Loading...
05_20140513_PC_SR_Operational_Review_Green_HillsCFFY OF ''RANCHO MEMORANDUM PALOS VERDFS TO: CHAIRMAN &MEM SOFT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMU I VELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 13, 2014 SUBJECT: OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY MASTER PLAN (CASE NO. ZON2003- 00086); Location: 27501 Western Avenue Project Manager: Eduardo Schonborn, AIcP, Senior Planne&_ RECOMMENDATION Hear a presentation from Green Hills regarding possible methods to address concerns raised by the Vista Verde Condominium owners, and provide feedback. BACKGROUND On February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed Staffs suggested mitigation measures and conditions to address concerns raised by condominium owners in the adjacent City of Lomita, regarding Green Hills' Memorial Terrace mausoleum building (February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report is attached). 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 condominium owners regarding the impacts associated with the mausoleum building and the activities that are performed on the rooftop including burials (February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes are attached). After hearing public testimony and discussing the cemetery operations, on a 7-0 vote, the Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2014 to allow Staff to draft the appropriate resolution to impose up to a 90 -day moratorium on all rooftop ground interments/burials on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, located in Area 11 of the approved Green Hills Master Plan, while Staff finalizes 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 neighboring condominium association requested that the hearing be further continued to the April 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the parties May 13, 2014 Page 1 MEMORANDUM. Operational Review of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery Master Plan May 13, 2014 Paste 2 to meet and come to an agreement on mitigation measures to address impacts associated with the 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 again continued the hearing to May 13, 2014 at the request of both parties so they could have some additional time to resolve some remaining issues. On May 7, 2014, Staff received an email from Ms. Berkowitz (attorney representing Green Hills) requesting the opportunity to make a presentation before the Planning Commission of the concepts and methods they have been developing to address the concerns raised by the Vista Verde Condominium owners. As such, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hear a presentation from Green Hills regarding possible methods to address concerns raised by the Vista Verde Condominium owners, and provide appropriate feedback. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On April 22, 2014, prior to the Planning Commission meeting, Staff received an email and accompanying letters from Rich Martin, condominium owner at Vista Verde. It was agreed that the information was going to be distributed as part of the May 13, 2014 Staff Report. The emails and letters are attached to this Staff Report as Attachments B and C. Further, Mr. McLachlan provided Staff with photos and videos on behalf of the Vista Verde Condominiums, which was conveyed would be made available for presentation at the May 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Staff will have said information ready to display at the May 13th meeting should it be requested for use by Mr. McLachlan. Attachments A. Email from Attorney Ellen Berkowitz representing Green Hills dated May 7, 2014 B. Email chain between Staff and Mike McLachlan C. Email from Rich Martin and associated Letters dated April 22, 2014 (from Mr. Martin) and February 18, 2014 (from Mike McLachlan) D. February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report (with associated attachments) E_ February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt) May 13, 2014 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 0 May 13, 2014 Page 3 Eduardo Schonborn From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Serkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:06 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park Eduardo — Over the past several months, Green Hills has been working diligently to develop potential measures to address some of the concerns that have been raised by its neighbors at Vista Verde. We would like to present these concepts to the Planning Commission at the upcoming meeting on May 13th. While some of our concepts are still "works in progress" and require additional analysis, we believe it would be beneficial to obtain input from staff and the Commission regarding our direction. Please let me know if this can be worked into the agenda. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkokvitz sh archoldcr Gresham Savage Riolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, GA 94071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office rnain: (213) 213-7249 Fax: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 vvww. Gresha mSavage. com 1. PrWegei and Confidential Cornmunication_ € he 111fcxrrraban contail"ad to <3ras emid and any arfachments may be corir€dentmi oa suble-O to the attorney client prtvrlege or attorney work procfact dactrine If you fare not the intended recipient of rt ,s casrtmumcation, you may €sot use: chsclo<e.. far!rrt. copy or diSi~enniniate the sar re. i` you have received th€s in error. f9`ease €3otit, the Sender and raestroy all r;aPr?xa of this aaessage 2. IRS Cimular2303 Piotice_ In accordance wntia tlircutar 230 of the i€sternal Revenu? SBE-VI�X' -:Ve trlarna ycru that -iny tax advkc e in this email, inciudirg a€,y zaftac,?r ,nts, is no! intemled or tvrMen to be uscel. arid Can of be used by You or any ctEr+ r r Cq;€int for the jIUrl7os of itis av-oadiog pe raINes Zhat may atherv�isc , b jmposoc: t)Y Rha IN'';, or IN s—gppoa#Irtq promotoxj, markesirt� or rtcommending any transnclmn or matter to any Baird part, 3. Transmission of Virosos. AithoS igh than and anv attached r,Tr files arc; belied to be `roe or oiher WON. €t €s the resp ns€b€lily of tineecigwk- s. !c v iii,+n that It s va: gas t ez ond" iha serrt;ea cmjr not acc -pl any for any loss or.dno 9c , ar€,mr.; in any way frori its Ilse 4. Security of Email. Dei ro€;€c r&.i is -cirri over sloe L, rob;?r Internet and amy nsi be Thal,. vie ra000t guaiarilee th� ?rntw wy nr ,a€liatientiality of ;,Och itilurma9u,n This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com May 13, 2014 Page 4 ATTACHMENT May 13, 2014 Page 5 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:29 PM To: Mike McLachlan; rmartin@unifiedgrocers.com; Eduardo Schonbom Cc: matthewhmartin@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission --Green Hills Master Plan Yes, 1 expect the matter to be continued tonight with little to no discussion From: Mike McLachlan [mailto:mike@mclachlanlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:26 PM To: Joel Rojas; rmartin@unifiedgrocers.com; Eduardo Schonborn Cc: matthewhmartin@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission --Green Hills Master Plan Correct. We are assuming the matter will be continued per your recommendation. Mike McLachlan 310-954-8270 ------ Original message ------ Front: Joel Rojas Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 2:17 PM To: Rich Martin;Eduardo Schonborn; Ce: Mike McLachlan;Matt Martin; Subject. -RE: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission --Green Hills Master Plan Mr. Martin I just want to be clear that you are asking that we provide this material to the Planning Commission as part of the forthcoming May 13, 2014 Staff Report as opposed to distributing it to the Planning Commission tonight, correct? Joel Rojas From: Rich Martin [mailto:rmartin@unifiedRrocers.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:24 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: mike@mclachlanlaw.com; Joel Rojas; Matt Martin Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission --Green Hills Master Plan Mr. Eduardo Schonborn, AICP Senior Planner April 22, 2014 Dear Mr. Schonborn; Re: May 13 Planning Commission Meeting Green Hills Annual Review (Case No. ZON2003-00086 May 13, 2014 Page 6 Enclosed above are electronic copies of the material in connection with the upcoming meeting on May 13, 2014. Attached you will find the following: -Letter to Planning Commission dated 4/22/14 (Summary of status and recommendations) -Letter to Planning Commission dated 2/18/14 from Michael D McLachlan—VVOA Attorney (Copy of letter attached to 2/25/14 Staff Report) I will also send a copy of this material by Fed Ex. I trust you will insure that it is available to all the Commissioners. My son Matthew Martin will likely be presenting a power point at that meeting summarizing our views. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks Richard J. Martin Tel (323) 881-4281 Fax(323) 729-6601 Cell(310) 594-4281 Cc: Mr. Joel Rojas, Diretor of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; and Secretary To The Planning Commission This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. if you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments_ May 13, 2014 Page 7 ATTACHMENT C May 13, 2014 Page 8 Rich Martin Subject; Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission --Green Hills Master Plan Attachments: Planning Commission --Letter 4-22-14.docx; Vista Verde --Attorney Michael McLachlan letter dtd 2-18-14 to Planning Commission.pdf Mr. Eduardo Schonborn, AICP Senior Planner April 22, 2014 Re. May 13 Planning Commission Meeting Green Hills Annual Review (Case No. Z0N2003-00086 Dear Mr. Schonborn; Enclosed above are electronic copies of the material in connection with the upcoming meeting on May 13, 2014, Attached you will find the following: -Letter to Planning Commission dated 4/22/14 (Summary of status and recommendations) -Letterto Planning Commission dated 2/18/14 from Michael D McLachlan--VVOA Attorney (Copy of letter attached to 2/25/14 Staff Report) I will also send a copy of this material by Fed Ex. I trust you will insure that it is available to all the Commissioners. My son Matthew Martin will likely be presenting a power point at that meeting summarizing our views. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tha ks Richard J. Martin Tel (323) 881-4281 Fax(323) 729-5601 Cell(310) 594-4281 Cc: Mr. Joel Rojas, Diretor of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; and Secretary To The Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 9 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. ZON2003-00080) 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" May 13, 2014 Page 10 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. May 13, 2014 Page 11 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 21:00 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 WHOA for its legal costs in this matter. May 13, 2014 Page 12 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 May 13, 2014 Page 13 t. -_w Orrrres or `°tIC$0LL D WcL.-AcjjLA.v A PROrESSIONA1 CORPORATION 10.490 SAN rn MoNiv., final F.%ARn Leas ANc:r u s. CR Som 5 PHONE ,10-95,1-1517c FAX 3t0-914-91 1 E-MAIL 11like@(It, I:.J1Iar119WAL011, February 18, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Cominission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re.. February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda Item #3 Green Ilills Annual Rerieiv (Case 1"1+`o. ZON2,003-00086) Dear Commissioners. I 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 "Mausoleur") which was recently constructed eight feet to the South of the HOA property in what is known as Area i I to the Greer} Hills Master Plan. I cannot overstate the profoundly negative impact the Mausoleums has had on the HOA and its 25 owners, This letter summarizes the adverse impact of the Mausoleum, and requests that the PIanning Commission reconsider the Conditional Use I'erinit 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 from the "viewing area" of neighboring May 13, 2014 Page 14 T'lanning. Commission City ol, Rancho Palos Verdes 1'ebruary 18.2014 Page 2 properties. ,Sep .Sraf,�f`Report, Februar} 27, 2007, § F.2. The conStruc6011 of the: Makisoleurn was completed last year, and it is now in lull operation. R. 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-four of the units are single floor units, split cin two floors. One unit norlhwest portion of the property occupies two noors. The 11OA property also contaiins 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 rooni. This portion of the property fonnerly enjoyed ocean and harbor views. C. Mausoleum Impacts on the HOA Owners The Mausoleum has fundamentatlly 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 HOA extends an invitation to any ol'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. 1. 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 suffer from the proximity and operations problems. as well as the ruin of the common area. The common pool and recreation arca 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. I enclose a few post -construction photographs of the pool area. May 13, 2014 Page 15 Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes February 18, 2014 Page 3 The height of the Mausoleum would need to be a full tete feet shorter if it were to have not had the adverse impact on the views alt the I IOA property. The situation has left those at Vista Verde believing thein 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 bccn 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 140A. The approval of the roof top internments, 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 140A owner. The proximity is shocking, and now an inescapable aspect of daily life at the HOA. The proximity of the roof top burials has destroyed the privacy and quiet enjoyment of both the I -10A 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 Ilius 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 Iroise. 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 ether retaliatory conduct. D. Requested Action The HOA asks that the Commission take such sleps 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. May 13, 2014 Page 16 Planning Commission Cite of'Rancho Pales Verges February IS, 20 14 Page 4 II' future construction is allo,: ed, the CUP should be substantially motliiied to adJUSt both the height and to eliminate the rooftop internments. The Commission should considct whether additional ordinances may he needed to regulate the use of the rooftop p0lliOTI Of the Mausoleum going forward. 'thank you very much for your consideration. Very truly yours, Michael D, McLachlan Encls. May 13, 2014 Page 17