ('3 O U E Attachments 1-66 Here is the "non impaired" view. Attachments 1-67 • • • • Attachments 1-68 i C cI3 c'3 C N E N U co a) > cL3 Q) -c • S- 0 0 0 4) N L 4— L` 0 0 c 0 U v v) E 0 4_ v .> v 1) V) LE I— fence instead. Attachments 1-69 CO v b.O CU N O •_ N p • CLo _ v) O CLo v C O et°.O �--+ f6 • V) N aCO C te-+ U f6 .N +—c+ D Nra }' CLO +▪ "-§ 75 -+ aCU te-' CLO N >. O +�-+ CLO p N v> 0 C Q N .— N N +-+ ▪ N O vi O �= Q — 4' CD 0O C O N N ro cu O C° 0 O O a-' be p p " +, •— • §- -C " o � E- o o o >- > O o °o CO -0 C > D N v a) sz 70 L - U = FA O p •0 ,O - O CLO p o • .O N - N . • CLD +▪ �-+ v N 4-' > C C Q 4-, C Q CO cti- — c0 N O - >.• N CLO N U O vi v C > -o * s -:D ca Q N O O 0 C � ' a' ° " 0 0 v - o _ V) N v 0 - - N CLD CLO N O 0 0 p C C0 LE 2 s_ • 0 iJ O ▪ C N O CLO N O CLO C 4) _c° O CO CO 0 +C•+ .c a) .i E CLo O 2 N N E N -0 ca - O vi N C v NE L O p= v Q •I U :+_; Q Y= E O z V 0 view is not a solution! Thank you for your time. Attachments 1-70 Carolynn Petru From: Lane Mayhew <lanemayhew@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 4:21 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: 11 pictures for you Attachments: IMG_0229.JPG; IMG_0232.JPG; IMG_0233.JPG; IMG_0235.JPG; IMG_0236.JPG; IMG_ 0238.JPG; IMG_0240.JPG; IMG_0241.JPG; IMG_0243.JPG; IMG_0246.JPG; IMG_0247.JPG To Whom it May Concern: I live in condo unit #109 at Vista Verde. For the City Council meeting on January 20th, I am sending you pictures I took of the masoleum in question. The pictures are taken from my balcony. The masoleum is accross the driveway from my living room and I not only see the whole upper burial ground but the ramp the machiney comes up on. I know you will also be sent copies of funerals that have occurrend and visitors that are continually arriving. I am certain that the City Council will do the right thing and continue the moratorium on burials and sales indefinitely. My home has been my haven and my place of retirement, and now my privacy has been grossly invaded and looks like this....all is ruined by not only this monstrosity but illegal burials, and visitors forever. Please help us. Sincerely, Lane Mayhew You have been sent 11 pictures. IMG_0229.JPG IMG_0232.JPG IMG_0233.JPG IMG_0235.JPG IMG_0236.JPG IMG_0238.JPG I M G_0240.J PG IMG_0241.JPG IMG_0243.JPG IMG_0246.JPG IMG_0247.JPG These pictures were sent with Picasa, from Google. Try it out here: http://picasa.google.com/ 1 Attachments 1-71 Attachments 1-75 • chments 1-7 ttachments 1-78 1 Attachments 1-79 Attachments 1 Attachments Rich Martin Subject: FW: Material for City Council Meeting 1-20-15 Re: Green Hills Appeal Attachments: Word Version of 1-7-15 City Council Letter.docx; Word version of 10 -27 -RPV Letter.docx; Word version of 8-14 Commission Letter.docx; Planning Commission --Letter 4-22-14.docx; Vista Verde --Attorney Michael McLachlan letter dtd 2-18-14 to Planning Commission.pdf; RPV PV Letter --October 2014--dtd 10-20-14.docx; Power Point 1 for 1-17-15 City Council Letter.pdf; Power Point 2 for 1-17-15 City Council Letter.pdf By Electronic Mail Ms. Carolynn Petru Acting City Manager Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Ms. Petru: Enclosed above, please find electronic files for the following: -My letter dtd. January 7, 2015 -Attachments referenced in that letter are as follows: My communications: -Letter to Planning Commission dtd. October 27, 2014 -Letter to Planning Commission dtd, August 7, 2014 -Letter to Planning Commission dtd. April 22, 2014, which refers to: -Letter from Attorney Michael D McLachlan—which is included Other items: -Letter from Matthew Martin dtd. October 20, 2014 -Power point #1 -Power point #2 January 7, 2015 I recognize this is a lot of material, but understood that since this was the first hearing for the City Council that you wanted material to help "bring the Council Members up to date". I will arrange for a hard copy of all items to be delivered via Fed Ex on 1/8/15. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. truly yours, Richard Jartin Owner Unit #208 1 Attachments 1-83 January 7, 2015 City Council c/o Deputy City Manager Carolyn Petru City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Re: January 20, 2015 City Council Meeting Appeal of Green Hills Memorial Park (GH) Of Planning Commission Decision 11/10/14 Dear City Council Members: I categorically oppose the GH request for Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision that would reverse the Planning Commission's decision to: -Stop burials and sales of roof -top plots on the Pacifica Terrace (Area 11) Mausoleum at GH, and -Stop burials within the existing required 16 foot setback on the Western property line south of Area 11 Mausoleum, until ---The City Council decides based on the outcome of a public variance hearing process, whether it is appropriate to grant a significant retroactive variance from the numerous pre- existing requirements that had not been obtained as part of the actions taken in 2007 to retroactively allow construction of the Area 11 Mausoleum. These actions were reached unanimously by all of the current Commissioners on the RPV Planning Commission. As such, these certainly cannot be described as capricious decisions as they were the result of an extensive hearing and discovery process and I presume consideration of legal constraints/consequences. I therefore request this appeal by GH be denied by the City Council. At the end of this letter, I have included my thoughts on a retroactive public variance hearing process, which on the surface sounds like an oxy-moron, but if rigorously followed could result in an appropriate resolution. A simple "rubber-stamp" of the status quo, however would fly in the face of any logical activity. As an owner at Vista Verde, I have lived this saga unfolding as more information became available with the high points being summarized in my prior letters and communications as follows: (Copies attached to facilitate your review) October 27, 2014 ---Summarizes key items from 1991 forward to the present based on review of public files and testimony designed to put the actions and strategies employed in this matter in focus August 7, 2014—Initial summary of information obtained from a review of existing City Files and Videos of Planning Commission Meetings April 22, 2014—My initial letter to the Planning Commission along with a copy of letter from the VVOA original attorney on this matter. It should be noted that as of this date little was known of the GH violations of both its existing CUP and violations of City ordinances and activities surrounding the approval in 2007 subsequent to the City Council denial of the GH requests in 1997. Attachments 1-84 My son, Matthew Martin is a co-owner of our unit at Vista Verde and is also a resident. He has testified, submitted letters, documented violations by GH of the CUP, and prepared two power point presentations. A summary of certain of his items that are also attached for ease of review is: October 10, 2014—Letter summarizing issues surrounding violations of existing CUP conditions, and a power point that provides additional detail Second Power Point—Initial power point from May, 2014 raising questions later answered. Regarding the retroactive variance review which I hope is retained as long as it is not a mere "rubber- stamp" of the status quo, should I believe focus on the validity, propriety, and legality of the approval in 2007. Additionally, consideration of the environmental impact of the project and impact on neighbors and views which are a specified consideration in RPV rules for issuance of any permit and would seem to be key issues and both the transparency and candor of the responses provided to the Planning Commission on their inquiries at the time would also be important. Further, I believe consideration of the previous process, including the actions taken by GH subsequent to the denial by the City Council in 1997, the process followed in 2007 with the Planning Commission, and the numerous significant violations of the CUP underlying their entire operations are all areas that need to be understood and considered. I understand that since the Planning Commission hearing in November, it has been determined that the Mausoleum in Area 11 violates all three of the height conditions in its CUP. This is even a more significant violation than what was known (but suspected) at the time of the November Planning Commission meeting. The quantity and magnitude of the now known violations are significant and very difficult to comprehend in a situation where the rules were being respected. Reading the submissions by GH legal counsel, they stress their "right" to use of the structure since it was approved. Obviously they did not build what was approved, there was in my view, a lack of candor in the process by them and requiring the moving of the structure and conformance with regulations as required of others, would in my opinion send a positive message to others. Very truly yours, Richard JUMartin Attachments 1-85 October 27, 2014 Via Electronic Mail Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Re: October 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Green Hills Annual Review (Case No. ZON2003-00086) Dear Planning Commissioners: I know this matter has been a time-consuming ordeal for the Planning Commission (PC) and I respect your commitment to "get it right". You have heard and seen the impacts to the owners at Vista Verde and they too have had a very difficult ordeal and those who reside there live it daily. I will provide my suggestions on how to "get it right", but first I will start with a brief summary from my personal perspective of major points from the journey to date: - In 1991, Green Hills (GH) tried unsuccessfully to make major modifications to set back restrictions for above ground structures and other changes that due to transparent community notices and a flood of letters and attendance at various meetings were soundly rejected by the PC and ultimately by the City Council as well upon appeal. The record in the City's own files well document that proceeding. Key members of the current leadership of GH were associated with GH during that process and certainly would have witnessed the results. - In 2007, GH again wanted major modifications to setbacks for above ground structures. But this time they obtained many of the modifications and changes that had been denied by the City Council in 1991. The record however shows the following: - The public notice in 2007 was far less transparent than the notice used in 1991, and did not even mention significant potential setback reductions. Amazingly, it also improperly described the location of the proposed mausoleum and stated in would be in an area that would not impact Vista Verde. -Individuals who were owners at that time recall being told by City representatives that the items at the hearing would not impact Vista Verde. - Virtually no public turnout in 2007 at the two hearings and no one from Vista Verde since as stated in your August 18, 2014 meeting, they were told by City representatives that there would be no view or other impact to Vista Verde and the public notice had the incorrect location of the proposed mausoleum. - Throughout the 2007 public hearings, no mention was made of any setback reductions, except for a staff report stating that setbacks weren't being modified with the revision. An incredible situation when you consider the significance of setbacks when dealing with a residential area. I presume the established set backs were no doubt designed to provide proper separation between mourners and residential areas. A logical requirement for a cemetery located in a residential area. Attachments 1-86 -2- -Commissioners were told by Staff and the GH Expert witness that no view impairment or adverse effects would occur to residential properties and the approach was consistent with what was approved in 1991. The videos of these meetings clearly show the dialogue and the questions raised by Commissioners, including a direct question on the impact to views at Vista Verde and the answers provided. I suggest that a viewing of those videos on the PC website will allow you to draw your own conclusions regarding the candor of the responses to the commissioners at those proceedings. -The current leaders of GH, who, as mentioned above, were working for GH in 1991 when similar requests were denied, were successful in obtaining their desired modifications. Also as mentioned, there was no disclosure of the setback reductions in 2007 in a manner that would resonate with anyone including the Commissioners. That was followed up with a failure, as we now know, to request the necessary variances in clear violation of RPV Code requirements. -In 2013, construction of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum began and some points regarding this period include: -When it became obvious that views, quality of life, and economic values for Vista Verde Owners would all suffer (the exact same points raised in numerous letters from 1991 when there was a clear communication of what was being requested by GH) numerous inquiries and letters were sent to GH by owners at Vista Verde. This resulted in significant construction noise, and the negative impacts from the building became more and more apparent as time went on. The leadership of GH summarily ignored the inquiries of Vista Verde owners and in fact discarded at least 2 certified letters sent by owners. - City staff visited but offered no respite until Mayor Brooks of RPV was informed of the situation and personally visited. But even with that level of involvement the Staff took no action. - Some residents believe that GH actually started to increase the intensity and pace of construction following the certified letters expressing concerns. -Upon completion, an accelerated process of burying individuals who had been "parked" elsewhere began to populate the Mausoleum. Also, accelerated sales activities apparently commenced. -In 2014 a series of hearings with the Planning Commission in connection with the GH Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Major points include: -February 25, 2014: - GH officials admitted they could see there would be view problems but proceeded anyway as they had the permits, GH needed to pack the Mausoleum to improve its Return On Investment (ROI), and the GH leadership was well respected Nationwide in the Cemetery industry and recognized as Experts who knew how to run a cemetery. - GH officials came with the mailing lists from the 2007 hearings to demonstrate that notices had been sent—but again, see comments above on the content of those notices not mentioning anything about the setback changes GH contemplated and other items that had led to their defeat in 1991. Also, the notice was also completely inaccurate regarding the location of potential changes and described the location as an area not impacting Vista Verde. Attachments 1-87 -3- -Two of the Commissioners who had been on the Commission in 2007 stated that based on what they see was built, they would not have approved the modifications had they been properly explained. Also, they could not recall any mention of the significant setback changes that GH obtained. The entire Commission voted unanimously at the February 25, 2014 meeting to continue the review, pursue a possible interim ban on future burials at the Mausoleum, and asked that the parties and their lawyers attempt to reconcile their differences and set a next meeting in May. - May 13, 2014: -GH attorney very dramatically announced "late breaking news" that agreement had been reached with Vista Verde HOA and their attorney. That turned out to not be the case when the Vista Verde attorney presented his comments. That could never have been the case as all that was or has been offered by GH are relatively inconsequential (when compared to the impact of the Mausoleum) operational changes. -Comments and innuendos on "activities" by Vista Verde residents that were viewed negatively by GH. No mention however of the fact that, as I have been told that for the 20+ years prior to the construction of the Mausoleum structure within 8 Feet of the property line there were minimal if any similar situations. Again, prior to this Mausoleum, the setup had been consistent with the apparent intent of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through its zoning laws to insulate the activities of residents with the activities of mourners. - Stronger recommendations by Commissioners to have the parties solve the situation themselves and reach an agreement. -Deferred any action on ban of rooftop burials as Staff had not prepared their requested motion. - Set next meeting for August. - May-August: - Public media attention focused on the situation by both newspaper and TV. -GH used its political, industry, and community contacts to stress "bad neighbor" concept on part of Vista Verde. Again -20+ years with no major problems with their Vista Verde neighbors until GH was able to execute its desires dating back to 1991 to violate the intent of Rancho Palos Verdes City Code and zoning laws. -August 12, 2014: -Written threat of litigation by GH attorney against the City, Commission etc. -Huge public turnout with many constituencies represented including: - Letter from a State Senator, focusing on the "bad neighbors" commissioned no doubt by GH - A religious leader objecting to the "bad neighbors" - Military veterans groups objecting to the "bad neighbors" (Result was to let the voices be heard) (Most of the issues being blown up by GH, likely in an attempt to turn the tables on where the real problem exists in that GH violated the Rancho Palos Verdes City Code and zoning laws. This appeared to be an obvious attempt to paint Vista Verde folks as "bad neighbors and the "cause" of the problems.) -Heart felt genuine commentaries by two former Planning Commissioners who reiterated the non -disclosure of the true actions being planned by GH during the 2007 approval process, acknowledged Attachments 1-88 -4 - the big turnout of Vista Verde owners and other residents of the area in contrast to minimal turnout in 2007 which was attributed by them to the likely lack of communication on what GH was planning to do, and their dismay at the outcome of the Commission actions in 2007. Also, there was a very specific request to the PC, to "get it right", this time. - Numerous sincere commentaries by long-time owners at Vista Verde providing insights on the actions of GH, the City and others and the impacts on their lives, their views, and economic well-being. Most of the Vista Verde owners have worked a lifetime to have their peaceful enjoyment taken away to improve GH's ROI). - The presentation by a "citizen with a tape measure" demonstrating that the Cemetery run by Nationwide experts had been in violation of their CUP for 15+ years with no consequences - The direction by the Commission that GH start a variance hearing so that all constituencies could be heard for the breaching of the Rancho Palos Verdes existing zoning laws and Code. Also for staff to determine if the "citizen with the tape measure" was in fact correct. - Set follow-up meeting for October -August-October: - City Planning Staff verified that "citizen with the tape measure" was in fact correct, and violations existed and had been on-going for years. - More threats of litigation by GH. -GH again attempting to turn the tables by stressing (erroneously based on research by Vista Verde attorney) that they are powerless to move those already buried and stressing the terrible consequences of their "bad neighbors" in pointing out their decades -long violations of very basic conditions of their CUP. - The launch of an internal City review. I believe the chronology above to be accurate. In some instances, it obviously reflects the emotions of an owner at Vista Verde, but hope this is a useful chronology to refresh your memories. Summary: A summary of the major points from above is: -A resounding defeat of GH request for significant setback reductions in 1991 when fully and accurately described to public, PC and City Council, -GH achieved the significant setback reductions in 2007 that had been denied in 1991, but in 2007, the PC, and public were not clearly informed of the significant setback reductions by either GH or Staff, also, the request was not vetted with City Council when that was a requirement, - Even though GH achieved their significant setback reduction victory, they violated City Code and did not file for the necessary variance to implement the significant setback reductions, and GH refuses to file such variance even when ordered by the City to file a request for a retroactive hearing, - GH wanted the significant setback reductions to improve its profitability (ROI), was aware prior to construction that the mausoleum would destroy the views of numerous Vista Verde residents, and has used its substantial financial resources to debate, delay and deflect the discussion, Attachments 1-89 -5- - Backed by its substantial financial resources, GH has threatened litigation to sustain what it gained from apparently illegal setback reductions, and - GH has been in violation of its CUP for a long time and even now through legal actions attempts to sustain those violations. Recommendations: With idea of "getting it right" I suggest the following: -Immediate withdrawal of GH CUP - Require that GH submit a variance application for the existing Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Thank you again for taking the extended time to try and resolve this devastating situation that Vista Verde owners have been forced to endure. Very truly yours, Richard 3 Martin Attachments 1-90 Via Electronic Mail August 7, 2014 Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Re: August 12, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Green Hills Annual Review (Case No. Z0N2003-00086) Dear Commissioners: I am an owner at Vista Verde and provided a letter in advance of the February Meeting of the Planning Commission. I posed a number of questions in that original letter and after listening to the dialogue at the May meeting, it sounded like some of the Commissioners were wondering how this situation has gotten to where it is now with the obvious negative impacts on Vista Verde owners as a result of the Mausoleum that was erected by Green Hills (GH) in front of the complex. Many of the commissioners have seen the area for themselves. At least one former Commissioner has made the statement that they had no realization of what was approved, and "if they knew then what was being contemplated they would not have voted for approval in 2007". With that as background, I would like to share what was obtained from reviewing the existing files at the City for GH. 1990 and 2007 Actions In summary, in 1990, GH apparently tried to get the setback restrictions reduced and other beneficial modifications of long-standing regulations. Explanations in those documents were that the changes were needed to aid the profitability of GH. Also the correspondence included a letter from the City Manager of Lomita objecting to the proposed changes. Additionally, the City Attorney for Rancho Palos Verdes included her legal opinion that appears contrary to the GH request. There was transparency in the process followed at that time. The communities were clearly informed of the proposed set back changes, they were apparently discussed in front of the Commission with the result of an outpouring of objections from citizens of both Lomita and Rancho Palos Verdes and apparently no significant success for GH. The files contain numerous letters of objection from residents of both Lomita and Rancho Palos Verdes. In 2007, unlike in 1990, the notice sent to impacted neighbors contained no indication of the changes including setbacks that were being contemplated, which incidentally appeared to be essentially the same as those that were rejected in 1990, and included errors in describing the location of the Mausoleum. Those errors would have placed the Mausoleum on the other side of the GH Maintenance Yard, and therefore no impact on Vista Verde. These errors and omissions were significant. Further from viewing the videos of the two meetings on Green Hills Master Plan in 2007 there was no discussion or disclosure at either meeting of the significant changes. The videos show repeated inquiries Attachments 1-91 by Commissioners about view impairment and their concern that there be no view impairment. There were responses by the staff in the presence of the applicant that there would be no view impairment. Also, the GH outside Expert Architect stated that there were no significant changes from the then existing regulations. After the vote by the Commission, Staff and GH apparently "modified" the specifics in the final staff report and order with hand written notations to reflect the changes from 80 or 40 foot setbacks to 8 feet. So indeed, no one was candidly informed of the changes. Neither the affected neighbors, the Commission or anyone that was sitting in the hearing room for both meetings could have determined what was being proposed. That entire process in my opinion at best showed zero transparency. Recent Developments In 2014, at the February meeting of the Commission, the video of the meeting clearly shows Mr. Frew, GH CEO, stating that prior to construction he could see there would be obvious view impairment for the condominiums but opted to proceed with construction anyway. During construction GH ignored certified letters from Vista Verde owners objecting to what was unfolding in front of them. At the February 25, 2014 meeting of the Planning Commission both Mr. Frew and Mr. Resich, GH COO, stated the importance of the Mausoleum and the packing of 400 spots on the roof to the Return on Investment (ROI) of GH. The entire impact of ROI was clearly the major driving factor for GH. Summary This letter captures what I believe to be major factors surrounding the current status and how we got there in answer to the inquiries of certain Commissioners. I have also attached copies of various documents that provide additional insight into the comments above. Attachments 1-92 April 22, 2014 Via Electronic Mail Planning Commission City of Ranch Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275 Re: May 13 Planning Commission Meeting Green Hills Annual Review (Case No. ZON2003-00086) Dear Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to provide input and perspective on the Green Hills (GH) Master Plan matter and provide our personal recommendations. My son Matthew and I are owners of Unit 208 at Vista Verde Condominiums (VV). We purchased the Unit in 2007 shortly after the Planning Commission apparently approved the Master Plan (Plan), including the conditional use permit that allowed GH to build the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum directly in front of our condominium building. Since I understand there are at least two new Commissioners, I will provide my perspective on background as a foundation for my recommendations. Background The Staff Report Issued February 25, 2014 (Staff Report) contains many letters explaining the effects on the owners and residents. It also contains one letter from Michael D. McLachlan, the Attorney representing Vista Verde Home Owners Association (VVHOA) in this process. I have attached a copy of that letter. That letter very succinctly describes the situation and highlights the major problems with the Mausoleum as being height, proximity, and operations. Clearly all are significant issues in that GH built the Mausoleum in Area 11 approximately 8-10 Ft higher than the original approval and somehow was granted an approval to build within 8 feet of the property line. Apparently the typical setback for that type of structure in that setting would be 40 Feet. These are the two major problems which in turn exacerbate the operating, noise and intrusion problems. It was clearly evident from the discussions at the Planning Commission Meeting on February 25, 2014 (Meeting) that the Commissioners who were on the Commission at the point of the approval of the Plan in 2007 were not appropriately informed of any of those factors and went out of their way to go on the record and state that "had they known any of those factors and the impacts they would NOT have approved the Plan". That in turn led to the unanimous decisions of all Commissioners to issue an order to GH to stop any rooftop services at the Mausoleum for 90 days to see if a solution could be found. That motion was later modified to allow GH an "accommodation" to conduct services on the rooftop "if the site had been previously purchased". As quoted in Mr. McLachlan's letter, the original staff report from the 2007 process "concluded that the Mausoleum would not adversely impact the views from the 'viewing area' of properties", and clearly the record shows that is not the case. Reference is made in certain updates about the lack of "silhouetting" Attachments 1-93 being a requirement in the past. I would think that any review should have shown that "no impact on viewing areas" to be impossible at that time or any of the updates since. That apparently was obvious to the GH CEO as he clearly stated at the Meeting that prior to construction he walked on the ramp that had been constructed in advance of the start of Mausoleum construction and that caused him to "question his people whether the Mausoleum construction was fully approved". It was evident that he could see the problems that would be created. Anyone could see that and many of the residents voiced those concerns very early in the process, and prior to any significant construction had occurred. The statements by both the GH CEO and COO at the Meeting described the fact they had come up with the idea of the Mausoleum and rooftop burials when they visited parks in other states. They were intrigued by these setups as they would clearly improve their Return On Investment (ROI) and in fact they had devised a way to "fit" 400 sites on the rooftop as an even greater positive impact on their ROI. This was described as "essential". Further they referred to the appeal of the location as it provided panoramic views which would allow a premium sales price for lots. Clearly the motivation was present to develop these spots for their own financial gain. The problem is obvious—THEIR GAIN RESULTED IN LOSSES FOR THE OWNERS AT VV. This on top of my presumption that they likely were aware of the Staff Conclusion in the 2007 report that 'there would be no adverse impact to VV views' makes this entire situation even more frustrating to the Owners at VV. The GH representatives at the Meeting referred at times to being a "good neighbor". I would suggest their actions, however are closer to those of the proverbial 1,000 Pound Gorilla. This attitude apparently persists. From what I understand of the negotiations with GH they continually stress the need to "Not impact their operations." Current Status and Impact The letters included in the Staff Report very vividly portray the situation that these folks have been confronted with. Cleary a huge injustice has been created, resulting in both a loss of quiet enjoyment along with huge negative financial impacts for the owners. The obvious problems were clearly documented for GH, the Planning Commission Staff who visited and even the Mayor well in advance of the completion date of the Mausoleum. No actions were taken during the latter part of 2013 to forestall this situation, but rather if anything GH was working at break- neck speed to complete the Mausoleum and commence use as soon as possible as evidenced by comments of their working causing significant noise impacts from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. On top of that was the fact they had utilized an approach of "temporarily storing" bodies elsewhere on the property until construction was completed. My Conclusions In my opinion, the following conclusions are evident: -GH misled both the Commission and Staff. At the very least, GH was less than candid in their discussions and presentations. -GH knew or should have known the conclusions in the Staff Report, that their construction would "not adversely impact the views from the viewing areas of properties" on which the Commission based its Attachments 1-94 decision, were in error. Their CEO admitted in the Meeting that he was concerned PRIOR to commencement of construction of the impacts. - GH apparently ignored the comments of the VV owners prior to completion of the Mausoleum as both conversations occurred and certified letters were sent evidencing the obvious impacts. - GH's primary focus from the beginning has been on improving their ROI but that improvement came at a cost to the owners of VV. That focus continues as their offers in negotiations as I understand them have been akin to throwing ONE leaky inner tube to a boat containing 26 families that they torpedoed. - VV owners have suffered significantly. They have suffered the complete hijacking of their peace and tranquility and huge economic losses while GH has benefitted their ROI. My Recommendations I understand that in each instance all the staff and City officials who have visited had reactions that a huge problem exists. The question then is what to do? I became a resident of Rolling Hills Estates in 1986 and have owned since that time. Early on I heard numerous stories of strict enforcement by the various jurisdictions on the "Hill" to enforce laws and rulings to the extent of even making residents tear down or significantly modify structures deemed out of compliance. I submit that to be the case in this instance. Having said that, I believe the only appropriate action would be: • Require GH to move the Mausoleum structure back to at least 40 feet from the property line and reduce the height of the Mausoleum by at least 10 feet. This along with some restrictions on use and operation MIGHT restore the area to the quality of life prior to the construction, and fulfill the stated commitment in the 2007 Staff Report, to not negatively impact views. • Require GH to reimburse VVHOA for its legal costs in this matter. I have noticed mausoleum structures at other parks in the past, but all well inside the boundaries of their property. With a 125 acre parcel, that should be something that can work. Anything short of the recommendation above would in my opinion require severe restrictions going forward, at a minimum to include: • No future sales of plots on the roof of existing Area 11 Mausoleum. • No use of any mechanized equipment on the roof. Shovels might be OK. • Significant time restrictions to permit burials and activities only on Tuesday through Thursday from 11:00 AM — 3:00 PM. They have utilized the approach of storing bodies awaiting the completion of the Mausoleum and could utilize that approach in this case. • Prohibit services on the roof. Rather, services should occur elsewhere on the property, with only having the actual burials on the roof during the times noted above. • Require GH to reimburse VVHOA for its legal costs in this matter. Attachments 1-95 I respectfully request that the Commission consider all factors and take the maximum action to eliminate or mitigate the huge injustice created by this situation for the VV owners. Very truly yours, Richard J. Martin Owner Unit #208 Attachments 1-96 IAW OPP:WI:ES OF TAIICHAELAcHLAN A Prosso,ssioNIAT cosspoRATmN op,490 SANTA IsiosorA Boous/Alto Los ANGU.P3, CA 90o -z5 inNE 3RFAFAA-8F70 FAX 3W -951-827i FAAiml miXOAndwhiArdaw.Fom February 18, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda Item #3 Green Nils Annual Review (Case No. ZON2003-00086) Dear Commissioners: 1 write on behalf of the Vista Verde Homeowners Association (the "HOA") relative to Green Hills Memorial Park. More specifically, this letter addresses the initial phase of the Memorial Terrance Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum") which was recently constructed eight feet to the South of the II0A property in what is known as Area 11 to the Green Hills Master Plan. 1 cannot overstate the profoundly negative impact the Mausoleum has had on the HOA and its 25 owners. This letter summarizes the adverse impact of the Mausoleum, and requests that the Planning Commission reconsider the Conditional Use Permit for the future phases of this structure as well as other appropriate mitigation options. A. Memorial Terrace Mausoleum In 2007, the Commission approved a substantial revision to the Green Hills Master Plan (Resolution 2007-33), This included significant changes to the location and size of what is now known as the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, located in the Northeast portion of the cemetery. The building setback in this portion of the park had been forty feet, but was reduced to only eight feet in the area immediately adjoining the HOA. Among various other conclusions, the Staff Report concluded that the Mausoleum height would not adversely impact the views front the "viewing area" of neighboring Page 41 Attachments 1-97 Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes February 18, 2014 Page 2 properties. See Staff Repori, February 27, 2007, § 11.2. The construction of the Mausoleum was completed last year, and it is now in full operation. B. The Vista Verde HOA The HOA complex was developed in 1981, and contains twenty-five condominium units. Most of the units are constructed with a southeast orientation, giving the units a down -valley view of the ocean and harbor. Twenty$our of the units are single floor units, split on two floors. One unit northwest portion of the'property occupies two floors. The HOA property also contains a common pool and recreation' area located on the Southeast portion of the property. This portion of the property contains a spa, barbeque, area, a pool, and detached recreation room. This portion of the property formerly enjoyed ocean and harbor views. C. Mausoleum Impacts on the HOA Owners The Mausoleum has fundamentally changed the lives of every single person living at the HOA, on nearly every level imaginable. Words and even photographs cannot describe the result of this project. Its impact can only be fully absorbed in person, and to that end, the IIOA extends an invitation to any of you and your staff who have yet to visit the site. For current purposes, however, I will try to summarize some of the adverse impacts, and will present some visual materials at the hearing. The problems with the Mausoleum can be broadly grouped into three categories: (1) height; (2) proximity; and (3) operations. Height The height of the structure has completely blocked the ocean view of the first floor units. The first attached photograph shows the current view from one unit. The second floor units also have impaired views, but most significantly stiffer from the proximity and operations problems, as well as the ruin of the common area. The common pool and recreation area now sits in a 10 -foot deep hole occasioned by the north wall of the Mausoleum. While there is small sliver of view remaining, more than ninety percent of the pool area now faces a large concrete wall at a distance of eight feet. The character of this space is as drastically impacted as the first floor units. 1 enclose a few post -construction photographs of the pool area. Page 42 Attachments 1-98 Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes February 18,2014 Page 3 The height of the Mausoleum would need to be a full ten feet shorter i fit were to have not had the adverse impact on the views at the 110A property. The situation has left those at Vista Verde believing their precious views have been stolen from the living and sold to the deceased likely not a land use outcome the City had in mind and one that likely would not have occurred had Green Hills been entirely forthcoming. 2, Proximity & Operations It is difficult to assess whether the most severe impacts of the Mausoleum are owing to its height or its immediate proximity to the HOA. The approval of the roof top interrunents, when combined with the height and proximity issues has essentially moved the burial and mourning process directly in to the living rooms of every single HOA owner, The proximity is shocking, and now an inescapable aspect of daily life at the HO/at., The proximity of the roof top burials has destroyed the privacy and quiet enjoyment of both the HOA residents and those mourning just a few feet away. The problems are not limited to a few hours during services, but extend for days prior, involving excessive construction noise from plank installations, backhoe noise and exhaust (Vista Verde is down wind), among others funeral planning activities. Green Hills has elected to operate the above -ground burial sites with absolutely no consideration for the HOA members, The cemetery routinely breaks noise restrictions, permitting services to be broadcast by loud speaker, discharging firearms, and allowing loud music, live bands, among other forms of excessive noise, Green Hills refuses to enforce curfew, allowing park patrons to throw parties after hours on the roof of the Mausoleum, Green Hills' behavior toward the HOA residents is regularly hostile, including episodes of shouting at the residents to move away from their windows during services, among other retaliatory conduct. D. Requested Action The 1-10A asks that the Commission take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the current problem is mitigated. Primarily, the HOA requests that the current situation not be allowed to be compounded by future expansion of the ill -planned Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. Sufficient grounds exist to pursue modification of the Conditional Use Permit to eliminate future eastward expansion of the Mausoleum. That construction will only further eliminate views and destroy the quiet use and enjoyment of the neighboring residents. The allowance of an eight -foot setback on residential -adjacent construction of this type was a profound mistake should be rectified going forward. Page 43 Attachments 1-99 Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes February 18, 2014 Page 4 If future construction is allowed, the CUP should be substantially modified to adjust both the height and to eliminate the rooftop intertunents. The Commission should consider whether additional ordinances may be needed to regulate the use of the roof top portion of the Mausoleum going forward. Thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Michael D. McLachlan Encls. Page 44 Attachments 1-100 10/20/2014 From: Matthew Martin To: RPV Planning Commission and other City Personnel: I am writing to respond to various issues that I believe to be relevant to the October 28, 2014 hearing related to the Green Hills Conditional Use Permit. There are no operational changes (in lieu of restoring the original 80' setback in Area 11) which can be added or removed from the Green Hills conditional use permit which will mitigate the significant adverse impacts that the Mausoleum in Area 11 has on Vista Verde residents. The residents of Vista Verde have been objecting to and inquiring about the Mausoleum in Area 11 for over a year now. All of our certified letters (sent well before completion of the Mausoleum) to both Green Hills and the RPV senior planner were systematically ignored. In-person visits to the RPV planning department by residents prior to completion were also ignored. I personally asked Mr. Joel Rojas about this in-person at the RPV planning department and he responded that Green Hills wasn't legally obligated to respond to our inquiries. It wasn't until, then Mayor, Susan Brooks responded to one of our emails that a review into the matter was initiated and our concerns were heard. While I commend the city for hearing our concerns on this situation, I'm unsatisfied because of the lack of substantial action taken to address our issues to this point. Green Hills likely knew that the Mausoleum in Area 11 would have significant adverse impacts on the residents of Vista Verde prior to approval and construction. The evidence of this is substantial. The most glaring evidence is the pile of documentation from the original CUP application and approval in which above ground structures were disallowed in the area where they built one. It was disallowed because both the RPV Planning Commission and City Council (upon appeal) both foresaw the negative impacts which are now realized. These negative impacts were obvious and have been well documented in previous meetings and letters (substantial view impairment, noise/vibration, odors, exhaust emissions, drainage issues, health concerns, and violation of existing city code). Further evidence that Green Hills may have known of these impacts is shown by executive Ray Frew's testimony to the planning commission in February of 2014 that he knew the height of the Mausoleum was going to adversely impact Vista Verde residents. Records of these statements are in the RPV Video database. There are ample grounds for revocation of the Green Hills Conditional Use Permit. Despite contrary statements by Mr. Joel Rojas to the planning commission, the city appears to have the authority to revoke the Green Hills CUP under certain circumstances pursuant to RPV code 17.86.060. The following reasons are grounds for CUP revocation according to that code: A. The permit was issued erroneously; or B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the applicant; or C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code; or Attachments 1-101 D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such permit." The city has grounds for issuing a revocation hearing for the following reasons: Green Hilis has committed CUP violations and has not corrected them. This qualifies as exercising contrary to terms of the CUP (17.86.060(D)) shown above. The CUP revision in 2007 violated RPV municipal code. The revision was substantial enough that only the City Council (not the planning commission) had authority to approve it. RPV municipal 17.78.040(B) states that, "The amendment to the project (original CUP) shall be considered by the same body which took the final action in granting the original application, utilizing the same hearing and noticing procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures as required by this title, for consideration of the original application." Statements made by the Green Hilis Architect at the 2007 CUP revision hearing claim that the CUP revision wouldn't require significant changes to the original CUP. This statement is inconsistent with a setback change from 80' to 8' in Area 11 where the Mausoleum was built. The fact that a variance was required for this change (but not applied for) is evidence of the significance of the revision and its inadequate disclosure. This qualifies the CUP revision in 2007 as being issued contrary to municipal code (17.86.060(C and/or A)) shown above. Green Hills built a structure that they likely knew would have significant adverse impacts on neighboring residents (this action directly violates their conditional use permit application in which they state no adverse impacts on surrounding residents). There wasn't adequate disclosure by Green Hills or their architect to the City or to neighboring residents. Multiple statements that were included in the February 2007 staff report included at least 6 statements that explicitly said, the CUP revision would not modify previously approved setbacks. The reason this is significant is that the CUP revision in 2007 would not have complied with RPV municipal code 17.60.050(A)(1-6) for granting a conditional use permit if the setback change was adequately disclosed as shown below: "The planning commission, may grant a conditional use permit, only if it finds: 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood; 2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use; 3. That, in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof; 4. That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan; 5. That, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter; and Attachments 1-102 6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the planning commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffers; b. Fences or walls; c. Lighting; d. Vehicular ingress and egress; e. Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; f. Landscaping; g. Maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; h. Service roads or alleys; and i. Such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title." It's been admitted by the City of RPV that mistakes have been made here, big mistakes. These "mistakes" may have been due to inadequate disclosure and/or fraudulent information provided by Green Hills and their architect. After nearly a year of investigating this matter in depth it appears that the main problem at hand is the size and length of the Green Hills Master Plan (127 acres and 60+ years). These city council and planning commission hearings are not long enough to address and approve plans for 11+ structures and adequately inspect each one (especially after hours of addressing other city issues). I believe this is the reason that such an egregious oversight took place and Green Hills was able to get "approval" for a structure that wasn't adequately disclosed to the Planning Commission, the public, or the City Council. While Green Hills wishes to have each of these structures in their Master Plan to be treated as separate projects under separate permits, that isn't reality. All of these structures and setbacks were applied for under one permit and RPV code gives the City the authority to enforce the conditions of that permit as a whole. The illegal burials in the northwest corner of the property which violate the CUP and their subsequent actions towards the city are indicative of the manner in which Green Hills operates and treats their neighbors. The only way to prevent something like this from happening in the future is to revoke the Green Hills CUP and break down the 11+ projects over the next 60+ years into separate projects requiring individual permits, variances, and approvals. For this reason it's my hope that, rather than further monopolizing everyone's time in discussing operational changes, a revocation hearing should be scheduled in order for the city to properly review each proposed structure on a case by case basis in order to prevent something like this from ever happening again. As stated above, the only operational change to the CUP that would have any impact for Vista Verde is restoring the original 80' setback for above ground structures in Area 11 where the Mausoleum currently sits. I would also like to point out again that RPV code 17.78.040(B) states that, Attachments 1-103 "The amendment to the project (original CUP) shall be considered by the same body which took the final action in granting the original application, utilizing the same hearing and noticing procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures as required by this title, for consideration of the original application." It was the City Council, and not the planning commission, which took final action on the original CUP approval. As a result, the Planning Commission may not have the authority to modify the CUP in any substantial manner. Substantial amendments apparently must be approved by the City Council according to RPV municipal code 17.78.040(B). Substantial changes may also require a variance application. In regards to this fact, maybe it's best that this matter is differed to the RPV City Council going forward. Under any circumstance, Green Hills should be required to submit a variance application for the Mausoleum in Area 11 within a reasonable time frame (days rather than months). Kind Regards, Matthew Martin Attachments 1-104 Green Hills Area 1 1 Mausoleum Has Ruined our Community This presentation will show you why 74, 64011 Attachments 1-105 r-- 2/27/07 Environmental Checklist Form submitted by Eduardo Schonborn - pg 9 !VALUATION OF BN1ROIr1ENTAL S PACTS: aap.�.p k�.raedr toter MNnLMy Preasardly Lees Than No .ad Modes bierepassid 1. ArESTNttld. ward Q ► „ f 74 Ills prepaid: 1 • .rsnr,rd .mw on . rete .j dead b) dampsaoronot ante. 7 X resou l by liallad Mos, ccs. , rock Worked bidding" acrd pp - Winadaream=Natnry! eWae.tlyaged* the X e) aM.aripdart d h as stetter lir quality .le and ra.tibwa d) Caste d.ubrrAd light 1 X a rev soave or flora *Nob world advarry adapt dry NpMMae Veva In the or ars& Cocromis: The tiros C not Id cry speaks *lard corridor lama= t the the topography the an the city. subplot prapsry, ht Gema tilt niaryd. dose Non Oban tie IoWsshlrg feastio and the from the **Mg d IAaoaaaersa, ae ear Soret of and era an the de bid& all bepsesd, dam radbelndsorMd WOW the propria these Reatdrertherm toh soak rertaass alillooldemid are ideate and die a sleaoed OM auto. Eadike Candaypra/rprall *cm Ila wan awe= mdaea and mantatred Freta. the to the era oris aasd gravid cow. aeeadrmd This Popes= slopes does As audt, byes ale addrmd saedrrr aim lam nrthwsM nail. CotdLardsand the to Moo l ap.nert.lnce Woad don h alma lodonaranoeeyard. area hails b• bile lira h Masa. hatlaoardr..lfraresM tea w no Moss Ilia eararaMaa red VINO the ollh wads to nddso..overlook araswytile and ajam*ItalyMnrm VAN to h h d h Caaeeex h draro read.. babes! OM area eve =pada rraramares to aware brldapradar Men one Isis betM llmr thebaao ado die M.MrPIrr. but*,bililsed area buildings realnuetbb. beloaded kofweast WOW raraardrarr does and comply and ad t ell aiming above fen web be daarbusd fes =Adam Mwsbybl.sark® armed* approval the kntearrernre Rmnglrora dons kipper balks. up the apem anon do Maxie of and alnleddng e any al¢u pear along the roedaear. In Mooed the Weser Ns ars to kgtdor ode raga= seared ii, tbe amend ants not awe tared= In h bled Study, ere an pra*lae Furter. Molls hoe the parlor No readweye wadi +erisd krkra = the the a condition ornery doses buildings co at dusk. Thee, that a to provide Iowan that lith the for hes *r as ■ lir ser rroaraa. orroorMy at Mop arddors doe ..op8fr palsddrsoWwd *Ong dksy. odarir kairp on the nes Mak yea= be as nersoolaurn NMedner, are nM+rrrsary. No Idarap Crave bean neaps/ store Mama upon otj.wd r.ddseose, arbipfon morals added: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "the amendment proposes additional mausoleum area to the northwest area, adjacent to the maintenance yard. This area slopes down from the adjacent residences in the City of Lomita and the mausoleum buildings will be built into the slopes. As such, there are no issues with regards to view impairment since these residences overlook the cemetery site and they are at a significantly higher elevation to afford views over the area." Attachments 1-106 View from 2nd Floor Unit Attachments 1-107 Eduardo Schonborn provided assurance to commissioner Jim Knight that views from residential units to the north would not be impaired. Attachments 1-108 Revisions to Green Hills conditional use permit no.155 on 4/24/07 were based upon false or negligent findings. "Since the original Master Plan was approved through a conditional use permit (CUP No. 155), a revision is necessary since modifications are being proposed to the master plan that includes additional mausoleum area and grading. In considering a conditional use permit application or a revision to a previously approved conditional use permit application, Development Code Section 17.60.050 requires the Planning Commission to adopt the following six findings in reference to the property and uses under consideration. " (finding #3 In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof.) "...the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the perimeter of the cemetery site." "...an environmental assessment of the proposal found that the proposed project would not create significant adverse affects with appropriate mitigation measures. As such, for these reasons, there will be no significant effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, and this finding can be made and adopted." Clearly there were significant adverse impacts to the adjacent property (Vista Verde), as shown in this powerpoint. The setbacks were indeed reduced from 80' to 8' on this date. Attachments 1-109 2/27/07 Environmental Checklist Form submitted by Eduardo Schonborn - sec IX pg 19 "This use is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which designates Green Hills as Open Space -Recreational (OR) and Cemetery, respectively" Attachments 1-110 OL LAND USE AND PIANM O. Would to prq o : a) Physkany avid. an .alabialhed community? 1,4 X b) Conflict with any applicable land we pion, poky. or regulation of an agency 1,4 X with JurledeSon CYat the project but emttsd (Including, not to the gourd burl WolkWinWolkplan, casette plan. or Wooled for the =Ws ordinance) emboss of avoiding or mitigating an wniomwttel afford? c) Coact aCh any applicable habitat commune), uney 1,4,9,10 X mhailiveten plan or natural corwnesbn plan? Comments: The proposed project consists of bIal ito 5 the Wafer Pian 10 allow for additional ground btaW al as, a On amending belays bmetrolmnaonlgued oared along mouth side of ase, qct w, d the bulking tln terence aadditive!mmuealum play CW I ndidmm Wigwams Orman vont aAiinbbMbn kaput Rio Is and south of the OA/e Cemetery. r_ of lumen pramva, tura ail be mai yard, and additional Gond PWt &ra Ou cif/ n ,W. we tsnelNnnt with Ilse as Open (OR) and Ordinance, the ltWmnro and utfraly. It I remits. Leidy, and Is not located ng WcS, afdtlh WM Its Meant Zoning the Cays also consistent of tis Cha project elle Is not Included in Ina ed)sown to any edeang or Impacts from Cr wAtich permanent Natural Ain Consmvalbn (NCCP) S*dcwd Ana As proposed (BEA). such, sal respect to use and plan eg toward. no arwitarnarMel resulting proposed project "This use is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which designates Green Hills as Open Space -Recreational (OR) and Cemetery, respectively" Attachments 1-110 Memorial Terrace Mausoleum Violates RPVMC 17.2.440 oral development strnrderda. The Inibieing eianderds shim so* to cemetery districts~ A. $plbsopi The tollowing setback provisions apply to etl structures end below grade irk: 1. Front and 8hret8ide. The front and street side tielbeoles shell be tointy,frie fiat. 2. Interior Bide and Riper, it ghats a materna zoning dielaat, the Interior eide.and mew $i I* lw that be forty feel. N abutting a nomesidentiel Planing district, the Interior side and rear s.e.ald AO be telentOre irk 5. &Milne Height. The remdnurm height deny bolding shell be Winn f �r elth the .{.'w ... _ !I 11 . •. 1. • 11..1 ^.•:1 II I 4 .t 1. • MTI '.l Ittl1 // �� peaky* W Pewit.) C DI Mu .M AO ~4 irossolowswres• • . PoweadiRiamob by New SWAM WW1& m wwiilwd two QwwtLw The Memorial Terrace Mausoleum violates RPVMC by having rear setbacks of 8' while abutting a residential zoning district. Notice that it doesn't include the CUP exception as the building height does. This directly contradicts Eduardos statements on the prior slide Attachments 1-111 2/27/07 Environmental Checklist Form submitted b Eduardo Schonborn - sec XI pg 20 Y The proposal, contrary to what Eduardo Schonborn submitted above, permanently and significantly increased the noise and especially the groundborn vibration levels as shown in the video on the next slide. Eduardo failed to consider effects of the proposal from ongoing operations Attachments 1-112 XL NOISF. Would the proposal naMt In: a) Exposure of parsons b or gewgaw of levels In X noise atoms of stsndrds in the local mlaEfsbed general plan or nobs ordnance, or applicable standards al to Cs: .411-olpsnonor exce•dw pousleOnr vlbrason or levels? gutaldhcme noise A l M b X permanentbas c) sidelnslsm levels In the e I* *W noise ceded Web the vidnKy above existing wMhad MOW anbsindd temporary or In the project Minify stow Nees westing **lout the project? X e) For a prejset basted wain an atpod land use or. whys such o pin hes two X not wNrh nibs of a public ora pubo we airport, world prow =Pon pmpls residing vaxklngi len the project ane to Isysb? noise f) Fora wilds the vicinity of • to X prate ward Row @vole Poopl• arwMYq In the pitied •r•• to raw levels? Y The proposal, contrary to what Eduardo Schonborn submitted above, permanently and significantly increased the noise and especially the groundborn vibration levels as shown in the video on the next slide. Eduardo failed to consider effects of the proposal from ongoing operations Attachments 1-112 Attachments 1-113 Daily Operations... digging and filling in holes. Vibrations and noise felt throughout the entire condo with all doors and windows closed ice'---- - Attachments 1-114 Heavy equipment on top of hollow building = Bass Di um Effect Attachments 1-115 The following underlined modified conditions of the Green Hills Master Plan were made on 4/24/07 without any editing or comment at the meeting. 6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shah be as follows: North and ast and West: 0'-0" • • • Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Mausoleum shown In Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision) and crypts shall be as follows: North: 80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater (8'-0" for the westem-most portion of the Mausoleum shown (n Area 11) South: 40'-0° East: 25'-0° West: 5'-0" Attachments 1-116 Eduardo Schonborn included no staff discussion, review, or comment about condition number 7 which reduced the north border setback from 80' to 8'. Staff did, however, include discussion on 11 other conditions which a reasonable person would deem much Tess significant. We could find no public record of any substantial discussion with the commission about this multi-million dollar modification. ANALYSIS As indicated above. the applicant submitted proposed modifications to Staffs proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures, which are attached and titled `Modifications to Conditions of Approval Proposed by Applicant' In reviewing the applicant's proposed modifications. Staff has categorized the modifications into those that are acceptable to Staff as proposed; acceptable to Staff with further modifications, and not acceptable to Staff ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF Staff is amenable to accepting the requested modifications which provide clarification or further the in finds acceptable as proposed by the applicant are to conditions lc. 3, 5 A-1, 5 AQ -1, 5 AQ -10, 5 AQ attached `Modified Conditions of Approval Proposed by Applicant° conditions Specifically, the modifications Staff 19, 21, 23, 28, 35, and 36, as identified in the Attachments 1-117 Rooftop burials were not properly disclosed to the planning commission. The term "ground burials" are used throughout the master plan which is distinct from a rooftop burial. A burial on top of a 30' tall structure isn't a ground burial. At the 2/24/14 planning commission hearing some members stated that they had no idea they were approving rooftop burials including Jeffrey Lewis, the Chair of RPV Planning Commission. The following email was sent by Mr. Lewis to the PC on 3/10/14 Chairman Emenhiser and Members of the Planning Commission, 1 am writing regarding Item No. 2 on your Agenda for your March 11 meeting, the preen ]dills muter. For what its worth, I agree with Staffs Recommendation on the language concerning the time limit of the moratorium. In making the motion two weeks ago, it was my intent to give staff and the property owner adequate time to agree to conditions to mitigate the problems from the rooftop burials. To the extent that such conditions are proposed by staff and passed by the commission prior to the expiration of 90 days, the moratorium should be lifted early. I do not agree with staff that plots purchased prior to the moratorium should be grandfathered in. When 1 made my motion two weeks ago, l was cognizant of two things: Post, the property owners represented that they had zero control over the hours of the burials and the attendant privacy impacts and noise (Le. guoflre at military burials). Second, prior to the completion of this mausoleum, the property owners afforded customers who pre - purchased a rooftop grave a choice: a temporary interrunent at a temporary location with relocation later or burial at another location. There is no reason that this approach cannot also apply for the next 90 days. While this may impose some burden on the property owner, the PC could Judge that burden appropriate in light of the pct that the prior application to build the mausoletnn and conduct rooftop burials was neither highlighted nor scussed with the commission when the commission approved it in 2007. The resolution, as presently drafted by sta$ does not conform to my intent when I made my motion. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Lewis Attachments 1-118 Green Hills Area 1 1 Mausoleum Has Ruined our Community This presentation will show you why t ( ?Lei Az -a k_4,Y (Ze,c:.s Tte so To "3 '-t r -e ) Attachments 1-119 2 Before Mausoleum Attachments 1-120 3 After Mausoleum Attachments 1-121 Major Issues o Height o Proximity o Operations 4 Attachments 1-122 1-122 Height o Why was Green Hills allowed tczbui_ld_8-10 feet higher than originally approved? o Why was the destruction of our ocean and city views not taken into account? o Why was the impact to our pool, recreation, and BBQ area not considered? o Flagging wasn't done prior to construction so our community had no idea what was going to happen Attachments 1-123 yvv,,,y4 V 4 v 6 Why was the setback from the property line changed from 40 feet to 8 feet? ro Why was our privacy and peace of mind ignored? o Did GH mislead the commission on what was being constructed? Attachments 1-124 7 Daisy Operations... digging and filling in holes. Vibrations and noise felt throughout the entire condo with all doors and windows closed east.‘ • ••---4_: .4111110 Attachments 1- 25 8 (zc Attachments 1-126 Operations 9 o Why was no consideration given to the impact that heavy construction equipment, loud funerals, and constant group gatherings would have on our community? The very loud noise and vibrations from heavy construction equipment operating on top of a hollow building 8 feet away wasn't considered. (bass drum effect) Mourning individuals and families were brought into our living rooms qzL Attachments 1-1 7 10 Constant Construction Site (or mourning familie loved ones, why use our balconies? Attachments 1-128 Attachments 1-129 Typilca0 OunavaD gervica, HcA .Rh© bac kycrd DM1 12 ThOg w1011 happan cmgir •jfl" I' ' "pa 111 gi ralaM" / 3 'Pr Attachments 1-130 13 Green Hills Initial ResponsG„. o 3 letters sent via ceritfied mail to Green Hills expressing concerns once the full impact of the Mausoleum was realized. o Not only were those letters not responded to, but the CEO claimed in the February 2014 RPV meeting that they did not receive anything from the Vista Verde Community. o These letters were sent prior to the first burial in the Mausoleum requesting that progress was halted to resolve issues (3(7, Attachments 1-131 14 Trusted the Process `f Attachments -132 • 15 Mistakes were made and A. Taken by RPV Commission At the Planning Commission Meeting on February 25, 2014 the Commissioners say, "Had they known any of those factors and the impacts they would NOT have approved the Plan". One member stated that he had no idea about rooftop burials at the time of approval. That in turn led to the unanimous decisions of all Commissioners to issue an order to GH to stop any rooftop services at the Mausoleum for 90 days to see if a solution could be found between GH and VV. Even that motion was later modified to allow GH an "accommodation" to conduct services on the rooftop "if the site had been previously purchased". . Attachments 1-133 y4; 21 GH violated the Planning Commissions IntelK o The original staff report from the 2007 process "concluded that the Mausoleum would not adversely impact the views from the `viewing area' of properties" o Really???,... 1) V; Attachments 1-134 22 View from 2 level Unit 1(/ Attachments 1-135 23 o The GH CEO clearly stated at the February 2014 RPV Meeting that prior to construction he walked on the ramp and that caused him to "question his people whether the Mausoleum construction was fully approved". It was evident that he could see the problems that would be created. "Why can we build so high?" He asked. Yet they continued anyways. o This is proof that GH top executive knew exactly what they were doing 18AG Attachments 1-136 24 Why did they do this??? o The statements by both the GH CEO and COO at the Meeting described the fact they had come up with the idea of the Mausoleum and rooftop burials when they visited parks in other states. They were intrigued by these setups as they would clearly improve their Return On Investment (ROI) and in fact they had devised a way to "fit" 400+ sites on the rooftop as an even greater impact on their ROI. This was described as "essential". Further they referred to the appeal of the location as it provided panoramic views which would allow a premium sales price for lots and in fact refer to the location apparently as "Inspiration Slope". Clearly the motivation was present to develop these spots for their own financial gain. o Green Hills claims on their website to operate as a Not-for- profit organization.... 10-11 Attachments 1-137 7_0(2,G Attachments 1-138 26 The problem... o The problem is obvious—THEIR GAIN RESULTED IN LOSSES FOR THE OWNERS AT VV. This on top of the clear statement that they likely were aware of in the 2007 report that there would be no adverse impact to VV views makes this entire situation even more frustrating to the Owners at VV. Why were previous setback and height restrictions changed? 24(-2.4 Attachments 1-139 27 ood jhbor o Green Hills represented themselves as a `Good Neighbor' at the February 2014 RPV meeting.... o Mockery? o The truth is that many Vista Verde residents have lived in the complex for decades. Some for 25+ years! Its Vista Verde that was a good neighbor r. Our community is made up of mostly retirement aged residents and simple working class people. o Did GH knowingly take advantage of this fact and exploit us? o That doesn't sound like a good neighbor at all Attachments 1-140 28 Devastating Impacts o Loss of value to working class condo owners o Loss of privacy Loss of quality of life 0 Loss of views o Constant construction noise which can be heard and felt from inside our homes with all doors and windows closed o Grave stones so close that the names on them can be read from inside a home o Mourning families brought into our living rooms o Pool, Rec, and BBQ area rendered nearly unusuable - especially during activity periods on the Mausoleum. -43(7i• Attachments 1-141 Solutions 29 o Require GH to move the Mausoleum structure back to at least 40 feet from the property line and reduce the height of the Mausoleum by at least 10 feet per prior code. This along with some restrictions on use and operation would restore our quality of life prior to the construction. It would fulfill the stated commitment in the 2007 Staff Report, to not negatively impact views. GH has 125 acres and millions of dollars to work with (-(7 24° Attachments 1-142 30 Solutions continuec o Short of moving the Mausoleum or reducing its height..... o Absolutely no future sales of plots on the roof of existing Area 11 Mausoleum Restriction on the remaining burials and operations o No use of any heavy mechanized equipment on the roof o Remaining funeral services face AWAY from our community not towards us as has happened over and over o No use of bands, sound amplification equipment, gun salutes, or any other loud and invasive actions at any time. (pre existing sales to military and police service members excluded) o Significant time restrictions to say services and activities only on Tuesday through Thursday from 11:00 AM - 3:00 PM. o Management level GH person to be present during entire service to ensure no noise, including no amplification whatsoever. o Screening around services area with services directed away from VV. Attachments 1 43 2(,174 Attachments 1-144 Carolynn Petru From: SHARONLOVEYS <Sharon.Loveys@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 5:57 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: Fwd: Emailing: CCF01062015_00003.pdf, CCF01062015_00000.pdf, CCF01062015_ 00001.pdf, CCF01062015_00002.pdf Attachments: CCF01062015_00003.pdf; ATT00001.htm; CCF01062015_00000.pdf; ATT00002.htm; CCF01062015_00001.pdf; ATT00003.htm; CCF01062015_00002.pdf; ATT00004.htm Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Carolynn, Enclosed you will find copies of the Public Notices I shared at the Planning Commission meeting on August 12, 2014. Perhaps you will remember, I was explaining to the commissioners the reason that not one single resident showed up at the Public meeting on February 20, 2007. The only part of the Public Notice that applied to us was on page 2, bullet 6, "allowing an addition to the previously approved mausoleum building located southeast of the existing maintenance yard, from a 22,187 square foot building footprint to a 33,668 square foot building footprint and" we noticed it did not affect us as we we were west of the maintenance yard. Contrast and compare the two Public Notices June 7, 1990 they sent a Revised Notice to the local residents. "A 32 foot reduction to the required 40 foot setback for below ground interments and "garden"burial sites adjacent to all property lines. This would leave a 8 foot setback from the property line". Notice the Revised Notice states to ALL PROPERTY LINES. The 8 foot property line in this statement brought out local residents from the surrounding areas, Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita. Seems to me that they wanted to get 16 feet extra below ground interments around the whole perimeter of the cemetery. The resident outcry was obvious and the required Varience was denied. Imagine in 2007 what would have happened if they were honest and mentioned a Mausoleum with roof top burials WEST of the maintenance yard. Instead they were approving an addition to the previously approved mausoleum, a building that was never built east of maintenance yard. A mausoleum that invades personal privacy for their OWN grieving clients and neighbors. It failed in 1990, and it does not take a genius to understand why they are frightened to apply for an "after the fact variance". Brings me to this unbelievable "After the fact Varience" . Who passed a law where someone / group does something illegal, then they are allowed 4 or 5 months and not take advantage of a law that POSSIBLY could help them! In some of the conversations I have witnessed, to my shock , that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would apply for them. I Pray that common sense prevails in this horrible situation. City Council needs to reinstate the Moratorium, on the whole mausoleum, as this is an illegal building. It exposes how some people think they are above the law and in the process hurt innocent people at the most vulnerable time in their lives. I pray/ beg you to do the right thing and have them move this building to it right location... It will not hurt the innocent people and their families because moving the building,moves it in tact to its correct location, EAST OF THE MAINTENANCE YARD. Trust this will bring a smile to many faces and MOST IMPORTANT bring back credibility to Green Hills throughout the community before this illegal mausoleum was build. It will me! Thank you, Sharon L. Loveys Begin forwarded message i Attachments 1-145 From: Karl Loveys <kloveys©psomas.com> Subject: Emailing: CCF01062015_00003.pdf, CCF01062015_00000.pdf, CCF01062015_00001.pdf, CCF01062015_00002. pdf Date: January 6, 2015 at 7:11:03 PM PST To: "'sharon.loveys(a�yahoo.comm <sharon.loveys(a�yahoo.com> Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: CCF0106201500003.pd CCF0106201500000.pdf CCF0106201500001.pdf CCF01062015_00002.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 2 Attachments 1-146 RANCNO PALOS VERDES June 7, 1990 REVISED NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at 7;30 p.m. at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, to consider: Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1442 and Variance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the Master Plan and the Grading Application is required for the proposed 194,340 cubic yards of earth movement. The Environmental Assessment addresses the entire project. The Variance is required for the following items: 1. A 10 foot reduction to the required 25 foot setback for all above ground structures adjacent to the west property line, (abutting Rolling Hills Covenant Church and the reservoir). This would leave a 15 foot setback from the property line. 2. A 32 foot reduction to the required 40 foot setback for below ground interments and "garden" burial sites adjacent to all property lines. This would leave a 8 foot setback from the property line. Location; 27501 S. Western Avenue Applicant: Green Hills Memorial Park All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and to attend and give testimony. Applications and plans are on file with the Environmental Services Department at City Ball, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contact Lauire B. Jester for further information at 377-6008. Robert Benard Director of Environmental Services 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 902745391 / (213) 377-0360 Attachments 1-147 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS ECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 464•Wit 6 0 ILDING & CEMENT PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT February 6, 2007 _N2FTEBY4A2s12007 PUBLIC NOTICE MAR 22 ?flO7 PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • * RD :241'. OAP FEB 2 0 2007 CONNY 8, McCOR CK, COUNTY CLF -RK '41'44 4.:nolt M. SMITI-I DEPUTY The City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has analyzed the request for ZON2003-00086, a Master Plan Revision for Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery, located at 27501 Westem Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (Thomas Guide: Page 793, H & J-7). The project is described as: Amend the originally approved Master Plan for the Green Hills Memorial Park that addresses build -out of the cemetery site over the next 30- to 50 -years. The originally approved Master Plan and subsequent Master Grading Plan included 194,340 cubic yards of grading (97,170 cu. yds. of cut and 97,170 cu. yds. of fill) to be balanced on site (i.e., no import or export), construction of 2.44 acres of mausoleum buildings, 11.87 acres of "garden" burial sites, 27.21 acres of ground burial sites and 3.72 acres of roads. The amendments to the originally approved Master Plan include: 1) acknowledgment that the actual quantity of grading that has been conducted between 1991 through 2004, which is 288,814 cubic yards (cut and fill), is 89,475 cubic yards more than originally approved by the Master Plan; 2) allowing up to a total of 643,259 cubic yards of grading, which includes 97,964 cubic yards of import for the proposed mausoleum buildings, and all cut and fill associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery site for the life of the Master Plan. The imported fill material will be conducted in phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over an extended period of time over the next 30- to 50 -years; 3) clarification that the total number of ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorial Park to be 13,589 Double Depth Burials (27,178 interments), 388 Single Depth Burials (388 interments), and 408 family estates (4080 interments); 4) allowing a reconfiguration, relocation and additional area to the previously approved mausoleum building, which was proposed under the original Master Plan to be at the south side of the cemetery, from one mausoleum building with a 77,715 square foot footprint, to 5 separate mausoleum buildings with each footprint 07 0024232 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING/COOF: ENFORCEMENT (310) 544-5220/ BUILDING (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 / E-MAIL; PLANNINGQRPVCOM Attachments 1-148 PUBLIC NOTICE ZON2003-00086 (CUP, GR & EA) February 6, 2007 Page 2 measuring 23,653 square feet at a location that is approximately 300 -feet farther west than approved in the original MasterPlan; 5) allowing a new 75,131 square foot mausoleum building to the west of the existing mortuary, whereby 9,871 square feet will be above grade and 65,260 square feet will be below grade; 6) allowing an addition to the previously approved mausoleum building located southeast of the existing maintenance yard, from a 22,187 square foot building footprint to a 33,668 square foot building footprint; and, 7) reducing the size of the previously approved mausoleum building footprint at the southwest side of the cemetery, from a 60,583 square foot building footprint to a 37,820 square foot building footprint. In summary, the amendment includes a net increase of 2.17 acres (Le., 94,525 square feet) of mausoleum footprint area. After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for the project, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has determined that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Public comments will be received by the City prior to final approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and action on the project, for a period of at least 20 days, from Tuesday February 6, 2007 through 12:00 noon on Monday February 26, 2007. A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to discuss the proposed project, including the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. A copy of all relevant material, including the project specifications, Initial Study, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is on file in the offices of the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and are available for review from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Thursday, and from. 7:30 am to 4:30 pm on Friday. In addition to the commenting period noted above for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City requests that written comments be provided to the city by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 to ensure inclusion of your comments with the Staff Report. Written comments submitted after Tuesday, February 20th, but before 12:00 noon on Monday February 26, 2006, will be given to the Planning Commission on the night of the meeting. The Commission will not consider any written comments that are submitted after the Monday (February 26th) noon deadline. However, any late correspondence will be distributed to the 07 0024232 Attachments 1-149 PUBLIC NOTICE Z0N2003-00086 (CUP, GR & EA) February 6, 2007 Page 2 Commission as part of a future agenda packet, provided thatthe item is continued to a later date. To receive a copy of the Initial Study, or for additional information, pleasel contact Senior Planner Eduardo Schonbom, ACP, at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at eduanios@rpv.com. Joe -4jas, ACP Dir:. of Planning, Buil. g and Code Enforcement STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at, or prior to, the public hearing, Please publish in the Peninsula News on Thursday, February 8, 2007. 07 0024232 Attachments 1-150 01-08-15 Carolynn Petru Deputy City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Appeal of the Planning Commissions's Nov 11, 2014 Decision setforth in P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 to rectify illegal actions/encroachments/damages by Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue Ms. Petru: I have grave concerns regarding the above appeal by Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue. The notice dated 12-22-14 stated that Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery wants to undo the Planning Commission's decision to rectify Green Hills Cemetery's illegal and unconscionable acts that have caused great harm to the adjoining property owners? I have been a resident owner at 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. North #111, since 1988. My purchase of the property was primarily made because of the unobstructed ocean view and openness of the landscape in front of my living room and dining room. This is my only home and I have been ruinously impacted by Green Hills Cemetery's continual illegal actions; below is a partial list of damages I have suffered due to these actions: • Loss of property value • Complete loss of ocean view, replaced by concrete walls of the mausoleum. • Obstructed vista views, building a ramp to access the roof top graves in front of my home, making me feel as though Green Hills Cemetery is entombing me while I'm still alive. • Loss of 40 ft set -back so that now my living room and dining room are part of every funeral service as well as continuous visitations by grieving mourners. • Complete loss of privacy in my home • Complete loss of the enjoyment of my home The City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes has the opportunity to deny Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery's appeal of P.C. RESOLUTION 2014-29, so that Green Hills will be forced to correct the damages their lack of integrity and complete disregard for the rules protecting the neighboring property owners has caused. Respectfully submitted by property owner & resident of 2110 Palos Verdes Dr North #111 Attachments 1-151 Carolynn Petru From: James Gordon <bubba32@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:04 AM To: Rich Martin; CC Cc: Diane Smith; gummyg@cox.net Subject: Re: Material for City Council Meeting 1-20-15 Re: Green Hills Appeal All Glad to see that you are on this case. Just for information, as of this morning there is no Agenda on the City website for this meeting. I had called the Planning Department earlier (Eduardo) who told me the agenda would be available before January 8th. This is just one more compelling reason the subject matter should not be reviewed by the City Council until the current and incomplete investigation into Joel and Eduardo's conduct with the GH decisions of April 24, 2007 have been publicly concluded. The record of this problematical decision demonstrates a pattern and practice of deceit. The Staff Report for the February meeting (2007) states that there will be not change or reduction of the existing setbacks. That proved to be False! The Staff Report for the April 24th 2007 meeting surreptitiously included Staff's approval of a 8' Mausoleum setback, contrary to the City Code and all prior reports and conclusions published. The stated "rationale" given for approving the 8' setback (vs. 80') was incredibly disingenuous as "furthering the purpose of the conditions". Not explained further and obviously the purpose of any such conditions was to require consistency with the City's Municipal Code, among many other unfulfilled purposes. The response (in the 27 April 2007 Video Record) given by Joel and Eduardo to Commissioner Knight at the conclusion of that planning meeting was False and misleading. "Just say No" was the purposely deceptive response regarding any view or other environmental negative impacts from the pending approval of a Mausoleum in this area. Incredibly, the accompanying architectural cross sectional drawing of the proposed North Western Mausoleum showing a structure being built completely within the existing grade embankment in front of the residential condominiums there, turned out to be completely False. Joel actually also signed off on the resulting two Resolutions (numbers 32 & 33) which specified that the approval did not create any view or other negative impacts. A flat out lie! Resolution -33 further denied that there were ANY Mausoleums being built along the northern border that abutted residential units. Believe it or Not! That is why neither Joel nor Eduardo should be participants in the forthcoming review and appeal. Their inputs have proven to be deceptive and self-serving in the record. A significant and overriding reason this appeal should be denied and not move forward in its present configuration is that RPV City Code requires that the approval given in 2007 by the Planning Commission, actually was improper because 1 Attachments 1-152 such approval could only come from the original (City Council) approving body. Why have Joel and Eduardo not been confronted this key point? Green Hills is not some innocent and pure entity, having violated their CUP setback requirements for interment within 16' of the NW property line that had been denied three times before. Green Hills had also falsely submitted plat maps in 2010 to the LA County Recorder that asserted these 44 NW corner plots were consistent with existing regulations and Conditions of Approval. Green Hills officials have failed to admit such sale and interments voluntarily to RPV, nor had RPV Planning independently discovered those violations, relying instead on local residents to point out these setback violations instead. That fact is a clear demonstration that RPV Planning has seriously failed to enforce the Green Hills CUP. To date, Green Hills has failed to acknowledge the dates and amounts of sale and interments in the prohibited 44 plot sites. The resulting illegal financial gains and timing have not yet been discovered and should be publicly revealed prior to any City Council decision to decide on the merits of any Appeal. Unless and until the offending parties have been fully and completely exonerated here, no further action should be taken to address any Appeal as now being considered. Jim Gordon Sent from my iPad On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Rich Martin <rmartin@unifiedgrocers.com> wrote: Diane & Jim, FYI—Copy of my submission for upcoming City Council Meeting. Diane—Should this be sent to the Cemetery Board too? Rich From: Rich Martin Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:40 AM To: 'carolynn@rpv.com' Subject: FW: Material for City Council Meeting 1-20-15 Re: Green Hills Appeal By Electronic Mail Ms. Carolynn Petru Acting City Manager Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Ms. Petru: Enclosed above, please find electronic files for the following: -My letter dtd. January 7, 2015 -Attachments referenced in that letter are as follows: 2 January 7, 2015 Attachments 1-153 My communications: -Letter to Planning Commission dtd. October 27, 2014 -Letter to Planning Commission dtd, August 7, 2014 -Letter to Planning Commission dtd. April 22, 2014, which refers to: -Letter from Attorney Michael D McLachlan—which is included Other items: -Letter from Matthew Martin dtd. October 20, 2014 -Power point #1 -Power point #2 I recognize this is a lot of material, but understood that since this was the first hearing for the City Council that you wanted material to help "bring the Council Members up to date". I will arrange for a hard copy of all items to be delivered via Fed Ex on 1/8/15. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Richard J Martin Owner Unit #208 Cell (310) 594-4281 Please do not include in material posted for the public <Word Version of 1-7-15 City Council Letter.docx> <Word version of 10 -27 -RPV Letter.docx> <Word version of 8-14 Commission Letter.docx> <Planning Commission --Letter 4-22-14.docx> <Vista Verde --Attorney Michael McLachlan letter dtd 2-18-14 to Planning Commission.pdf <RPV PV Letter --October 2014--dtd 10-20-14.docx> <Power Point 1 for 1-17-15 City Council Letter.pdf <Power Point 2 for 1-17-15 City Council Letter.pdfy 3 Attachments 1-154 From: Matthew Martin 1/8/15 To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: I believe the decisions made by the Planning Commission in regards to Green Hills should be upheld and their appeal denied. Green Hills should be required to apply for a variance for the Mausoleum in Area 11 because: 1. The RPV Code, which requires a 40 foot setback for above ground structures in a cemetery district abutting a residential area, supersedes the setback change in the Green Hills CUP. According to the RPV city attorney, a variance is required to change that 40 foot setback. 2. It appears that Green Hills may not have accurately disclosed to the Planning Commission, nor the public, what the Area 11 Mausoleum was going to be. Two former planning commissioners from the 2007 CUP revision meetings made statements that they were not aware that they were approving any substantial setback changes, view impairing buildings, or buildings that would impact neighboring residential areas in any way. Green Hills submitted the following site section schematic on page 11-D of the 2007 Master Plan Revision Submittal Booklet for the west wing (the currently existing construction in front of Vista Verde) of the Area 11 Mausoleum: 9,11,00 OF:r%STS CL;ME"1 W ROADWAY SGH);MATI TION / V T WING 1kt IIIIN 11.1,10M MASTER DEVELOPMENT PIAN GAIlEN 14111.S MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CAI IFORNtA MASTER ES PLAN AFIEA 11 MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING 11-D The site section shows an existing grade of approximately 45 degrees (shown as a dotted line above). The site section also shows a building that is built into a large and nearly 40 foot tall Attachments 1-155 existing hill. The total height of the building (at the rear) is shown as not exceeding the height of the preexisting hill except for a 42" guardrail. In reality, the Mausoleum in Area 11 was built on an existing grade that was nearly flat. It was not built into a large 40 foot tall hill, and the top of the building (at the rear) now extends at least 13 feet above the preexisting grade and severely impacts neighboring residents. The 2/27/07 staff report, which was submitted to the Planning Commission with the Master Plan Revision Booklet, confirms that all buildings were presented as being built into large preexisting hills. That same staff report also states that preexisting setbacks weren't being altered with revision. Below are some excerpts from that staff report: "With approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for mausoleum buildings and ground interments were established. These setbacks will not be modified or reduced with the additional mausoleum buildings. The additional buildings requested through the revision include additions to the already approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However, they will continue to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site, rather than along its perimeter." "In regards to significant impacts to views from neighboring properties, Staff believes that the grading will not adversely impact any views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausoleum buildings and ground interments. The locations of the mausoleum buildings and the associated backfill continue to be within the internal portions of the cemetery site, and no mausoleum buildings are proposed along the perimeters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and south. The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site. Further, with the exception of the Inspiration Slope mausoleum building, the existing Master Plan limited the heights of buildings, and this Revision does not modify nor requests to modify, the previously approved heights." The Planning Commission may not have been presented an accurate representation of what was built. According to two former Planning Commission members, they would not have approved the Mausoleum in Area 11 had the facts been adequately disclosed to them. The following link is to a video clip from the 4/24/07 Planning Commission meeting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8aWm hzkSQ 3. The Mausoleum appears to violate the height restrictions imposed by their CUP. It's my opinion that the Council should consider one or more of the following remedies to the situation (in addition to, or in lieu of, requiring a retroactive variance application): 1. Lowering the height of the Mausoleum in order to reflect what was presented to the Planning Commission on page 11-D of the Master Plan Revision Submittal booklet and in the Staff Report. The rear of the Mausoleum should not exceed the height of the preexisting grade and should not have adverse impacts on neighboring residents. 2. Require Green Hills to move the Mausoleum east of its current location in order to comply with RPV Municipal code and its existing variance (the one approved in the original master plan from Attachments 1-156 the 1990s). This solution would allow all existing internments to remain intact and impacts on neighboring residents would be mitigated. Green Hills has a vested right to operate their business - but within the confines of their conditions of approval. The RPV staff has confirmed multiple CUP violations of varying severity including height violation of the Mausoleum itself. Revocation of their CUP should be considered if they are unwilling to operate in compliance with RPV Laws and/or their CUP. I, along with other residents of the Vista Verde Community, have compassion for the families of those interred by Green Hills. It's appropriate and necessary that their interests are addressed in any decisions made by the Council. Thank you, Matthew Martin Attachments 1-157 Carolynn Petru From: Linda Ott <Isottcom@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 12:00 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: Pacific Terrace Mauseleum This is a sacred place. My voice is one of fifty residents of Vista Verde. These words are mine alone. A unique cross-section of intersecting life and lives. My partner has owned our home for decades. vista Verde has been my home for eighteen years. These brief remarks are neither rebuke nor said with vitriol nor anger. yet, somehow, within this place and time, these words must finally take form within a most public of settings. These are my words and voice alone . One of fifty. I watched keenly as the first erection of a chain link fence appeared with a sign "Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Now Available" draped. I read with care announcements of an 'indoor mausoleum'. I recorded the process in word and film. The grading and preparation of the hole in the earth inches from our property line. our home faces the West --without balcony --with 3 picture windows. Ones capturing the verdant hills Palo Verdes, the amber light of RPV, a ribbon of the Pacific ocea, cranes of the harbor and a panorama of a storied and sacred place name Green Hills --one of distinction, of stunning beauty --of celebration of life and passing. This too is our home. As the grading continued, we breathed the dirt filled air of each layer of history.. dug deeply . Of blades cutting the slope, trucks exporting earth. Layers of boulders, poof dirt, settled earth nearly defying the dig itself. With great interest I saw the iron work, the cement as layers became form. The men known only by voice and sight who built this place. "They own the land" Deb said in quieting words. Words such a easements, CUPS, footprints were unknown. I had not studied pencil drawings, Master Plans an thousands of print. I had not seen the white scalene triangle of my home. 1 Attachments 1-158 Sent from my iPad 2 Attachments 1-159 Carolynn Petru From: Linda Ott <Isottcom@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 12:14 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: Cont VV I remember the glistening concrete of what I thought was indeed the finish. The wooden fencing replaced by grey enclosures extending the length and breadth. The 4 story crane breaking the horizon as hundred and hundred of enclosures were brought to the top. And then the dirt. Brown loamy dirt brought by truck --piled to the heavens. Rolled and rolled and pounded and rolled. The gray walls intact, google satellites alone could capture the site from the sky. "there are hundreds of graves on top' I said I now transformed to what would become the rooftop burial grounds for hundreds of souls. Benches and grass and platforms and iron fencing ---far beyond common sense. Pacific Terrace Mausoleum was born. Then celebrated with wine and art, music and food. hearing of gravely voices of men saying "Great job. great view". "let's catch a selfie" -- "what a stunning view".... A park within a park of rest and peace . In perpetuity is a long, long time. Sent from my iPad 1 Attachments 1-160 Carolynn Petru From: Linda Ott <Isottcom@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:49 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: Cont VV --handle with extreme care. Segmented by respect and intent. Call to advise. Thank you. And the burials began. Trucks and backhoes. Sounds piercing with their proximity. Graves dug and prepared. Grave side services --back to back to back...people numbering in the hundreds.Family, friends, of priests and misters --of caskets lumbering up a single ramp --of wreathed and weeping and celebration. Now numbering well over 5000+ of single trips: huge backhoes, trucks, processions, celebrants, ministers and priests, caskets, families, friends, sales personnel, surveyors, sound technicians,. lawyers, administrators, potential buyers, longneck drinking teenagers, texting dog walkers, gardeners, children jumping on graves, off benches, hoisted up to the edge of near falling head first with gummy shoes stuck in the fence and hurdling benches, florists, gardeners, the leadership of GHMP, Planning Commissioners, City Counsel members, print media, TV station broadcasters, ground keepers and visitors.... I have been to the rooftop twice. The passion play had now begun. The level of intimacy, through proximity was and is staggering. The voices oft penetrating our own. At the window, on the balconies of our homes. In simple terms of a child seeing an unclothed emperor and speaking: - - This entire process is fraught with grave errors and grave disregard. And ultimately a total failure to grasp even the most basic of constructs. The roof top was indeed pay dirt. The seemingly arrogant flippancy of decisions and acts is breathtaking. Look carefully at the patterns of actual behavior --each tells a common story: - -of '80 and '40 becoming '8, - -of Feb 27, 2007 through April 14, 2007 reflecting extraordinary alterations: --of footprints, dirt exportation, heights and depths --of 29 of 43 CUP violations, abridgment and distortion. --of circuitous, deceptive and ill conceived 1 Attachments 1-161 patterns telling an all too familiar story. I have virtually no earthly reason to not believe that GHMP both knew exactly what they were doing and yet failed/fail to grasp what indeed what they were doing. Even a most basic understanding. This is an atrocity. The leadership of GHMP knew better. The people of Rancho Palos Verdes and it's leadership deserved better. The souls interred and their families and friends deserved better. And God knows, the 25 homeowners and 50 residents of Vista Verdes deserved none of this. Unimaginable arrogance. Unmitigated hubris. Each of us now deserves better. A tapestry of cord, thread, rocks, bones and shells forms inescapable and clear patterns. Somehow it must be preserved as each piece is thoroughly examined. This is a sacred place. It is our home. Complexity reigns here. To diminish at any level it's implication is to miss completely what has been done. 1 wish you insight, fortitude and wisdom. In my possession are over 1000 pictures. Still photographs taken only from the windows of our home and the gathering places on our property. Absolutely unedited. Seventy six are flagged on my iPad. Twelve flagged 30 second to 1 minute videos remain on my iPhone. Not one person on this earth has viewed them except me. Notes filling a briefcase sits in my study. Each of you is welcome in our home. I can be reached at Isottcom@aol.com or (310),413-8433. I am merely one of fifty voices and stories These are my words. Without a whisper of doubt, I know one thing in the end. This indeed is a sacred place and shall remain so for all time. Respectfully offered with warmest of regard, Linda S. Ott Resident of Vista Verdes Condominiums 2 Attachments 1-162 Sent from my iPad 3 Attachments 1-163 August 2014 To the RPV Planning Commission: City of Rancho Palos Verdes JAN 8 2015 City Manager's Office I am a condominium owner at Vista Verde. There is a question about how and when the setback was changed. I want to give you a little history. In 2007, we found out the mausoleum in Area 11 was to be built. I spoke to the staff at RPV Planning dept. Eduardo Schonborn, and I told him I had heard from the previous owner of my condo, that "they could never build in front of the building." Eduardo told me that there was no reason they couldn't build. He never mentioned the setback. After speaking to him I thought that the previous owner had lied to me to sell his condo, and that we had no rights. After the mausoleum was built I spoke to the previous owner and he told me that they never should have been able to build there because there was a 40 ft. setback. I went back to the RPV Planning dept and I spoke to So Kim, city planner. She told me that they had never changed the setback. Since our conversation she has informed me that she is not allowed to talk to me. The videos showed that there was no discussion in either the Feb. 27th meeting or the April 24th meeting of any change to the setback. In fact, there was no discussion of the mausoleum in area 11 at all. In the first draft after the Feb. 27th 2007 meeting, the setback was not changed. But afterwards, on the final draft, there was a line written in that changed the 80 ft. setback to 8 ft. at the western end of the mausoleum. Sharon Loveys said to Joel Rojas "wasn't that sneaky?" Joel agreed and he said "He could see why we thought it was sneaky, but it's legal". The staff did the same thing with the rooftop burials on the mausoleum in area 11. There was no discussion, but Green Hills very subtly added it to the drawings and we were again told that it was legal. Is this how they usually get things approved, or is this a special situation with Green Hills? The municipal code 17.28.40 says that the cemetery has to have a 40 ft. setback abutting a residential zoning district. They are abutting us! This is in direct violation of the code! And it sets a precedent! They can now have 8'setbacks for all residential properties around the perimeter of the cemetery! The title company I deal with said that if there was ever a change in the setbacks we would definitely be notified. The staff never sent us any such notification. RPV staff, Greg Pfost told me that they did not need to send out notifications about the setbacks because the April 24th meeting was a continuation of the Feb. 27th meeting. They never mentioned setbacks in the public notice, and they never discussed it at all in the Feb. 27th or April 24th meetings, so how could it be a continuation if it was a totally new subject? Attachments 1-164 We asked Joel Rojas why things were never discussed with the planning commissioners. He said that he didn't think there would be any objections and he didn't think anyone would mind. At the RPV Planning dept. we looked at a file on everything concerning Vista Verde and Green Hills from 1990. There was a whole paper trail of letters regarding changing the setbacks and over possible view impairments that we were concerned with even then. The staff had to have seen this file. Page after page it establishes the fact that Vista Verde was fighting it, and won at that time, and that the staff knew. Obviously they wanted a different outcome in Feb. 2007. In addition to not mentioning the setbacks, the public notice the staff sent out for the Feb. 27th meeting in 2007 falsely represented that the approved mausoleum was SE of the maintenance yard when it was actually SW, close to our buildings. We missed the meeting because the initial facts represented to the public were false. In the end, it resulted in a variance that was to Green Hills advantage, and to our detriment. We want that corrected. It's all in the record. We are David fighting Goliath. The staff and Green Hills also said on several occasions that no views would be impacted with this mausoleum. It is also stated in variance #262. It's hard to believe that these sophisticated men, experienced with construction, had no idea, and that they built it too high by mistake. Ray Frew, CEO of Green Hills had the integrity to say on the record that they knew before the mausoleum was ever built that it would block views, and that he spoke up about it on several occasions. The permits had been pulled, so they built it anyways. Look at what they've done to us. They destroyed our views, and our property values. They built graves under our windows, and even if you ban roof top burials we will have a constant stream of people coming and mourning over loved ones. We have no privacy and a ban will not change that. We have people who have gotten physically and emotionally ill because of this. They did this by adding one line, with no discussion. And it seems that they knew ahead of time the mausoleum would block views and they also knew that if they mentioned changing the setbacks we would have fought them and won. Because they have now set a precedent, if you don't fight them in court they will use what they have done to us to get 8' setbacks abutting residential properties all around the cemetery and they will win. Do you see what was done? Do you see why this is so important? It is not enough to lower the mausoleum. You need to make them move it or tear it down, because otherwise they will still have the 8' setback. Please revoke their conditional use permit. Thank you, Julie Keye Attachments 1-165 1 1 • 1 11 11 _ _ City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 2c) 20 ( RE: ^mssst-4 ;-i--City of Rancho Palos Verdes Hearing Regarding Green Hills Memorial Park's Master Plan Review. CASE NO.: ZON2003- 00086 i::__61.1,-,-. le,,,,'') ---c; / t"( 'R•-• °— 'a° L 'kj3 °) Vce-i/ › L) City of Rancho Palos Verdes JAN 8 2015 City Manager's Office C L.I C i Ce+wmissrorrers: Thank you for your patience during this trying time which has a significant impact on our future Southern California Coastline. The Green Hills Memorial Park and Neighboring Home issues are not new. Here are some chronological facts going back to 1990. 1990 - 15 letters were written to the City of RPV for the May 22, 1990 Green Hills Hearing. Including, Lomita Mayor, Vista Verde Home Owners Assoc. (25 Owners/42 Lives), & Rolling Hills Town Club (62 owners/104 Lives) plus numerous letters from Rancho Palos Verdes Neighboring Owners. (Sample letters attached: (1.)Lomita Mayor, Peter Rossick; (2) Vista Verde HOA, Rodman Small; (3) Rolling Hills TownClub HOA, Gloria Valenti). All protesting and objecting to the same relevant issues: - Changing Set Back from 40' to 8' - Potential loss of Harbor Views - Potential loss of Privacy = Massive amounts of dirt being moved, changing landscape from a valley to hills. Green Hills Staff personally met with various HOA's explaining that views would not be impacted and that future development would be "dormant"for 70-80 years. However, development was not "dormant" and views were impacted. 2007 - Public Hearing Notice was so worded; it led most surrounding homeowners to believe it had no relevant impact and therefore not attended. Also, name of Mausoleum changed from Memorial Terrace to Pacific Terrace. Confusing Owners further, as Pacifica Mausoleum is right next to Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. We, Vista Verde Owner's thought this had no impact on us as the original Mausoleum referenced was to be built by Green Hills' Maintenance yard. Page 1 of 2 Attachments 1-166 2012 - When building of Pacific Terrance Mausoleum was under construction, Lane Mayhew of Vista Verde had numerous telephone conversations with John Reich of Green Hilis. Reich assured Mayhew, it would have no negative effect on her view and it would not be that bad. Other Vista Verde Owners have also called Green Hills and complained. 2013 - In May, Vista Verde Homeowners formed a Special Interest Group and wrote two certified letters to Green Hills regarding the same concerns from 1990. When no response was received from Green Hills, Vista Verde Owners inquired and were verbally informed by John Reich, of Green Hilis, letters were tossed. 2013 - Vista Verde Homeowners and surrounding neighbors again vigorously wrote numerous letters to City of Rancho Palos Verdes objecting to same issues from 1990. (Sample letter attached.) 2014 - Same issues since 1990 (24 Years!!). Per Resolution 91-7, Section 11 ... "That grading and construction do not adversely affect visual relationships with nor the views from, neighboring sites." 2014- Future - Green Hills is planning on developing and building more mausoleums on the parameter of their park first. Green Hills has 21 acres to develop internally. Green Hills is no longer a Park, they are building a City. When does this STOP? We, as responsible citizens, owe the land and future generations to preserve the Southern California Coastline views. Respectfully, 6%cam Lori Brown Vista Verde Condominium Homeowner (Over 25 Years) 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North, #205 Lomita, CA 90717 e -Mail: LBis1 RoadRunner(c�gmail.com Cell/Text: 310-995-1787 Page 2 of 2 LB: fd: RPVHAug2094FinalX Attachments 1-167 di a 4.. t 0 -3`- t a tf) �u i4 1.0 ttjA)1 2 r;,; 2 ?(., Q 2�' oQooJ c - I ‘(2 C� 0 2 Attachments 1-168 CITY COUNCIL CHARLES BELBA HAROLD S. CROYTS ROBERT T. HARGRAVE PETER J. ROSSICK CHUCK TAYLOR May 22, 1990 CITY OF LOMITA Mr. Robert Benard City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director of Environmental Service 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274-5391 Dear Mr. Benard: AD I NISTR.A'I'ION WALKER J. RITTER CITY ADMINISTRATOR DAWN TOMITA CITY CLERK MAY 2 2 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL SE VICES Please consider this letter as the City of Lomita's objection to your Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1442 and Variance 262. The City of Lomita particularly objects to the proposed Variance No. 262 which will allow buildings to be built within the forty (40) foot required setback. If the Planning Commission allows such an encroachment in the required setback, it will adversely affect the Vista Verde Housing Complex by limiting their view, which is the primary reason most residents purchased their homes in this area. We have received the attached request from their homeowners association, and at our May 21, 1990 Council meeting it was discussed by our City Council. At this meeting the Council agreed that the requested variance would adversely affect their homes and directed the City to oppose the project unless there is some type of modification to the requested Conditional Use Permit and Variance that would satisfy the residents of the Vista Verde Homeowner's Association. Therefore, please consider this letter as the City of Lomita's formal objection to Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading Plan No. 1442 and Variance 262. We further request that the City of Lomita's name be added to your mailing list and any further notification of meetings concerning this project be sent to the City of Lomita at the CITY HALL OFFICES ® 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CALIFORNIA 90717 • (213) 325-7110 Attachments 1-169 Mr. Robert Benard May 22, 1990 Page 2 following address: Walker J. Ritter City Administrator Lomita City Hall P.O. Box 339 Lomita, CA 90717 Thanks for your cooperation in this matter and if you have any questions concerning our position, please contact Walker J. Ritter, Lomita's City Administrator at (213 325-7110. Sincerely, 04( PETER J. ROSSICK MAYOR dac:PR.1 doc. 54 Attachments 1-170 MAILING ADDRESS: 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Unit 4112 Lomita, CA 90717 (213) 514-9230 Rodman C. Small ESQ_ COAST May 16, 1990 STATEMENT TO PLANNING CO_`SMISSION SHIPPING ADDRESS: 1575 N. Wilmington Compton, CA 90222 (213) 603-0528 As a concerned citizen and as an owner of a condominium in the Vista Verdes Owners Association which will be adversely affected by any mofification to the 40' setback limitation which abuts the common areas of my condominium complex, I strongly urge that such Proposed modifications surrounding the Greenhills Memorial Park's 100 Year Plan not be allowed for the following reasons: 1. The Adverse -Visual Impacts which would result if structures are allowed to be built within the 40' setback zone. It is interesting to note, that building under the current or000sed plan would adversely_ affect 50% of the Vista Verde Homeowners in the substantial blockage of their view. 2. The Adverse Monetary effects which would result in the decreasing of the homeowners, in the Vista Verdes Association, Property values. This would occur in light of the above adverse visual impacts which would occur as a result of such develonment; and 3. The complicated environmental issues which would result from any modification to the 40' setback limitation and which currently can be seen in the increase of drainage runoff which has been brought on by the placement of fill -dirt for the anticipated structure in the 40' setback zone. On behalf of myself and the others in the Vista Verde Homeowners Association, we urge you to make a careful analysis of the proposed plan as presented by Greenhills Memorial Park and to do what is necessary in order to insure that the said 40' setback limitation will remain intact and will not be modified in any manner. In conclusion, as a result of my deep concern over the above stated natter, I have personally contacted and met with a total of 23 homeowners, out of a possible 25, who feel as strongly as I do in keening the 40' setback limitation. Thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings on the Greenhills Memorial Park's 100 Year Plan. Sincerely, Redman C. Small RCS:sr uu MAY 19K) ENVUUONMI~ TAI- z,tI VIU :a Attachments 1-171 Rodman C. Small WEST COAST AE HES MAILING ADDRESS: 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Unit #112 Lomita, CA 90717 (213) 514-9230 Page 2 SHIPPING ADDRESS: 1575 N. Wilmington Compton, CA 90222 (213) 603-0528 It is interesting to note that the only major building construction is planned on property abutting the City of Lomita homeowners. We as homeowners in Lomita feel that the City of Lomita would have standing to sunport us in keening the 40° setback limitation on above ground construction or burial. On behalf of myself and the others in the Vista Verde Homeowners Association, we urge you to make a careful analysis of the pronosed plan as presented by Greenhills Memorial Park and to do what is necessary in order to insure that the said 40° setback limitation will remain intact and will not be modified in any manner. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or at #213-514-9230. Sincerly,; ifrekt Rhdman C. Small RCS:sr CC: Councilman Croyts-Lomita Vista Verde Brd of Directors Attachments: #1 Enlargement of area abutting Lomita & VVOA #2 Rancho Palos Verde Notice of Public Hearing #3 Negative Declaration of Rancho Palos Verde #4 Complete Master Plan of Green Hills Memorial Park Attachments 1-172 June 26, 1990 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274-5391 m7,2n II 1'1Liu JUN 2 G -1990 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK/CUP and VARIANCE Ladies and Gentlemen: I must call your attention to one serious negative (among other negatives), in the Master Plan for Green Hills Memorial Park as far as it directly impacts owners of the 62 Rolling Hills Townclub townhouses adjacent to the park on the east. The greatest long-term negative impact on our complex would be: a 32 -foot reduction to the required 40 -foot setback for below ground interments...adjacent to all property lines. By allowing Green Hills to place interments 8 feet from our property line, you would automatically be reducing the value of our townhomes by thousands of dollars. The main reason for this is that at least half of our townhomes face the property line, with entry doors and windows looking out over the undeveloped acreage. What we would be dealing with here is not just gravesites, but daily funerals with mourners congregating possibly as close as 23-25 feet from our doorsteps. It will be difficult enough to be facing months, possibly years of earth movement and all the noise and dust that goes with it, but to have it end with a situation which will further depreciate property values, is just not acceptable. I urge you NOT TO ALLOW THE VARIANCE, BUT TO KEEP THE SETBACK TO 40 FEET AS ORIGIANLLY REQUIRED, AND WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED TO BE WHEN ROLLING HILLS TOWNCLUB OWNERS PURCHASED THEIR HOMES. Sincerely, is Valenti, President Rolling Hills TownClub 1948 Rolling Vista Drive #40 Lomita, CA 90717 Attachments 1-173 YalJnff4.� ••r' ,, �., '.L• June 26, 2013 Green Hills Mortuary 27501 S. Western Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention: John Resich Dear Mr: Resich: As your neighbors in the Vista Verde Condominiums, we are asking your help in addressing the impact of Green Hills developments directly on our homes. Some concerns we have regarding the Pacific Terrace development are: 1. OBSTRUCTED HARBOR VIEWS caused from the development of the Pacific Terraces to the neighboring Vista Verde Condos. This has directly impacted the real estate value of our homes. Please refer to the enclosed photos. What other Green Hills land development projects are planned? 2. LOSS OF PRIVACY. The top of the Pacific Terraces has direct eye level views into the Vista Verde Condos. This is stressful to have strange people staring directly into our own homes. 3. POOL AREA of Vista Verde Condos is now severely impacted by the closeness of Pacific Terraces concrete wall. • Pool is now shaded. This causes loss of heat for the pool. • Pool sunning area is now shaded making it less enjoyable. • Any prior Harbor Views are totally blocked. • Loss of privacy for pool area & Jacuzzi. • Less enjoyable. Our children can possibly become confused with a funeral procession occurring during a pool birthday party. • Very unattractive concrete wall. What is Green Hills planning to do to make the concrete wall more attractive? 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. • How is the excess water run off from the increased height of neighboring land being handled? • How much more Green Hills land is planned to be moved/filled? • How is the increased flow of traffic causing increased carbon monoxide into our area being addressed? • How is the increased noise from funeral processions, music, guns, people talking, etc. being handled? Your promptness in addressing our concerns is appreciated. Sincerely, Special Interest Group Vista Verde Condominiums 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North Lomita, CA 90717 Attachments 1-174 Signed by (Owner/Unit#): z L L. (--r/ 0 /c-)6 kL4,, z-09 XaY)zi__ M.71-1-1 Attachments 1-175 Cf— krt C=st.0-NNI 0-O-gOf/ tr/ BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 156 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CA POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK 27501 S. WESTERN AVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-9703 Com- -- sLY �.. \ Oiso? dAK..t N AcIL-C3S +,-J c4A‹ cforkit-i NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES ISCIEMININESINTEME MINIZIESSIMENNUSEI IIII'IIInIi1n1IIuIi'II1111ii(IIi11+ Pk, �jbcc 4 OD € L -A3 .R.--k-rC q)116tQC& fL.SM qk 5 - Attachments 1-176 August 21, 2013 (Via Certified Mail) Mr. John Resich Green Hills Mortuary 27501 S. Western Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Mr. Resich: Re: PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM In a letter to you on June 26, 2013, we asked you for your help regarding Green Hills development impact on your bordering neighbors, Vista Verde Condominiums. It is now six (6) weeks later and we have not heard from you. Specifically, the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum project has had a devastating negative impact on the Vista Verde Condominium complex of 25 Units located at 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lomita, CA 90717. The loss of the Harbour View from the Vista Verde Condominium Complex has not only significantly reduced our property value it is extremely upsetting to have the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum within eight (8) feet of our dining rooms, pool, and Jacuzzi. The loss of privacy is unacceptable. How do we mix a funeral procession with a bikini clad pool party? It is not acceptable to either the Green Hills grieving funeral party nor the Vista Verde pool party people. ACTION REQESTED: Stop all sales, development,intent of Pacific Terrace lawn crypts, or burial on top until our Injunction is heard. Sincerely, Special Interest Group Vista Verde Condominiums 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Lomita, CA 90717 c: Marty Cordell, Counsellor, Green Hills rho -o ill ) ir.2 03 Attachments 1-177 ►ice U. osta er tit ERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPTrae No Insurance Coverage Prov d) Domestic Mali Only, Forte very very vistt visit Webigte3it. + w. uses COM; .s. Postage Certified Fee ® Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery d) En (Endorsement Require Ln rn MOM NOM ru d Total Postage & Fees Sent To s2.5t - -- --i , Street, ii • :(- ----- or PO Box No. 1 � Cs'or C� a C ....tate ZIP+4 �O S vtruct1Q s; See Reverse fitrCns SiS t PS Form 3800, August 2000 ..,.r SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION . Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse '. so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,; or on the front if space permits C -- COMPLETE THIS; SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature Received by (P nied Name, € Agent 0 Addresse of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? Ye If YES, enter delivery address below.. CI No e tce Type ertified Mali 1; Registered I' Insured Mali Express Mali Return Receipt fo i C.O.D. ', • Merchandise 4. Restricts Delivery? (Extra Fee) es 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7012 ' 3050 ` 00p0 5127 1572 i PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receip 102595-02-M-1540 Attachments 1-178 Statement of John Shadeed 9/14/13 To whom it May concern: I am the owner of unit #110 in the vista Verde Condos, 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N., Lomita, Ca. 90717. I am very upset about the construction of the Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum as it obstructs my view of the harbor. Further, I have a personal connection with the Green Hills Memorial Park as my dear sister is interred there. She too would have been very upset with this thoughtlessness of the Green Hills Planning Board. No longer can I see the harbor and the ocean from my living room and my dinning area. No longer can my children play and swim in the pool area without being overshadowed by this horrible mausoleum which is a mere 8 feet awayfrom our pool and jacuzzi. The building blocks the sun, the light, the openness that we used to experieince. Our view has been obstructed and I find this intolerable. I am a deeply spiritual person and I served in the U.S. Army in the 101st Air Bourne Division. And, as a VETERAN, I should expect that my opinion counts. Yet, the Green Hills Park did not ask for my opinion. They did not ask me as a Veteran, as an owner, or as a U.S. citizen of a Democartic Country. They did not ak me for any input whatsover. 1 beleive what Green Hills did to us all as owners is immoral. The mausoleum should not have been built without our prior knowledge. I. was not informed of this project and I believe that it was wrong to to build it, as we who live in these units are severely impacted by the nearness of a high rise mausoleum where there are grave tops on top of it. This masuoleum offensively intrudes on our daily life. It is one thing to have a lovely view of gently rolling hills and another to have a view of a concrete mo strosity. Signed C 9 Dated -111 3 g l RECEIVED SEP 162013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Page 70 Attachments 1-179