Loading...
Public Correspondence - Green HillsEduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:30 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: REQUEST TO STOP Green Hills Until Results of RPV Staff -GH Investigation Attachments: GH - Schonborn 8-9-08 says Pacifica may continue page 1 of 2 jpg; GH - Schonborn 8-9-08 says Pacifica may continue page 2 of 2 jpg From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:40 AM To: PC Cc: CC Subject: REQUEST TO STOP Green Hills Until Results of RPV Staff -GH Investigation Dear Planning Commissioners, Attached is a letter dated August 9, 2008 (long after the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting) from RPV Staff Eduardo Schonborn to John Resich of Green Hills regarding an August 8, 2008 meeting with Green Hills and City Staff. Schonborn refers to the stop order on the Pacifica Mausoleum and "lawn crypts that have been planned for development in the near future." Schonborn continues in the third paragraph, "As indicated to you at the meeting, the 'acifica Mausoleum expansion project and related lawn crypts may continue. However, NO NEW PROJECTS ARE ALLOWED ... until the City's Planning Commission has reviewed and approved a revision to the master plan." (emphasis added) Green Hills admitted in August, 2008 that they knew they exceeded what was approved by the Master Plan. Green Hills knew exactly what they were doing — there were NO MISTAKES. All of their actions throughout their property were conceived, planned and INTENTIONAL. Our city codes allow for mistakes but not intentional acts of abuse of our codes and laws and procedures. If you allow Green Hills to correct their intentional violations now then they will continue to abuse our laws knowing they can just get a back -dated fix. Then, look at the dominoes — if Green Hills can do it then all the other developers will take that lead and charge. Each of you know that there is an internal investigation of staff going on by the City right now — involving the very staff that is right now trying to get you to legalize the monstrosity of a mausoleum (Area 11), and other non-compliant burials they oversaw— legalize something THAT YOU NEVER WOULD HAVE APPROVED HAD YOU KNOWN WHAT IT WOULD NOW LOOK LIKE AND DO TO HOMEOWNERS. Please stop all work on Green Hills now— NO NEW PROJECTS ARE ALLOWED (including the Green Hills Administration Building). Please defend our city laws and codes, procedures, our honesty and integrity and demand all actions on Green Hills be halted now- until the completion of the internal investigation of staff is resolved by unbiased attorneys (unaffiliated with the city business) and unbiased consultants. Thank you. Sincerely, Diane Smith Pub. Corr - Page 1 so LiRANGHO PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFOPGEMFNT August 9, 2006 John Resich Green Hills Memorial Park 27501 Western Ave. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 SUBJECT: Green Hills Memorial Park ADDRESS: 27501 Western Avenue Dear Mr. Resich: Thank you for meeting with City Staff on August 8, 2006 regarding the recent "STOP WORK" order that was issued to Green Hills in response to illegal import of fill material that occurred on August 3, 2006. At our meeting, it was conveyed to City Staff that approximately 300 cubic yards of sand was imported, of which approximately 100 cubic yards will be used for the 100 lawn crypts that is part of the current Pacifica Mausoleum expansion at the northwest corner of the cemetery site. It was also conveyed that the remaining 200 cubic yards would be used for additional lawn crypts that have been planned for development in the near future. As you are aware, the master plan approved by the City Council in 1991 allowed the construction of various mausoleum buildings throughout the cemetery site, an addition to an existing mausoleum building, and calls out areas throughout the site for ground internments and gardens. To accommodate these various improvements and buildings, a limitation on the grading quantities was established. However, Staff has determined, and you have acknowledged, that the amount of grading conducted throughout the cemetery since 1991 has already exceeded the maximum amount approved by the master plan. As indicated to you at the meeting, the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion project and related lawn crypts may continue. However, no new projects are allowed to commence, including the excavation for and placement of additional lawn crypts, until the City's Planning .. Commission has reviewed and approved a revision to the master plan. Since there is an existing application on file -to revise the master pian, please update the application and provide Staff with a detailed project description, grading quantities and related plans. Please keep in mind that although approval of a revised master plan by the Planning Commission is required in order to allow new projects at Green Hills, burial operations may continue. Lastly, with regards to the remaining 200 cubic yards of imported sand, the material cannot be exported or moved throughout the site, and must all be included in the grading quantities that are part of the proposed master plan revision. 30940 HAWTHORNE BNO, r' RANCHO PALOS VERDES, (;A 90275-5301 PI. ANNIN(VC(OF FNFORCFMFNT (310) 544-5228 J BUILDING (310) 541.7702 J DEPT FAX (310) 544.5293 J E-MAIL' PLANNING@RPV.COM Pub. Corr - Page 2 Green Hills Memorial Park August 9, 2006 Should you have any further questions regarding the processing of your application after receiving this notice, please feel free to call me at (310) 544-5228 or contact me via e-mail at eduardos@rpv.com. Sincerely, Ed o Sc onborn, AICP Senior Planner cc: Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Greg Pfost, Deputy Planning Director Ray Frew, Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 Western Ave., RPV, CA 90275 Denis D. !_ane, Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 Western Ave., RPV, CA 90275 Barry C. Boudreaux, J. Stuart Todd, Inc., 2919 Welborn St., Suite 101, Dallas, TX 75219 Project File, Case No. ZON2003-00086 Address File, 2750", Western Avenue Pub. Corr - Page 3 Eduardo Schonborn From: Michael N. Friedman <mnfesq@hfllp.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3'04 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: PC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas, Carolynn Petru; 'Ellen Berkowitz',- 'Brian erkowitz';'Brian Carter" 'Matt Martin'; 'Julie Keye' Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park -PC Hearing of 11/11/14 Dear Eduardo I have reviewed the staff report and proposed resolution submitted to the Planning Commission for tonight's meeting. am extremely displeased at staff's insubordination and inability to follow the Commission's clear and simple instructions. Staff was instructed to prepare a resolution regarding the motions passed at the October 28'h meeting. Nothing more and nothing less. Staff's proposed resolution includes a host of other proposed revisions that were never voted upon by the Commission and never set forth in a public hearing notice and never discussed at a Commission meeting. It would be grossly improper for the PC to adopt this resolution as written, even though I support many of staff's proposed revisions. I am URGING you to draft a clean resolution, containing ONLY those provisions which were already voted upon at the October 28th meeting so that said resolution, without any of staff's additional proposals, can be executed and adopted at tonight's meeting. I highly suggest that you prepare a second proposed resolution containing staff's proposed recommendations. If they are found acceptable, and can lawfully be adopted without public notice as to their _onsideration, the Commission can vote to approve that resolution or approve it with modifications or deny it. No matter what the Commission chooses to do with staff's recommendations, staff will not be unlawfully interfering with the adoption of the resolution staff was instructed to prepare at the October 28'" meeting. All I am asking for is a small amount of cutting and pasting of the word-processing file containing the resolution attached to the staff report. There is ample time to do that before tonight's meeting and avoid a month's delay in the adoption of the resolution voted upon at the October 28th meeting. l believe your failure to do so would constitute a tortious interference with the business of the Planning Commission at the expense of my clients' civil rights. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Michael Friedman pviir;.e; td. ;=riedrnar� 1--I1RS(_H'BERG K I'MEDf111AN!, i.l_P 3 N. he-kway 642-0 2 mnfesq@hfllp.com 1 ��l3sii�� www.hfllp.com Pub. Corr - Page 4 GRESHAM SAVAGE: November 11, 2014 VIA EMAIL Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fllciz.I3c:rkotvitr�+GreshatnSavage.atin - Los Angeles (213) 213-7249 - fax (213) 213-7391 Re: Response to November Staff Report Dear Commissioners: In an effort to deflect blame, the Staff Report prepared for the November 11, 2014, Planning Commission hearing ("November Staff Report") goes on the attack, continuing to portray Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") as the villain in this ongoing saga with even more fervor than ever before. Let's get some perspective. Green Hills is a 66 -year-old institution, with over 100,000 burial plots on 121 carefully maintained acres, holding approximately I800 burial services each year and catering to the needs of families of all nationalities, religious beliefs and ethnic traditions, Green Hills strives to provide its customers with the services they need during their times of grief, respecting and maintaining cultural ceremonies and traditions while offering compassionate care to thousands of community members' loved ones in perpetuity.' 1 Indeed, the park was honoring celebrants of one such tradition on Sunday, November 2, when several neighbors complained about undue noise emanating from Green Hills' property. Perhaps the neighbors were not aware that November 2„d was the last day of the three day Day of Dead celebration — a Mexican holiday observed around the world, which focuses on gatherings of family and friends to pray for and remember those who have died, As explained in Wikipedia: "People go to cemeteries to be with the souls of the departed and build private altars containing the favorite foods and beverages, as well as photos and memorabilia, of the departed. The intent is to encourage visits by the souls, so the souls will hear the prayers and the comments of the living directed to them.” Green Hills welcomes all individuals celebrating this holiday at the park, just as it welcomes individuals celebrating Veterans' Day, Christmas, Mothers' Day and other holidays throughout the year. 550 l=ast Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardimm, California 9240N 11' 11`i ,750 Unitersnv ;venue, Suite 250 e [tivcrside. California 92501 550 West U Street, Suite I S 10 + San Diego, California 02101 I ! 433 South Ilopc SirceL 35" floor e Los AiiLlcics, C'alifoillia 90071 G5S3-000-- 1486707.1 Pub. Corr - Page 5 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 11, 2014 Page 2 As with any business of this size, it is not perfect. But the November Staff Report's exaggerated claims of evil -doing go far beyond the pale. We expect the harsh criticism is intended to shift the focus away from the imperfections of the City and its staff, which also played an important, if not critical, role in contributing to, and compounding the drama by directing Green Hills about what applications to file and by approving Green Hills' plans, now claiming that it was Green Hills who committed errors in how the process unfolded. Both staff and the Commission suggest there are voluminous violations at Green Hills that warrant punitive action. These claims are overblown and are not based on reality. For example, the November Staff Report cites: Interments within the 16 foot setback on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum). The November Staff Report continues to claim that there are interments within the alleged 16 foot setback on the roof of the Mausoleum and that these constitute a violation of the CUP. Has anyone actually surveyed the 16 foot area on the roof of the Mausoleum in question? If so, they would immediately see that this assertion is completely false. There are no interments within 16 feet o -f the pro.petty line on the tap of the Mausoleum within the alleged setback area. Additionally, Green Hills has repeatedly assured the City that it will not bury anyone in this row until a resolution has been reached. We respectfully suggest that the repeated reference to this phantom "violation" is being made by staff (or by the neighbors and irresponsibly echoed by staff) without any basis in fact, solely in an effort to pile -on and to paint Green Hills in a negative light. This is simply not honest. Y The Mausoleum. Once again, the November Staff Report claims that the entire Mausoleum is a violation of the required setback. However, the Conditional Use Permit ('CUP") approved and granted for the Master Plan in 2007 expressly permitted the Mausoleum in area 11 to be setback 8 - feet from the property line. No one - not the Commissioners, not staff, not the City Attorney - ever indicated that this approval required a variance. If the need for a variance was as plainly obvious as these individuals now claim, it defies reason to understand why 6583.000 -- 1456 707. I Pub. Corr - Page 6 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 11, 2014 Page 3 there was never any mention of a variance until eight years after the application for this project was filed and seven years after it was approved. As discussed in previous correspondence: (i) Green Hills submitted its Master Plan application in 2006 showing the Mausoleum immediately adjacent to the property line; (ii) staff accepted and processed Green Hills` application; (iii) the Commission conducted public hearings in connection with that application and approved the Master Plan (including the Mausoleum); (iv) the Building Department issued building permits for the Mausoleum after carefully reviewing all plans and finding them in conformance with the CUP; (v) Green Hills built the Mausoleum in accordance with those permits; and (vi) the permits were not appealed or challenged, and the time to do so has long since expired. No one at the Citic ever once suggested that the CUP was not sufficient to approve the Mausoleum or that a variance was necessM. Green Hills did exactly as it was told; it filed for a CUP with all accompanying documentation as the City required. It followed all the rules of the process. If the City now has second thoughts about the process it used in this case, it can make sure to correct that process in the future. But the Mausoleum was Iegitimately and validly approved. It cannot possibly be "in violation" of the very CUP that approved it. To suggest otherwise is to acknowledge that the word of the Commission, and indeed, the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes is worth nothing. It suggests that the City can change the rules and impose new requirements years after the fact anytime they are questioned by citizens of a neighboring city who are unhappy with the results of a process. And it suggests this is so, even if that process has gone through the hearing stage, the approval stage, the permitting stage, and the entire construction stage years ago. But the law does not allow that to happen. The fact that some Commissioners now regret the decision to approve the Mausoleum does not make the Mausoleum "a violation." The Northwest Plots. Green Hills admitted it made a mistake by selling plots in the 16 foot setback in the northwest corner of the park. As soon as that error was brought to its attention, Green Hills ceased all further sales in that area, and began notifying individuals who had purchased but not yet used their plots that they would c583-000--1486707 1 Pub. Corr - Page 7 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 11, 2014 Page 4 have to be relocated to another area of the park. To date, most of those individuals have been successfully relocated. Nevertheless, there are 13 plots that have interments in them. No, Green Hills will not disinter these people, and yes, Green Hills wishes to honor its commitments relative to the companion plots. But Green Hills has advised the City that it would apply for an amendment to its CUP to allow those individuals to remain. Thus, Green Hills has taken steps to rectify and remedy the problem. The November Staff Report tells a long story about a plan that staff approved in error that depicted interments with only an 8 foot setback. This story, while seemingly full of intrigue and dastardly deeds, has little relevance to the current situation. Green Hills has never claimed that it is entitled to have interments within the 16 foot setback (i.e., 8 feet from the property line) because of that erroneous approval. As noted, Green Hills admitted its mistake, recognizing that it was not permitted to have interments within the 16 foot setback no matter what that approval said. There is no reason for staff to go to such lengths to explain away this errant plan. If anything, this story tells that mistakes can be made on both sides. The important thing is to admit the mistake and take action to correct it, not try to blame others for the problem. 'v Trellises and structures within the five foot setback on the western side of the property. As discussed at the October hearing, Green Hills believed that it was entitled to have small structures within the five foot setback area on the western side of the property. The Commission made it abundantly clear that it did not concur with this assessment if those structures contained cremated remains. In other words, the Commission advised that the CUP permits below ground burials to be placed up to the property line in this area of the park, but above ground cremated remains must be setback five feet from the property line. Immediately after the hearing, Green Hills' representatives surveyed the area and, after consulting with experts, determined that the structures within the five foot setback area with spaces intended for cremated remains can be moved. Accordingly, Green Hills has contracted to move each of these structures the few feet from the property line necessary to comply with this setback requirement. If the structures cannot be moved, Green Hills 0583.000 -- 1436707.1 Pub. Corr - Page 8 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 11, 2014 Page 5 understands that the structures less than 6' may remain although the structures would not be permitted to contain any individuals entombed within them. (Of course, Green Hills also understands that it may continue to use the area for below ground burials with a 0 foot setback.) We will keep the City posted on these efforts and will notify the City should Green Hills encounter any unforeseen obstacles in moving the structures. This, we expect this "violation" to be cured within relatively short order. The Cameras. Some Vista Verde residents are under the mistaken belief that the security cameras are pointed at them. They are not. As Green Hills has previously advised this Commission, it has no interest in spying on, or otherwise observing, Vista Verde residents. Rather, those cameras are security cameras, directed toward portions of Green Hills' property to capture images of any trespassers or other unwanted visitors. The cameras are necessary, as Green Hills' representatives have explained, because Green Hills has in the past experienced break-ins from trespassers who have vandalized, damaged and destroyed property. In fact, Vista Verde residents themselves complained of trespassers "partying" after hours on Green Hills' property. We received a request from staff to provide stills from the camera or raw footage depicting what the cameras record. Because these are security cameras, we do not believe it would be prudent to make the images available to become part of the public record. If we did so, would-be trespassers may be able to detect "blind spots" within the cameras' scope and plan potential intrusions accordingly. Clearly, Green Hills must take appropriate steps to protect graves and tombs from desecration and to protect area residents (including those from Vista Verde) from vandals. Nevertheless, should one City employee wish to view the feeds from these cameras to confirm that they do not film the Vista Verde residents, we would be happy to provide them with an in-person tour or viewing. That individual will need to make prior arrangements with Green. Hills, as the security cameras are accessible to only a few Green Hills employees. 6583-000 -- 1486707.1 Pub. Corr - Page 9 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 11, 2014 Page 6 y Height of the Mausoleum. We frankly do not understand what the November Staff Report is saying relative. to the height of the Mausoleum, although it appears staff is now questioning whether the Mausoleum was built appropriately. We remind staff and this Commission that the Mausoleum was subject to rigorous conformance reviews and plan checks to ensure that it was designed in accordance with the Commission's approvals, and then further reviews and certifications to ensure that it was constructed as per the approved plans. Various individuals within the Planning and Building Departments charged with responsibility for such review and sign -off were involved in ensuring compliance with all conditions, plans and codes, as were Green Hills' designers, architects and engineers. If staff is now claiming, based on an inaccurate and misleading PowerPoint submitted by one individual alleging years after the fact that the City's approval was in error, we again question how anyone could ever rely on anything the City says or does. What is the purpose of the City's approval process, the sign -offs, the certifications, the issuance of building permits and occupancy permits or the repeated assurances that a building meets all requirements, if years later City staff can simply decide everything it did previously was illusory and none of it really happened? At the end of the November Staff Report are recommendations for the Commission to consider, including the revocation of Green Hills' entire CUP and/or the filing of a report to the State. As stated at the outset of this letter, let's get some perspective here. Green Hills is a valuable member of the community. It performs an important public service, and it does so well. It is not perfect. Neither is the City. Both may have made errors in certain aspects of this process. But it is not in anyone's best interest to continue to point blame and cast aspersions and engage in a public flogging that does little more than to provide the Daily Breeze with some scintillating headlines. The name-calling of Green Hills as "drug dealers" and the interrogations of Green Hills' representatives that have now become de rigueur at Commission hearings is not helping to resolve the issues at this point, and is only prolonging the theatricality of the process while providing more time for City representatives to run and duck for cover as they try to blame Green Hills for flaws in the City's process. Further, it is not in anyone's best interest to continue on a path that ensures Green Hills and the City will be slogging out their battles in costly and destructive litigation. The City has no authority to impose a moratorium on burials on the Mausoleum roof G581-000 -- 148670 7 I Pub. Corr - Page 10 Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes November 11, 2014 Page 7 where those burials are expressly permitted by the City's approvals. One court already found that a similar City moratorium violated the Constitution, and ordered the City to compensate the property owner for multi-million dollar damages. Moreover, the City has no authority to require Green Hills to apply for a variance for an already -constructed and occupied building. The City's effort to cover any past errors it may have committed will only be compounded by such arbitrary and capricious actions that clearly violate the law and undermine the credibility of the City's entitlement process. Finally, we note that staff is continuing to refuse Green Hills' efforts to file its application for building permits for the approved Administration Building, notwithstanding the Commission's statements at the last hearing that the plans would be accepted for processing. As you no doubt recall, the Commission was adamant that the modular buildings be removed with all due speed; it issued the approvals for the Administration Building contingent on Green Hills finishing construction within a very strict time period. Is staff trying to guarantee that Green Hills will be unable to comply with the conditions associated with the approval of the Administration Building, only to then fault Green Hills for not meeting the imposed deadline? As we said previously, this is not a game of "gotcha." I will attend the Commission hearing tonight. However, neither I nor my client will subject ourselves to questioning by Commissioners more akin to an inquisition or cross-examination of a hostile witness, nor will we tolerate the insults and attacks that have become the persistent theme of these hearings. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF X583.000 --1486707.1 Pub. Corr - Page 11 Pursuant to direction received at the Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2014, the following information regarding the height of the Mausoleum in Area 11 (Memorial Terrace aka Pacific Terrace) has been obtained: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Construction plans signed by both the city planner and the building official dated February 6, 2012 and Building Height Certification signed by a licensed land surveyor dated January 18, 2013. This information has been provided to confirm compliance with conditions of approval for building height, for Area 11 specifically. 36. The overall building heights for the mausoleums are limited to the heights depicted in the Master Plan Revision booklet described in condition No. 1 above. The heights of each mausoleum building shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department prior to building permit final. Former Response: No height certification records were in the material provided for review. The condition is not in compliance. Current Response: The construction plans and height certification do not match the Area 91 Mausoleum depicted in the Master Plan Revision booklet. Sheet 9 9-D of the Master Plan booklet shows a schematic site section for the west wing of the Memorial Terrace / Pacific Terrace with a 25 foot maximum building height but appears to have a 40 -foot rear retaining wall. This condition is not in compliance. 38. With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 30 - feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure. Pub. Corr - Page 12 Former Response: Inspiration Slope is currently under construction and will be certified for height once framing is completed. An additional compliance inspection is required. Height certifications for other structures could not be located in the record provided. The condition is not in compliance. Current Response: In the "General Development Parameters," pages I and lI of the Narrative of the Master Plan booklet, it states "Building heights are calculated based on building frontage being the elevation of the individual mausoleums that faces the internal cemetery road system. Heights listed on the color elevations conform to the requirements listed in Condition No. 35 in Resolution No. 91-7. The dimensions are shown for the overall height of each mausoleum as measured from the average adjacent grade (not to exceed 20'0') and the overall height of each mausoleum as measured from the lowest adjacent grade (not to exceed 25'-0'). The Condition in Resolution No. 91-7 read as follows: "35. Future buildings designated on the Land Use Plan shall not exceed 20 feet in height as measured from the average elevation of finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 25 feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building, to the highest point of the structure." On March 23, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 155 Revision "A" to allow structures in the Green Hills Master Plan to have a maximum downslope height of 30 feet. Yet, Condition No. 38 in the 2007 Resolution adopting Revised Green Hills Master Plan states — "With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 30 -feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure." It appears the language regarding the 30 - feet in height was carried over into the conditions, but not into the Master Plan Revision Booklet. The result is inconsistencies in how height is calculated and whether or not the maximum height was supposed to be 25 feet or 30 feet. If 30 feet is the rule, it appears that the mausoleum complies with the 30 -foot height limit*. 217.00' Top of guardrail 187.00' Finished floor 30.0' *The certified height of the building was slightly under 217.00' Pub. Corr - Page 13 •st •rr - � 217.00'Top of • 189.50' Average grade at front of building a. Peer Review Description. City b. Building Permit for Memorial Terrace Mausoleum dated, 02/06/12 c. Building Plans for the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum signed by the planner and building official d. Elevation Certificates signed and dated by a licensed surveyor e. Planning Application — Green Hills Memorial Cemetery f. 1991 Staff Report and Resolution for CUP No. 155 and VAR No. 262 — Adoption of Green Hills Master Plan g. 2007 Staff Report, Environmental Document and Resolutions for Adopting Revised Green Hills Master Plan h. All Planning documents for 27501 Western Avenue - Green Hills Memorial Cemetery from the 1980s to present i. 2007 Master Pian Revision booklet According to City correspondence, these documents constitute the whole of the permit record for this property. Pub. Corr - Page 14 INN RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON !0111 ATTORNEYS AT LAIN —A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone 2.13.626.8484 facsimile 2i3.626.o078 RICHARD RICHARDS November 11, 2014 (1916-1088) GLENN R. WATSON 119''-2610' VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U. S. MAIL HARRY L. GERSHON (1922-2007) r Berkowitz, T,� STEVEN L. DORSEY Ellen erkowitz, Esq. MTC ErLLIE, ABBOTT Gresham SZ Savage Nolan &Tilden, PC GREGORY W. STEPANICICH T7 ['� QUINN M. BARROW 333 South Hope Street, 35th Floor CAROL W. LYNCH NERT T ^ /2'''� A [� GR THOMAS ORY . KUIM80 Los Angeles,C 10071 ROBERT C. CECCON -STEVEN H. KAUFMANN KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN HARRIS Re: Green Hills Memorial Park and Its Violation of the Conditions of Approval of MICHAELESTRADA T LAURENCEILOEN KIM WIENER B. TILIts Conditional Use permit SASKIA T. ASAMURA KAYSER O. SDME PETER M. THORSARKMAN Dear 7, �{s• Berkowitz: JAMES L. MARKMAN L IYl Berkowitz: CRAIG A, STEELE T. PETER PIERCE TEREN LISA BOND Thai�ic you for your letters of October 241" and 2$'" regarding Green hills Memorial JANET E. COL ES ON ROXANNE M. DIAZ Park ("the Parr"). JIM G. GRAYSON ROY A. CLARKE MICHAELF. YOSHIBA REGINA As I stated previously, the City Council appreciates the difficult situation that Green REZ PAULA GUTTER BAEZA AEZA BRUCE W. GALLOWAY Hills is facing with respect to its improper sale of plots within the sixteen foot setback DIANA K. CHUANG PATRICK K. DOBKO NORMAN A. DUPONT in the northwest corner of the Park and the interment of thirteen individuals within that DAVID M. SNOW DLLY A. ENRI 1UEZ area as well as the above -ground interment and construction of certain structures along KIRSTEN R. BOWMAN b GI"EnA `ISHA ONCO the western property line, some ofwhich exceed six feet in height, in violation of the TRI SHA ICO CANDICE K. LEE JENNIFER PETRUSIS conditions of approval. STEVEN L. FLOWER TOUSSAINT S. BAILEY AMY GREYSON DEBORAHD R`RHAIGMAOX However, the repeated pattern of violation of the conditions of approval by Green Hills NtARI ELA KATHERINE MAWISINSN has made this situation even more problernatic as to how to resolve the situation in a KATI1fRiNE L. WISINSKI SERISHRRi MA way that will protect the competing interests of the neighbors to the north of the DIANA H. VARAT SEAN B, GIBBONS cemetery and the families of the individuals who have been interred in plots and f R E A. HAMILL N\RON C. O'DELL structures in violation of the conditions of approval. AMANDA L. STEIN STEPHANIE CAO SPENCER 8, KALLICK PATRICK 1). As you know, at the last public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed at length D, STEPHENN D, LEE EE YOUSTINA N. AZIZ KYLE H. BROCHARD the fact that the plans that Green Hills submitted in 2007 regarding the Memorial/ NICHOLAS R. CHI RELLI ,Ir �I,,,,,_,,, Pacific Terrace Mausoleum ("the Mausoleum") were misleading as to the topography ROC SAYRE WEAVER where the western portion of the Mausoleum was to be constructed because the plans TERESA HO�URAND GENAM. STINNETT depicted a large .Slope and retaining wall, where in fact none existed. TELEPHONE 415,421 8484 In addition, the description of the project that was provided to Staff and sent to the TELEPHONE 14,990.0901 public prior to the 2007 hearing stated that the Mausoleum was "an addition to the previously approved rausoleum building located southeast of the existing maintenance TELEPHONE 951.6952373 yard." (Emphasis added.) This inaccurate description explains why the residents of the Vista Verde Condominiums were not present to object to Green Hills' plans in 2007, even though they had expressed their vehement opposition in 1991, when Green Hills Pub. Corr - Page 15 RICHARDS I WATSON ( GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq, November 11, 2014 Page 2 first proposed construction of a mausoleum immediately adjacent to their condominiums, which are located to the west of the maintenance yard. The combination of all of these facts casts serious doubts on Green Hills' contention that it relied "in good faith" on the permits that were issued by the City when it constructed the Mausoleum, which is a required element of a claim of vested rights. (See, Stokes v, Board of Permit Appeals, 52 Cal.App.41" 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].) In response to Green Hills' claims that are based on the equitable principle of estoppel, 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 Cal.3d at p. 793.) One of the elements of estoppel is that the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts. (County of Sonoma v. Rex, supra, 231 Cal. App.3d at p. 1295.) As discussed in part Il, 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 Cal.2d 817 (1947), the California Supreme Court. stated: 411t is clear, however, that neither the doctrine of estoppel nor any other e unable principle may be invoked against a governmental body where it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy dopted to protect the public. McKinnon, 20 Cal.2d 83 [124 P.2d 34, 140 A.L.R. 570], and cases cited therein; Pan Atner. Co. v. United Staters, 273 U.S. 456, 505-506 [47 S.Ct. 416, 71 L.Ed. 734]; American Surery 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.' (I12 F.2d, at p. 906.)" (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court's discussion applies to the principles of estoppel and laches, both of which are equitable principles. This is so because the setbacks that were imposed previously on the Green Hills Master Plan specifically were designed to prevent any activities occurring on the Green Hills property from having an adverse impact on adjoining properties, which is an important public interest, as reflected by the testimony of the Vista Verde residents. Pub. Corr - Page 16 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. November 11, 2014 Page 3 Turning to the applications that will be necessary to correct some of these issues, you contend that only a conditional use permit is necessary and that a variance is not required to encroach into the setbacks required by the Municipal Code in the Cemetery District. However, your interpretation of the conditions of approval and the Municipal Code are not correct. As set forth in Resolution 91-7, that approval included a conditional use permit, variance and 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, 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, as memorialized in Condition 2. Thus, Conditions 1 and 4, by their own terms, were not intended to apply to the variance fi•om 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. You and I have previously discussed and debated Municipal Code Section 17.60.050 B. It is my view that this Section allows the City to impose, as part of an approval of a conditional use perinit, more stringent development requirements than otherwise are established by an underlying zoning district, but does not allow Iesser requirements to be imposed without the approval of a variance. On the other hand, you contend that this Section allows the City to decrease setback and other requirements of an underlying zoning district simply by granting a conditional use permit. As we have stated previously, your interpretation essentially would nullify all of the requirements of Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code regarding variances, including the findings that must be rnade to grant a variance. In my view, the rules of statutory construction, which require sections of code to be read in harmony so as to give meaning to all of Pub. Corr - Page 17 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq, November I1, 2014 Page 4 their provisions and not to nullify the provisions of one or more sections,' do not support your interpretation of the Municipal Code. For all of these reasons, we believe that Green Hills needs to submit an application for a variance to address the below -ground 'interments in the northwest corner, any above- ground interments and structures over six feet in height that will continue to remain in the 5 foot required west setback, and for the Mausoleum in Area 11. As was discussed previously, there is no reason why Green Hills cannot submit an application for a variance at the same time that it submits its application to amend the conditional use Permit. In addressing the concerns that you have expressed regarding disinterment, neither the Planning Commissioners nor City Staff have suggested that anyone should be disinterred, and certainly no one is suggesting that State laws regarding disinterment should ever be violated. Indeed, it is my understanding that one of the purposes of ding applications for a conditional use permit and variance would be to avoid disinterment of individuals who were interred impermissibly within the required setbacks. Finally, to clear up one point that you keep mentioning, no one has suggested that anyone has been interred in the last row of plots on top of the Mausoleum, which is within sixteen feet of the north property line. The fact that this row of plots is being discussed as being a violation of the 2007 approval is that the plots should not be depicted or located within sixteen feet of the property line, as required by Condition 6 of Resolution No. 2007-33. 1 trust that this letter has clarified that point. Very truly yours. 4v-'Z� Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members Chairman Leon and Members of the Planning Commission Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development 1766574.1 (See, Ingredient Communications Council, Luc. v. Lungren, 2 Cal. App, 4th 1480, 1492, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 216, 224 (3d Dist. 1992). rev. denied (April 23, 1992).) Pub. Corr - Page 18 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:09 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn; Carol lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: FW: P.C. Agenda for November 11, 2014 From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:08 PM To: PC; CC Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: FW: P.C. Agenda for November 11, 2014 Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council members, Our City Manager and City Attorney are working with the same staff that is presently under investigation to produce representations and recommendations to you on the illegal Green Hills Area 11 mausoleum. The City's third -party investigator has discovered even more illegal acts by Green Hills than originally found and has not concluded their investigation. Green Hills only last Friday submitted the requested recorded maps of the final illegal mausoleum. ')on't you think any action by you on any Green Hills matter should be suspended until the City's third -party investigator, the City's labor attorneys and the consultant with expertise in municipal planning practices have collectively produced their opinion? Sincerely, Diane Smith From: rpvlistserver@rpv.com [mailto:rpylistseryer(a@rpy.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 4:03 PM To: radismith@cox.net Subject: P.C. Agenda for November 11, 2014 The Agenda for the November 11, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting is below. If you would like to access the Staff Reports, please click on the following link to the City's website: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/AGENDAS - Current Agendas/PlanningCommission/2014/2014 11 11 Planning Commission Agenda/ AGENDA RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2014 FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD :EGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. SCHEDULING NOTES Pub. Corr - Page 19 REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME. PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, UNLESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGREES TO SUSPEND ITS RULES, NO NEW BUSINESS WILL BE HEARD AFTER 11:00 P.M. AND NO ITEM WILL BE HEARD PAST MIDNIGHT. ANY ITEMS NOT HEARD BECAUSE OF THE TIME LIMITS WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA. NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- 28 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: COMMUNICATIONS: City Council Items: Staff: Commission: COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non -agenda items): CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE, CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK ANNUAL REVIEW (ES) Request: Conduct an operational review of the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan, Action Deadline: N/A Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014- that: 1) Imposes a moratorium on ground burials/interments and sales of burial plots on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building located in Area I 1 of the Master Plan, and imposes a moratorium on above -ground burials and other above -ground tructures 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 action is taken by the City to approve a Variance application for the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building and on the issues of said interments and structures in the required setback along the westenl property line; 2) Directs Green Hills Cemetery to submit a Variance application within 30 -days to seek approval to: a) allow the existing Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to Pub. Corr - Page 20 remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line setback; 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 Resolution; 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) Imposes a number of conditions on the cemetery to avoidhninimize impacts to the adjoining neighbors from burial activity on the roof of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area I I of the Green Hills Master Plan, assuming that the moratorium on said burials is rescinded; and, 4) Allows 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 2.2, 2014, 2. COASTAL PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NO. ZON2014-00332): 5500 Palos Verdes Drive South (KF) Request: A proposal to convert a portion of the Harden Estate Gatehouse into the Heritage Castle Museum. Action Deadline: March 9, 2015 Recommendation: Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014- , thereby conditionally approving the requested Coastal Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of a portion of the Harden Estate Gatehouse into the Heritage Castle Museum. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. HEIGHT VARIATION — (CASE NO. ZON2014-00103): 28723 Shire Oaks (LM) Request: The proposed project includes a request to construct a 192 square foot, second floor, addition to the existing two-story residence at a proposed height of 24'-6" as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 99.0') to the top of the highest ridgeline (elev. 123.5') of the addition, which does not exceed the existing highest ridgeline of the existing residence (elev. 123.5'). In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a 236 square foot roof deck/balcony at the rear of the residence. Action Deadline: November 30, 2014 Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2014-, thereby approving a Height Variation for a new 192 square foot second -story addition and 236 square foot roof deck/balcony. NEW BUSINESS: NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4. OCTOBER 14, 2014 MINUTES TENTS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS: 5, PRE -AGENDA FOR THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 9, 2014. ADJOURNMENT: Pub. Corr - Page 21 The next meeting is scheduled for December 9, 2014 Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require a disability -related modification or accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please call the Community Development Director at 310 544-5228 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Notes: 1. Staff reports are available for inspection at City Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard during regular business hours, 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Monday — Thursday and 7:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. on Friday. The agenda and staff reports can also be viewed at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard during the Planning Commission meeting. 2. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Planning Division lobby at City Hall, which is located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes during normal business hours as stated in the paragraph above. 3. You can also view the agenda and staff reports at the City's website www.palosverdes.com/RPV. 4. Written materials, including emails, submitted to the City are public records and may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may be televised and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as they may become part of the public record regarding an agendized item. 9REAKING NEWS City staff occasionally posts other important non -emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's website located at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakingnews Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article is posted to the City's website. You can join at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/listserver Please do not reply directly to this message. The correct contact for each Listsery message topic is included in the message. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please send them to: comments cD_palosverdes.com This Listsery program is one of many services created, hosted, and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET, a non profit 501c3 community service organization servinq our communities by providing computer technology support to the City, educational internships and animation training to kids, workforce training to adults, free classes for seniors, and free web pages to non-profit organizations since 1995. Click here for information about free classes to residents. Contact us by email at information(a)-palosverdes.com Pub. Corr - Page 22 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:23 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills - Wet Stamp Plot Plan from County Recorder - Norwalk From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:29 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: 'LOIS Karp';'James';'Linda Gordon'; 'George Zugsmith; PC; CC Subject: RE: Green Hills - Wet Stamp Plot Plan from County Recorder - Norwalk Hi Carolynn, I am sorry Green Hills has not been cooperative with you and our Planning Commissioners as Green Hills continues to fail to respond to your requests for the documents. Our Planning Commissioners should not be "jammed" with last-minute stacks of paper—that's how things get overlooked and mistakes are made. It is my opinion that you should demand Green Hills come forward with the documents that our Planning Commissioners requested or face more delays. Yesterday I drove to Norwalk and obtained certified copies from the L.A. County Recorder's office of the following: Recording No. 20130298755 recorded February 27, 2013 of "Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Phase 1" prepared by Ross N. Bolton of Bolton Engineering Corporation JANUARY 2013; and Recording No. 20100830530 recorded June 17, 2010 of "PACIFIC GARDEN LAWN CRYPTS" prepared by Ross N. Bolton of Bolton Engineering Corporation April, 2010. I plan to get photocopy enlargements of these recordings and give you the certified copies. I also plan to return to the LA County Recorder's office in Norwalk to obtain copies of the huge maps. if you or your consultants or planning commissioners have particular maps they are interested in then please let me know and I will try to get certified copies of them. Sincerely, Diane Smith From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:Carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:08 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: LOIS Karp; James; Linda Gordon; George Zugsmith; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Re: Green Hills - Wet Stamp Plot Plan from County Recorder - Norwalk Hi Diane - Pub. Corr - Page 23 The plot plans requested by the Planning Commission at the October 28th meeting have not yet been submitted to the City by Green Hills. The City has made two requests to the property owner for these documents since the last meeting. I Nill let you know once they are in the City's possession. Best regards, Carolynn Sent from my iPhone On Nov 5, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Diane Smith <radismith cox.net> wrote: Dear Carolynn, To date, I have not received a response to my October 31, 2014 inquiry below. Please let me know when I can at least come into the City Offices and view this document. Thank you. Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:32 AM To: 'Carolynn Petru' Subject: Green Hills - Wet Stamp Plot Plan from County Recorder - Norwalk I would like to get a copy of the document that the Planning Commission requested you or our City Consultants, Lilley Group, obtain. Please let me know when I can do so. Thank you. Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 F1 Pub. Corr - Page 24 Eduardo Schonborn From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 7:51 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Eduardo Schonborn; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: Maps Attachments: Green Hills 3rd Add. Tranquility Terrace.PDF; Green Hills Pacific Garden L C.PDF I believe these are the maps you are looking for. They are the recorded maps of the Northwest Plot area (called Pacific Gardens) and the western family estates (called Tranquility Terrace). Please let me know if this is responsive to your request. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder 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 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavage.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. l he information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not use, disclose, print, copy or disseminate the same. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message. 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use 4. Security of Email. Electronic mail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure Thus, we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Pub. Corr - Page 25 —17 O%{ I' VOWQ .azsoEaooiox � wor 11 inns MTTIS, Too T Pub. Corr - Page 26 Ing ��tl` R'y S�Y�• 'YY wig`Cy g` hot a 1��lzil C R��4yy� E fl d � E y * u ar , 111M, g gg t —17 O%{ I' VOWQ .azsoEaooiox � wor 11 inns MTTIS, Too T Pub. Corr - Page 26 4, E � L c ? s c �� :�$� t� EEt�ge,�: �rau a�$ g � Oak e �6aec"c a� Catill oil pAnal 'q4 s' Iii !i-ilhz I Pub. Corr - Page 27 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:22 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills LA Recorder Office - Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Phase 1 - recorded 2-27-1.3 Attachments: GH - 2-27-13 Rec, Pacific Terrace Maus, Phase 1 Pg. 1 of 4jpg; GH - 2-27-13 Rec. Pacific Terrace Maus. Phase 1 Pg, 2 of 4jpg; GH - 2-27-13 Rec. Pacific Terrace Maus. Phase 1 Pg. 3 of 4 jpg; GH - 2-27-13 Rec. Pacific Terrace Maus. Phase 1 Pg. 4 of 4 jpg From: Diane Smith [mailto:radismith@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:33 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: PC; CC; 'LOIS Karp'; 'James'; 'Linda Gordon ; 'George Zugsmith' Subject: FW: Green Hills LA Recorder Office - Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Phase 1- recorded 2-27-13 FYI — I will drop off the Certified Copy of the attached late this morning. It is interesting how quickly this was processed: Ross Bolton prepared this map in JANUARY, 2013. rhe signatures of Donald Frew and John Resich were notarized on January 22, 2013. The plans were recorded on February 27, 2013, Recording Document No. 20130298755. Note both Donald R. Frew and John J. Resich, Jr. certified this document as follows: "Green Hills Memorial Park, a California Corporation in the County of Los Angeles, California, does hereby certify: That pursuant to the reservations contained in the Declaration of Dedication hereinafter referred to, a Portion of the PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM Phase 1 in Green Hills Memorial Park, the shown map is located East Of North of PACIFIC GARDEN LAWN CRYPTS, shown on map filed as Document No. 20100830530, recorded on June 17, 2010 as Cemetery Map No. 45, PG 57 in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California, has been resurveyed, resubdivided and renumbered; that such resurvey and resubdivision does not disturb the interred remains of any deceased person; that this is a true and correct amended map showing the resurvey, resubdivision and renumbering of said portion of the EVENTIDE SECTION; that said section is included in the "Certification and Declaration of dedication of Cemetery Property" recorded July 20, 1948, in Book 27781, Pages 265 and 266 of the official records in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California: that said Corporation has caused to be prepared and approved that plot to which this certificate is affixed: that the plot drawn hereon correctly shows the location, arrangement, and numbering of plots, gardens and family estates all situated within the boundaries of Green Hills Memorial Prk in said County, as shown on recorded filed Map No. 106SR filed July 20, 1948, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; that said land was thereby dedicated and is to be used for private cemetery purposes subject to the reservations, rights and privileges set forth herein and in the dedication herein before referred to and subject to all rules and regulations governing Green Hills Memorial Park now in effect and those hereafter adopted: that the said section is a portion of Lot#1, Tract #3192 as per map, recorded in Book 44, Pages 91 to 94 inclusive of maps, records of Los Nngeles County, California. "The right and privilege at any time and from time to time, to resurvey, enlarge, diminish, replat, alter in shape or size, make additions thereto, and/or otherwise to change all or any part or portion of said PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM Phase 1, (including the right to establish, close, eliminate or otherwise modify or change the location of walls, walks, Pub. Corr - Page 28 entrances or adjacent roads or drives, or to alter or change the arrangement or numbering of lots, plots, gardens, estates or other divisions thereof), and to file amended plats, maps, plans or elevations thereof, and to use the same for 'he erection of building, and/or for any purposes or uses connected with, incident to, or convenient for the care, preservation, or preparation for the disposal and/or interment of human dead bodies, and/or other cemetery purposes, together with easements and rights of way over and through said premises for, and the right and privilege of installing maintaining and operating pipelines, conduits, or drains for sprinklers, drainage, utilities, electric or communication lines, or for any other purpose is hereby expressly reserved." Also note Page 3 shows an " 8.17' SETBACK ". In the Pacific Garden Lawn Crypts recording they show an 8' easement. Is an "easement" the same as a "setback"? I am going to make enlarged photocopies of the attached before taking the original Certified Copy of the above recording to our City Manager, Carolynn Petru. I am also planning to return to the LA County Recorder's office to look at the huge Maps and make copies if I see anything I think is important. Comments welcome. Diane Pub. Corr - Page 29 I X a ok I wh N ty �t Z it Wn NA o U 'N �. n'•4fn'.`m'["ibh NT Yon _ •^ t�1 ig oIN ..nf 14 o tri � � .. •rl o ♦`o MFY. I � B ^*r � 4 a ' 11 S F O \ cnn on —n mn rn on M �� 15 �o W� ��-.gym � rm ">r �o ( a \, 1 � v��r��83$a�,���•fi � > > i > i 'S -.ori ;M A ! l�%N iNrA X 4 O O C+ ( `+ ' ./.IBX � � i '•. if/.Yf'e HYI.11'.i a i ��� lilt� Vii. 1 A ifq ME2jul itg pp "�� HIS NO ZQ! s.he'�geaZ e aA ;Oh� $ o`zx��w`•F�y�'``b€�, l �w.•� Ny��.ce�1Q �z',ata ox"a''F��3.•���d agga$ as aka Sa. 5 �3 `s a � & lot, TWA =isc4s3 n&o o$�or a a`oF�Sc a;� I t, all 3S Pub. Corr - Page 30 O c� LL Q co O Im Pub. Corr - Page 31 faV y a U Iz L- _-J $ N e U rr ^� v� S Ir � n ¢ N dOe U � Ci Q, � co >Z m ik OZ r 10 g r••yy IS 1 Z ill m2 Z t'O'� m3 c.� m< a of O r z ui �i n cQ V U O g N i( > U_ w tZ LN LL n %0 3k fu WC � C� N z r' ,v l g' �I a Q a tarot . z 0 U w � N Pub. Corr - Page 31 4 t h vii H O � ...N 1dAk czzL.- 8ZZSzz � N'N. N N N N tV N.N N N " £zZ L J�JUIJ� W111101"ZIT15 N) .- .- �JJLJ- r{'i 241 O zzz lzz °J n F fid' Izz s6tZ ry tJ 0 0 0 iN N '.N tV r li m LA J .Y { U t� 1dAt10 ito _ 81Z - + C�w �;d 1dA!i! OSt =� 161 O b 0 O b :O O Lot..- !!0 I� U t ¢ .5 691 K Q N z z w O L8t LU Ja. D w p w Sgt o ( I 0NNS va z uol-i, _ 3.LE,SO.,ODN 081 W111101"ZIT15 N) .- .- .- r{'i 241 z _L41 841 F i• £st U m LA J { U t� 1dAt10 ito it tSt C�w �;d 1dA!i! OSt O b 0 4 O b :O O Lot..- !!0 I� U _ 3.LE,SO.,ODN n •- •- N) .- .- .- S W 241 z z0 `- U m LA J { get 11 t� 1dAt10 ito it C�w w� O b 0 4 O b :O O !!0 I� U O K _ 3.LE,SO.,ODN n :i f� t N) t S W z z0 U _.w IR 0 to cn w w ito it C�w w� �U N !!0 I� U O U N z z w O LU Ja. D w p w va z O w m O N II it w �O m r< o I ' z T 1�0 U w in n? w I i Bt a. D,DO.DON " cn N a M n p � d• t Zz O t S W Pub. Corr - Page 32 `4 �a Pub. Corr - Page 33 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:23 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills - Recording No. 20100830530 6.17-10 shows "FUTURE PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM" Attachments: GH - 6-17-10 Recording of Pac Garden Lawn Crypts 1 of 4 jpg; GH - 6-17-10 Recording of Pac Garden Lawn Crypts 2 of 4jpg; GH - 6-17-10 Recording Future Pacific Terrace Mausoleum jpg; GH - 6-17-10 Recording of Pac Garden Lawn Crypts 4 of 4 jpg From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:34 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: PC; CC;'LOIS Karp'; 'James'; 'Linda Gordon';'George Zugsmith' Subject: FW: Green Hills - Recording No. 20100830530 6-17-10 shows "FUTURE PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM" FYI — I will drop the certified copy of this one to you this morning too. I do not know how significant this is but I carne across the attached Recording No. 20100830530 recorded on June 17, 2010 with the title "PACIFIC GARDEN LAWN CRYPTS." Cemetery Maps, Book 45, pages 54-57. The first page shows the site location Cemetery Map and at the top indicates " 8' EASEMENT " and to the side "FUTURE PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM." The drawings were prepared by Ross N. Bolton of Bolton Engineering and the date on the map is April, 2010. On the first page, top right-hand side, both Donald R. Frew and John J. Resich Jr. certified the following on June 17, 2010: "Green Hills Memorial Park, a California Corporation in the County of Los Angeles, California, does hereby certify: That pursuant to the reservations contained in the Declaration of Dedication hereinafter referred to, a Portion of the PACIFIC GARDEN LAWN CRYPTS SECTION in Green Hills Memorial Park, the shown map is located North of PACIFICA MAUSOLEUM NORTH, shown on map filed as Document No. 98-539225, recorded on April 2, 1998, as Cemetery Map No. 118 in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California; that said section is included in the "Certification and Declaration of Dedication of Cemetery Property" recorded July 20, 1948, in Book 27781, Pages 265 and 266 of the official records in the office of the County Recorded of Los Angeles County, California: that said Corporation has caused to be prepared and approved that plot to which this certificate is affixed: that the plot drawn hereon correctly shows the location, arrangement, and numbering of plots, gardens and family estates all situated within the boundaries of Green Hills Memorial Park in said County, as shown on recorded filed Map No. 1068R filed July 20, 1948, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; that said land was thereby dedicated and is to be used for private cemetery purposes subject to the reservations, rights and privileges set forth herein and in the dedication herein before referred to and subject to all rules and regulations governing Green Hills Memorial Park now in effect and those hereafter adopted: that the said section is a portion of Lot#1, Tract #3192 as per map recorded in Book 44, Pages 91 to 94 inclusive of maps, records of Los Angeles County, California. The right and privilege at any time and from time to time, to resurvey, enlarge, diminish, replot, alter in shape or size, make additions thereto, and/or otherwise to change all or any part or portion of said PACIFIC GARDEN LAWN CRYPTS Section, (including the right to establish, close, eliminate or otherwise modify or change the location of walls, walks, entrances or adjacent roads or drives, or to alter or change the arrangement or numbering of lots, plots, gardens, Pub. Corr - Page 34 estates or other divisions thereof), and to file amended plots, maps, plans or elevations thereof, and to use the same for the erection of building, and/or for any purposes or uses connected with, incident to, or convenient for the care, a reservation, or preparation for the disposal and/or interment of human dead bodies, and/or other cemetery purposes, together with easements and rights of way over and through said premises for, and for the right and privilege of installing maintaining and operating pipelines, conduits, or drains for sprinklers, drainage, utilities, electric or communication lines, or for any other purpose is hereby expressly reserved." The second page shows Lawn Crypt Burial 401-437. At the top is shown a 4 ft, conc block wall on the Property Line with an " 8' EASEMENT". The third page shows Lawn Urn Plots 12, 4 and 3. At the top is shown an " 8' EASEMENT" and a "CONC. TRACTOR RAMP" and then to the right "FUTURE PACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM." Further shown are Crypt burials 301-395, Typ. Lawn Urn Plot for plots 1, 7, and 8, Lawn Urn Plot 2 and 9 and Lawn Urn Plots 10 and 11 to the far right. The fourth page shows the Family Estate, Crypt Burials 201-232 and Lawn Urn Plot 5 &A. Diane Pub. Corr - Page 35 o,� 4 a20Sol l3 cr 9 thin m�'��� N Ing° Ok °vill! Jill 1p%, 4b, 2� °q Seo a. ]pi &SSC'• � , e` ya UT na .411111111 If 1110 MORE H H o,����Tvs�Q�•g`ge�\io'�i'�°' &�1��b�xv.� �S.aS ;1` PUT �. 4 a A F� �P s p ° I zsw Pub. Corr - Page 36 PQM o x pit A Rea` Y.L IS+•� 5Q �E x s Pub. Corr - Page 36 a VA FS U CD U Ln L) 00 t-- "t 0 r') ca J. m q, m 10 LO --0 U U CN M < LO 0 CD —(N m co < < C) m m cq OD 0 -0 m m Q - m 11 Pub. Corr -Page 37 LLJ L4j m m HIZION W 1109 lb 94TZ Hinos FS U CD U Ln L) 00 t-- "t 0 r') ca J. m q, m 10 LO --0 U U CN M < LO 0 CD —(N m co < < C) m m cq OD 0 -0 m m Q - m 11 Pub. Corr -Page 37 11 Pub. Corr -Page 37 I -.N05'2 , K SZZ6[9-B6d'JOD NOVIOOV rin3l Wn3lOSntlW VOljgyd µ1NDN ION YJLtgyd. {41Ld_HlF FRITTI-TITI-f- I' II d K I Wn3losnvW BOVUU31 O � 00 u h U owiovd mantnd t. Mm! Mm to Mm tip M m Mm Mm Mm I I a o a a n u .O M U JM O— Vy M u N u h--- s} V "m.M M M ��M 0! u m 1 m m ml m rM7 m m M m J M m M m M m M m_ �W H 4 < K M O Q N M —Fh^----tom._ BJ +( < I a ,94'CZ Funs .. -.N05'2 , K SZZ6[9-B6d'JOD NOVIOOV rin3l Wn3lOSntlW VOljgyd µ1NDN ION YJLtgyd. {41Ld_HlF FRITTI-TITI-f- I' d K < O � 00 u h U 6 4 Mm! Mm to Mm Mm M m Mm Mm Mm 9 Y\" Q M m M m rry m M m M m M m M m M m M m_ N H 4 < K < Q < +( < N N ;;kC d' V h V t0 u O V W U V O V M U N V N N y W M m M m M m vM m M m JO7 m M m vM m —') m V O J O _j Q 4 < CA DZZ M m M m M m M m M m M m M m M m. M m 2 .- 91Z �. �N u cn u V' u M U 00 u M U O u kN t) 0 a6DZ g - 49£a 99£0 6$£0 N �. - _ N u to u d Ful wvoN t 3 Di _ FUNDN 09S6 f W 0 \ '� H1t1os_ _ h IF iY e a ,94'CZ Funs .. -.N05'2 , K SZZ6[9-B6d'JOD NOVIOOV rin3l Wn3lOSntlW VOljgyd µ1NDN ION YJLtgyd. {41Ld_HlF FRITTI-TITI-f- I' d K < O � d I 6 4 °rt iri--rifi-�. ( � �B=ZO�tiO'J3tl SZZ6[9-B6d'JOD NOVIOOV rin3l Wn3lOSntlW VOljgyd µ1NDN ION YJLtgyd. {41Ld_HlF FRITTI-TITI-f- I' Pub. Corr - Page 38 11-i ni Pub. Corr - Page 39 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:21 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills - Index of Recordings with LA County Recorder Office 2006 to Nov. 6, 2014 Attachments: GH - INDEX OF RECORDINGS 2006 to Nov 6 2014 pg 1 of 2jpg; GH - INDEX OF RECORDINGS 2006 to Nov 6 2014 pg 2 of 2jpg From: Diane Smith [mailto:radismith@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 3:10 PM To: PC; CC; Carolynn Petru Subject: FW: Green Hills - Index of Recordings with LA County Recorder Office 2006 to Nov. 6, 2014 Attached is a copy of the index of documents recorded with the LA County Recorder's Office from 2006 to Nov. 6, 2014 that I had photocopied. I'm going to the Recorder's Office early Monday morning so let me know if there is anything you want me to look at, date -wise, and copy. Diane Pub. Corr - Page 40 t LN E 0 C 0� ME 0 Lm 0 WA E. X R I Zi Zi it LLI ZZ [,i::, -Ff[ - 0 0 —0 0 .2 0m 0 0 0 0 C) C c c c c c c c c a r - L 0 m ILn > LLI Lli a) LL) D cl� F- a (A z V) z a. 0 LU I z 2LA V) 2 w z to r - o ce CL LLJ -j >- LLJ W ce LLJ W U U LLI -j < w LA LU Ne he 0 m Ne i-- Ne he Ne �x �le Ne hz !�e �z Ise * Uai �W'e 2: Z U- U- —U < OR Z CL CL 0- < < 5 Uj 0 0 0 0 Ldu 0 �KCZ2 0 L" 2 2 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E w M < w De w w :D LU a Ui w w w w w w w w w w - z m 0 < < 2 0 0 I vi tA EA T C) L -j w !:-r U' 3: -1 X , 0 3: X M M Z Vi he z z z z z z z z z z -2 0 Z Z LU z z z Ui LU LU L" L" LU w w w w w w w w Uj w LU ... 0 UJ 0 LU LU LU L" < w w w w w w w w w ... U LLJW(3,f o tDtD 0 0 W 0 0 U U Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 1� j 0 cr- X 2 < < z 0 ED _j LLJ z z 0) Z LA w w cu LLJ -j W W LU w w 0 z 0 LU ::> LI) LU 0) a z LU w LU :3 LU cu 10 LU lu W 'A c� LU LU z z c cq Ui LU LLJ wLLJi0 Z 0 Z 10 -c CL CL CL CL 0. 0- m M 0- 0- 0. a- CL 0- 0- 0- 0- a. a m a. m 0-0. < < < a < a < a < < < 00 CL Ui w LU Ui LU LU LU w LU Uj LU LU w Ui LU LU LU LLJ LU w Lli LU LU I- tD t7l I- tz tz tD ILIL-J L-41 t tz It t t ILIU- ILIU- t t t t t ILL ILILI IL -L -j LL, 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2:2 2:2 2 � 2 � 2 2 2 � 2 LU LIJ LLI Ui LL) LU LLI LLI LLI LU LU LLA LLJ LLI LLJ LIJ LLJ w w LU w w Ui w 1 UlUlU UIUIUIUI UIUIUIU,U UIUIU,Uiu UIUIUIUIU U I U I cd to to LD to Do 00 00 00 co 00 co 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C) a C:, 0, 0 0 a Cl 0 �O 10 a 0 C. 0 O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 . . . 41 CN N C" p to Ln m m L�. in in c c" 04 N r1i C14 N N CN wl-4 1-4 .n N N N N cN N M m N N (N N N N N N CZ4 m O\i O'l all c-n- rN N N N N N CN N N C4 CN N r%4 C4 N CN r1i (N CN C11 Cn w w m m Ln ko n Ln N rq m m -q- to in cO (n 0 �q N cr) "gr Ln ,0 en m m rn a 0 0 0 m m M M M M M C) 0 r-4 H T-1 rH Iq I -i .l m 00 w w w w 00 w w w 0 0 C) 0 Ln Ln in �i r -I �q m m m m m m m m cwn rq 2 rA �q -q r-4 -4 �4 Lns. Ln in un Ln op r4 rn rn en m rn rn m cn i- r, r,. t,, t,, r- r,, F-4 r - C 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 H 1-4 1-1 -1 H H Zo to ZD ko r, t, 86 86 co 86 co w w 00 00 .0 OD OHD 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n 0 0 0 M 0 C) 0 0 Q 001 0 C:, 0 0 1 0 1 C 0 R R 0 Oj'O R [' CN C-4 N N N R ON ON ON (ON CN) 24 CC'i 04 (N CN cli r4 CN r14 N N N CN .1 co Pub. Corr - Page 41 I m QI is 44.1 - - �-[ - - - - ----------- 0 a 0 C c c c: C c c c C Mi M M 2 T i T T 2 r -I 6 0 0" Q Q (D V) LLI CN II < LU F- I-- I-- Lf) CL tA Ln tA Ln X LU ~ ~ ~ F- z Ui Ui -j W LLI w Uj w 0 < U ZZ z z < < w , w w C', U a CL a m m EL 0 0 0gJgLJ On F- 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z 0 U I" U- W LU LU L" 2 U- I E W wLU LU Liu W LU LU W W LU LU w U- V. Y NZ m LLJ cn Lq 1-41 1-3 1 a a CL a- IL he z Z 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z < 0 0 0 0 Z W W 2 W W W W W W W W W w w w a' 0, 0 LLJ Uj w w w w w w w w 2 X- 7 2 LU U W W W W W W W W w w w w (D (D u 0 Lq kD L9 L!) 0 u iD L!) 0 0 2'D 2 - LLJ 0 Ui i! T m CK jjjj z Z Z Z Z > Z LU LU Ui LLJ LLJ i C7 a �2 LU w w LU LU M U Lli z w 04 U.1 LU W LLJ Tj CL 0 76 cn c, UiwCD 2 LU Ui 0- cj- A 0- 0. m m CL a- Z a. 0- a -CL to w Ln < < U D U Z) M z 10 LU w w w w w of w z w w w w w > > w LU to F-- F- IL i F- 1-- 00 Dwww wwtz< :r w w w w z z LU Uj D 0 0 t U U Ui ED LLJ LAJ LLI Ui w LLI W LLJ LU LU W LUw w r— W LLI U U U U 'i U U U U 2 U U U (A m v) U U m D Z) (A LA cd 00 .0 -n "0 CD C) -14 1-4 11, -1 -, M M v I;r W CD 0 0 C> C) 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 CD -4 H CD C3 0 40 N -- Q Qt icz r4 0 CD C14 r4 (N Q (N CN C4 04 IZ N 'i:q, -4 r-4 m -- M r 00 0 - C, r m CN r- 4 Ln r -i 10 in- LLA Ln -4 io 1 -4 - I _4 �q C*4 CD C4 CNry %T M Ln N d' N'c7' en 1-4 to m m N 1, 00 In 00H -f m 0 r -I N0 -4 Cn C:) r -I Ln 00 00 00 Ln to r4 r4 r1i mn " m M -1 N m r -I " " Ln (n m m m n r- 00 00 r- Ln Ln tLn Ln N %0 to U�l r� 'N NN cq ko %D C) C:) r_i 0 0 0 0 0 r -I Ln r -I CO00 kD ID 00 14 -1 I 1 -i m 1 m m cn 0 ko to CN (N f E n n m w 00 00 00 00 w mtn m (n cO'1N It 'T It (N C4 0 6 00 0 0 0 a -4 Iq Cl C) C) 0 1-4 -1 1-1 V 00 00 cn 0 0 a C) 0 0 r -I H r -I N N Mm Mm m WO 0 0 C) CD O0 a 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 CD CD 1 C) 0 CD C, CD Cl CN N r14 N 04 (N C4 Ir -411 N eq N rq r-4 N r14 N CN N N t2. c*4 Pub. Corr - Page 42 From: Matthew Martin To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission: 11/3/14 I'm sending this letter as requested by Commissioner James at the 10/28/14 planning commission hearing. From my review it appears that Green Hills and their architect (in my opinion) didn't adequately disclose what their building plans were to the RPV planning commission nor the public in 2007. One of the most notable inaccuracies is the approx. 13ft hill which was created directly west of the Mausoleum in Area 11. It's hard to get a photo showing the height of this hill due to the fact that Green Hills planted trees directly behind it, but it wasn't shown in the 2007 Master Plan Revision grading plan, shown below in the circle: The area west of the Mausoleum experienced a "net -fill" and not a "net -cut" as shown by the photos below. The orange color above represents a net cut and blue represents a net fill. The land added to the roof of the Mausoleum in Area 11 may also make a large portion of the site a "net fill". According to this map, the entire Mausoleum was being built into a large existing hill (this wasn't the case.) 54 Pub. Corr - Page 43 56 Pub. Corr - Page 45 61FA grading activities. Staff stated that the grading operations for the Master Plan Revision conformed with Section EA of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 in regards to obtaining a major grading permit. Part of this section includes the following statement, "exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls cannot exceed 8'O" and X-6" high, respectively." Tape measure is extended approx. 13ft from the real preexisting grade at the rear of the building and the 13ft tall retaining wall. Pub. Corr - Page 46 Another view showing the difference in height between the road and the 13ft tall hill that was built. Below is another quote from the 2/27/07 staff report: "...the grading and related mausoleum buildings do not impair views; and the excavation does not significantly effect the current appearance of the slope from the public rights-of-way or from other residences. Lastly, the proposed grading activity will not be detrimental to the public safety or to the surrounding properties" Preexisting grade... I ' Another quote from 2/27/07 staff report: "The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site. " 4.01 Pub. Corr - Page 47 It should be clear from the evidence shown that Green Hills and their architect may not have been clear and forthcoming with the planning commission or neighboring residents about their construction plans. As the commission is already aware, the site sections from the 2007 Master Plan Revision booklet for the Mausoleum in Area 11 show the building being constructed into a large 30ft+ tall existing hill. The site sections also show the Mausoleum height not exceeding the height of the existing hill. In reality the Mausoleum in Area 11 was built on nearly flat ground and was extended at least 13ft above the existing grade. The natural topography of the land was significantly altered and had detrimental effects on neighboring residents. I urge the commission to look at the 2/27/07 staff report, which is available online, and read the conditional use permit and major grading permit sections. Multiple false statements were made (in my opinion) with regards to "setbacks not being altered" and subsequent grading activities. Ast Pub. Corr - Page 48 I think it's appropriate and necessary that Green Hills be required to submit a new variance application for the Mausoleum in Area 11 within 30 days. I also think it's appropriate that further activities including sales and burials on top and within the Mausoleum should be discontinued until the new variance application is approved. Discontinuing operations just on the roof of the Mausoleum isn't comprehensive enough in my opinion. It's the entire building which requires a variance and notjust the rooftop. If Green Hills and their architect would have been transparent and forthcoming to neighboring residents and the planning commission about their plans in Area 11 then this problem would not exist today. It's unfair to unnecessarily involve any more innocent families by selling them internments or placing loved ones within or on top of a structure that is in need of a variance. Thank you, Matthew Martin 5GHJ MATIG ally 5t�GTION I NE5T ININe 7.SPPAR'I fUullINI: MASTER OLMOPMENT PLAN MAS TV IT PI AN AR€A11 .+N(.�irre(:I IkF. GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING Iti rt:wuxA RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 11-D G\1XL; AVG snv.Wry arae MC Pub. Corr - Page 49 From: Matthew Martin To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission: 11/3/14 I'm sending this letter as requested by Commissioner James at the 10/28/14 planning commission hearing. From my review it appears that Green Hills and their architect (in my opinion) didn't adequately disclose what their building plans were to the RPV planning commission nor the public in 2007. One of the most notable inaccuracies is the approx. 13ft hill which was created directly west of the Mausoleum in Area 11. It's hard to get a photo showing the height of this hill due to the fact that Green Hills planted trees directly behind it, but it wasn't shown in the 2007 Master Plan Revision grading plan, shown below in the circle: The area west of the Mausoleum experienced a "net -fill" and not a "net -cut" as shown by the photos below. The orange color above represents a net cut and blue represents a net fill. The land added to the roof of the Mausoleum in Area 11 may also make a large portion of the site a "net fill". According to this map, the entire Mausoleum was being built into a large existing hill (this wasn't the case.) 61 Pub. Corr - Page 50 N111kr MEMO 07 25 ?� i U M Pub. Corr - Page 52 Cf am or Road shows where preexisting grade was before construction. Below is another quote from the 2/27/07 staff report: "Further, the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the perimeter of the cemetery site." Me grading activities. Staff stated that the grading operations for the Master Plan Revision conformed with Section E.9 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 in regards to obtaining a major grading permit. Part of this section includes the following statement, "exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls cannot exceed 8'-0" and 3'-8' high, respectively." Tape measure is extended approx. 13ft from the real preexisting grade at the rear of the building and the 13ft tall retaining wall. Pub. Corr - Page 53 Another view showing the difference in height between the road and the 13ft tall hill that was built. Below is another quote from the 2/27/07 staff report: "...the grading and related mausoleum buildings do not impair views; and the excavation does not significantly effect the current appearance of the slope from the public rights-of-way or from other residences. Lastly, the proposed grading activity will not be detrimental to the public safety or to the surrounding properties" Preexisting grade... L Another quote from 2/27/07 staff report: "The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site. " 65 Pub. Corr - Page 54 It should be clear from the evidence shown that Green Hills and their architect may not have been clear and forthcoming with the planning commission or neighboring residents about their construction plans. As the commission is already aware, the site sections from the 2007 Master Plan Revision booklet for the Mausoleum in Area 11 show the building being constructed into a large 30ft+ tall existing hill. The site sections also show the Mausoleum height not exceeding the height of the existing hill. In reality the Mausoleum in Area 11 was built on nearly flat ground and was extended at least 13ft above the existing grade. The natural topography of the land was significantly altered and had detrimental effects on neighboring residents. I urge the commission to look at the 2/27/07 staff report, which is available online, and read the conditional use permit and major grading permit sections. Multiple false statements were made (in my opinion) with regards to "setbacks not being altered" and subsequent grading activities. Pub. Corr - Page 55 I think it's appropriate and necessary that Green Hills be required to submit a new variance application for the Mausoleum in Area 11 within 30 days. I also think it's appropriate that further activities including sales and burials on top and within the Mausoleum should be discontinued until the new variance application is approved. Discontinuing operations just on the roof of the Mausoleum isn't comprehensive enough in my opinion. It's the entire building which requires a variance and not just the rooftop. If Green Hills and their architect would have been transparent and forthcoming to neighboring residents and the planning commission about their plans in Area 11 then this problem would not exist today. It's unfair to unnecessarily involve any more innocent families by selling them internments or placing loved ones within or on top of a structure that is in need of a variance. Thank you, Matthew Martin SGHEMATIG SITE SECTION I WEST WINO J SCYART-POul )IN(:. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WSTF.R PUN AREA II ,WAIIII, MkK GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL. IE RRACE WEST WING IN r"JOKS RANCHO PALLS VERDES, CALIFORNIA NANNM.-Pr 11\W,:114 1-D 67 Pub. Corr - Page 56 Eduardo Schonborn From: Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:30 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn; PC Subject: follow up with October 28th meeting; from a Vista Verde owner Hi Eduardo, I'm providing you and planing commission with picturesto support the cameras issue Vista Verde has with GH. You can see the main point of interest based on the angle you see the camera's "eye".... Also, when/if requesting video from GH 1 would suggest to ask them to provide you with video BEFORE October 28, The camera can pan, tilt, zoom... It means it can be adjusted to deliver video to you, which supports their claims if the video is from a later date.. This one is 18x12 zoom, very high resolution, night vision, excellent one (it can see your eyelashes on 120 meter distance!! When you zoom on the picture below you see our building reflection on it... We'll look for a solution to block them from filming our property. We don't feel that what they assured us is true. And, it doesn't feel good to me filmed all the time.. I limited the size of the following pictures so I could send them ... picture taken from the road south of mausoleum 50 Pub. Corr - Page 57 t ( Orty. from our property 52 .nd the tree! Pub. Corr - Page 59 • J `�� ! `fir a {1 61V Ok -}Xl!., �ti tit, � �• •fir ',�• . `� � -� r a C�RESHAM - Los Angeles `�AVAC7E Ellen.Berkovw�itzC��'Greslt�u7�Savage.rom (213) 213-7249 • tna (213) 2'13-7391 October 28, 2014 VIA EMAIL Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills Annual Review Case No. ZON2003-00086 Dear Commissioners: In preparation for the upcoming Planning Commission ("Commission') hearing, Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") submits this letter in response to: (i) issues raised in the October 28, 2014, Staff Report ("October Staff Report") and "Master Plan Compliance Review," (ii) specific comments made by Commissioners at previous Commission hearings, and (iii) erroneous statements made regarding the law relative to disinterment. Specifically, this letter discusses the following: ➢ Green Hills fully disclosed to the City that the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum") would be built less than 40 feet from the property line and would include rooftop burials. If City staff or Commissioners now claim they were not aware of these facts, this can only mean that these individuals failed to perform the level of due diligence expected of City officials when approving major development projects. ➢ The City determined that Green Hills' application for its 2007 Major CUP Revision contained all necessary entitlement requests; a "variance" was never mentioned. Moreover, the Commission approved the 2007 Major CUP Revision (including the Mausoleum) after noticed, lengthy public hearings at which the project was explained — and at which large maps clearly depicting the Mausoleum's proximity to the property line were prominently displayed; once again, the alleged need for a variance was never mentioned. ➢ The City may not now require Green Hills to apply for a variance seven years after the fact, based on its current and sudden determination that it erred when 1. ,t it:`..Ir 550 fust Hospitality I auc. Suite 300 - San I3cuvaldino, UaIiImma 92408 i Rt 1111 3750 Umvm ity Avenue, Suite 250 • River lde, Cahfomia 92501 N1 w 5511 West C street, suite 1 X I O s sin Diego, Ualiloniw 92101 323 south (lope SUeet, 35"' Floor • I us ringdes. Calilbrnla 90071 6533-000 - 1475900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 61 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 2 granting the approvals for the Mausoleum. Any efforts to do so violate a myriad of laws and constitutional principles. Perhaps more importantly, such a request would also mean that the City's word means nothing, and that businesses cannot rely on duly issued and authorized City approvals because one day, years later, the City may simply change its mind and decide it should not have issued those approvals after all. Contrary to the Homeowners Association attorney's assertions, California state law respects the right to "eternal rest" through prohibitions on disinterment foundin the Health & Safety Code. y With regard to the list of proposed conditions, we are concerned that the prohibition on pre -service burial. activities before 10:00 a.m. could be interpreted to mean that Green Hills' staff is prohibited from setting up chairs or arranging flowers for a 10:00 a.m. service before the service begins. We believe that the City's goal is to prevent "pre -service burial and plot preparation" that involves the use of mechanized equipment, and would request that the condition be modified as such. The Master Plan Compliance Review claims that the Mausoleum is not in compliance with the CUP Condition because it has a setback less than 40 feet, when in fact the CUP Condition expressly authorizes the Mausoleum to be less than 40 feet from the setback. The reviewer's comment that a variance was required for the setback and her resulting conclusion of non-compliance represent legal opinions that, with all due respect, are not within the reviewer's purview as a land use compliance investigator. 'r The Master Plan Compliance Review also states that certain structures on the western property line are not in compliance with the CUP Conditions, but these are family estates that Green. Hills understands to be permitted pursuant to CUP Conditions (1)(i) and 6. The report contains other questionable findings of non-compliance. For example, any condition for which the reviewer was unable to locate records within the City's files is alleged to be a "condition not in compliance." However, most of these documents do exist in the City's records; if they cannot be located, perhaps the City has not complied with its rules regarding appropriate record-keeping as set forth in its February 7, 2012 memorandum "Records Retention and Destruction Schedules." In any event, we hope that we can engage in a meaningful dialogue with the City and/or its reviewer to resolve these issues. GM3-000-- 1475')06.1 Pub. Corr - Page 62 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 3 A. The City was Fully Aware (or Should Have Been Aware) of the Proposed Setback of, and the Rooftop Burials on, the Pacific Terrance Mausoleum When the City Issued its 2007 Approvals. For months now, Green Hills has been chastised for its alleged failure to obtain a variance when it built the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum"). Some have made subtle claims hinting at error, while others have made outright accusations of wrongdoing on Green Hills' part. However phrased, the implication behind these allegations is that Green Hills "hid" or "failed to disclose" or "intentionally concealed" the fact that the Mausoleum was proposed to be constructed within the 40 foot setback. Indeed, the accusations have gone so far that the City now appears to be of the opinion that the entire Mausoleum constitutes a "violation of the conditions" of approval because it was built "within the required setback without the approval of a variance."' This effort to re -write history — with Green Hills portrayed as the "bad guy" and the City as the innocent victim — cannot continue. Set forth below is an overview of the events leading up to the approval of the Mausoleum which shows that the City was — or should have been — hilly aware of its proposed configuration and use. If some current and/or former Commissioners or City staff members claim ignorance of the "true" nature of the Mausoleum's setbacks, we can only surmise that they failed to perform the due diligence required of governmental officials before making important decisions on major development projects impacting their City. And if City officials now claim a variance was an essential request necessary for approval of the Mausoleum, we must question why the City waited until eight years after the applications were first submitted before ever mentioning the word "variance." 1. 1991 CUP/Variance. In 1991, the City approved Green Hills' Master Site Plan by adopting Conditional. Use Permit No. 155, Variance No. 262, Grading Permit No. 1442, and Environmental Assessment No. 601 ("1991 CUP/Variance") 2 The 1991 CUP/Variance provided that: "Any development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit ' October 28, 2014 Staff Report, Page 4, summarizing the Master Plan Compliance Review. ` The variance portion of the approval primarily addressed the reduction of setbacks from those specified in Development Code §17.29.030 A.1 (as of May 22, 1990). 6?83-000 - 1475900 I Pub. Corr - Page 63 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 4 Revision. A noticed public hearing and review and approval by the Planning Commission shall be required." (See Pg. 4 of Resolution No. 91.7, emphasis added.) 2. The 2007 Major CUP Revision. In about 2003-2004, Green Hills determined that the Master Plan needed to be modified to maintain the useful life of the cemetery. As part of the pre -approval process, Green Hills submitted. various maps and elevations depicting different iterations of the proposed Master Plan Revision to City staff, and discussed with them the approvals that would be necessary to effectuate Green Hills' proposal. In 2006, Green Hills submitted its formal application for a major Conditional Use Permit Revision (the "2007 Major CUP Revision") as contemplated by the 1991 CUP/Variance. The application for the CUP Revision included seven specific proposed revisions to the original Master Plan, including Revision 6 for "[a]pproval of an extension and enlargement of [the] previously approved Memorial Terrace' Mausoleum."' The application for the 2007 Major CUP Revision dearly depicted the location of the Mausoleum along the property line at the northwestern edge of Green Hills' property. Elevations and architectural drawings included in the application also noted that the Mausoleum would contain "ground burials on the mezzanine level," City staff eventually deemed the application complete and scheduled the matter for public hearing. At no time did City staff advise Green Hills that it needed any other approvals (such as a variance) for the 2007 Major CUP Revision. On February 27, 2007, at a regularly scheduled and fully noticed public hearing, the Commission reviewed Green Hills' proposal. The Commission had the full application package in front of them during this hearing, including elevations and maps depicting the Mausoleum at (or nearly at) the property line. During this meeting, City staff specifically identified the expansion and development of the Mausoleum to the Commission.9 The map .from the application package depicting the 3 Memorial Terrace has since been renamed Pacific Terrace. 9 The other revisions related to grading (Revisions 1 and 2); clarifications as to the total number of additional ground burial sites permitted at the park (Revision 3); reconfiguration and modification of the Southwest Mausoleum in Area 6 (Revision 4); modification and addition of a mausoleum in Area 3 (Revision 5); and reduction in size of the Southwest Terrace Mausoleum (Revision 7). 5 Discussion occurred at 04110m per time stamp taken from video record of the hearing available on the City's website. OW -000 -- 1475900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 64 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 5 location of the Mausoleum abutting the property line was also projected on a large screen during the meeting itself. The February hearing was sparsely attended, and the Commission continued the matter to April 24, 2007. Between the February and April hearings, Green Hills submitted proposed edits to the draft Conditions of Approval attached to the CUP ("CUP Conditions") to ensure that Green Hills' plans were fully and accurately described in the documentation that would ultimately be presented to the Commission for approval, One of these edits was a specific modification to Condition 7 to expressly note that there would be a setback of "8'-0" for the westent-most portion of the Mausoleum shown in Area .11." This proposed revision was consistent with the Master Plan map contained in the application materials and with the detailed map displayed at the Commission hearing in February. Green Hills' proposed edits -- including the edit relative to the setback — were identified on a redlined draft, which was included as part of the April 24, 2007, agenda packet, along with a Staff Report commenting on the merits of each of the proposed edits. The Staff Report identified the proposed edit to the Mausoleum setback as acceptable.' As such, the edit was directly included in the proposed resolution that was attached to the agenda for the Commission's consideration. The April 24, 2007 hearing lasted nearly three hours, and included input from City staff, Green Hills' representatives, members of the public, as well as robust questioning from the Commission itself about aspects of the application of interest.' The Commission modified and revised several of the CUP Conditions, which staff was directed to integrate into the final CUP as adopted by the Commission in Resolution 2007-32 at the conclusion of the hearing. Within this approved CUP and the accompanying Conditions, the setback for the expanded Mausoleum in Area 11 was clearly identified — in both the text of the CUP approval and the Master Plan map included as an exhibit thereto — as being 8 feet. Thus, there was never any "secret" I "ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF: Staff is amenable to accepting the requested modifications, which provide clarification or further the intent of the conditions. Specifically, the modifications Staff finds acceptable as proposed by the applicant are to conditions 1c, 3, 5 A-1, 5 AQ -1, 5 AQ -10, 5 AQ -13, 7, 14, 19, 21, 23, 28, 35, and 36, as identified in the attached "Modified Conditions of Approval Proposed by Applicant," ' The Commission engaged in a great deal of discussion about certain of the mausoleums proposed as part of the Major CUP Revision, but the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum evidently of not particularly of interest to the Commission as it generated little attention. We suspect this was because residents appeared at the hearing to ask questions about specific mausoleums, but no residents attended the hearing to discuss the Pacific Terrace. G%3-000-- 1175900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 65 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 6 that the Mausoleum would be built 8 feet from the property line, or that it would include rooftop burials. Green Hills fully disclosed the proposed MausoIeum's configuration and use. B. The City May Not Require Green Hills to Apply for a Variance fox the Mausoleum. As to the contention that Green Hills somehow failed to disclose the .Mausoleum as part of its application for the 2007 CUP Revision, the facts are indisputable that the Commission was made aware of the Mausoleum's reduced setback and the inclusion of rooftop burials on the mezzanine level. If the Commission chose to ignore those aspects of the 2007 Major CUP Revision, it did so of its own accord, and not because of any actions or inactions on Green Hills' part. Whether certain Commissioners failed to read their Staff Reports, agenda packages and accompanying documentation, or whether they never looked at the screen during the Commission hearings or forgot to ask relevant questions, we cannot say. We fully recognize the tremendous workload Commissioners face, often juggling full- time jobs with their official responsibilities, wading through pages of documentation and plans and reports replete with nuTnerous pieces of information — particularly in connection with a large project, such as the 2007 Major CUP Revision. Perhaps elements of the application were not understood. Perhaps the Commission is, as several former Commissioners have advised, sorry to have allowed the Mausoleum to be approved as configured. But Green Hills is not to blame. It followed all appropriate steps exactly as prescribed by the City. For the Commission to vent its frustration on Green Hills by requiring additional approvals at this juncture is to compound whatever errors the Cormnission may feel it previously committed. As detailed in our recent October 24, 2014, submittal to the City Attorney and as explained in previous correspondence to this Commission, the City may not require Green Hills to obtain a variance for the Mausoleum which: (i) was validly approved pursuant to the Commission's April, 2007 action; (ii) received building permits consistent with the Commission's approval (in 2008 and again in 2013); and (iii) was constructed in accordance with those building permits. For seven years, the City treated the approvals and permits as valid, and, as recently as February 25, 2014, noted that "there have been no code enforcement complaints or cases opened on [in connection with Green Hills] within the last ten years."' 3 See February 25, 2014 Staff Report. 650-000 -- 1475900A Pub. Corr - Page 66 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 7 Now, after a handful of residents in the City of Lomita complain of impacts to their views and the unnerving presence of burial services close to their homes overlooking the cemetery, the City appears willing to disregard its prior approvals and permits and declare the lawfully approved and constructed Mausoleum a "violation" of the Code. While we respect the Commissions willingness to be responsive to the community's concerns, the path on which the Commission is about to embark - purporting to require Green Hills to apply for a variance and finding the Mausoleum to be in "violation" of its CUP - is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. As noted above, no one at the City ever suggested a variance was necessary in connection with the 2007 Major CUP Revision because, we can only assume, the City did not believe at that time that a variance was required. This is likely because the 1991 CUP/Variance expressly provided that future revisions to the Master Plan would be approved by a major CUP Revision. Presumably, the City interpreted that such revisions would apply to both the 1991 CUP/Variance:, which were approved concurrently originally. That interpretation would also be consistent with the City's Development Code ("Code"), which expressly states that conditions of approval imposed pursuant to a CUP are controlling over underlying zoning requirements, thus snaking a variance unnecessary when a CUP is obtained. Specifically, Code Section 17.60.050.8 states that a CUP's conditions "shall take precedence over development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning of the subject site." The City now takes the position that Code Section 17.60.0508 applies only to conditions that are stricter than the minimum required standards, even though the language of that section does not so state.9 Apparently, the City also now takes the position that not all future revisions to the Master Plan were to be approved by a Major CUP Revision, but that some revisions would also require variances.10 That 9 The plain language of this provision is clear and unambiguous; the proffered interpretation adds text where none exists. It also renders this Code section essentially meaningless because, by definition, a city may issue a CUP with stricter "conditions" than those specified in the code, such is the point of a CUP in the first place. Thus, the interpretation violates basic rules of statutory construction and renders the provision meaningless. (See People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1010). Where the statute is clear, the City should not "interpret away clear language in favor of an ambiguity that does not exist." (Pulaski v. California Occupational Safehj and Health Sta)idards Board (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1315,1338-39. 10 The City has explained that variances and CUPS have been issued concurrently in the past, and that therefore, it would not have been inconsistent to require both a CUP and a variance for the 2007 Major CUP Revision. That may be, but it does not excuse the City's failure to request that Green Hills apply for a variance if it believed - back in 2006 when Green Hills filed its application for the 2007 Major CUP Revision - that a variance was necessary. G591-000- 1475900-1 Pub. Corr - Page 67 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 8 may be the City's position today, but it was not what the City advised in 2007, when it approved the 2007 Major CUP Revision, which included the Mausoleum with 8 foot setbacks. Had the City believed at that time that a variance was required, the City could have - and should have - said so. Had the City so advised, Green Hills could have - and would have - filed for one at the time, as part of its overall application. The City cannot now revisit its interpretations relative to the need for variances and attempt to retroactively require Green Hills to apply for one. Any such action would violate a host of legal principles rooted in the constitution, due process, vested rights, equitable estoppel and laches. It would also mean that the City's word - as expressed through its Planning process - is, for all practical purposes, meaningless. Does the City in fact believe it may issue approvals and building permits, it may authorize construction to move forward according to those approvals, it may encourage businesses to spend millions on these construction projects, only to decide - seven or ten or however many years later - that it has changed its mind and wants to invalidate its prior action by finding an "excuse" with which to do so? This is not a game of "gotcha." The City's word must stand for something. Accordingly, we believe it would be in the City's and Green Hills' best interests to find a way to rectify the situation without pointing fingers of blame or hurling accusations or trying to hurt lawful businesses. Green Hills has proposed a number of possible resolutions, including those related to operational conditions (most of which were proposed by Green Hills in the first instance and already have been voluntarily implemented), by agreeing not to build the proposed Phase II of Mausoleum as previously permitted, and by suggesting a variety of steps (outlined in previous correspondence and also partially implemented) relative to the individuals interred in the Northwest Plots (i.e., the northwest corner of Pacific Gardens). If the City is interested in engaging in a productive and positive dialogue about how to implement these measures, Green Hills would be happy to participate. C. A Primer on Burial Law. We have one comment to the October 21, 2014, letter from the attorney for the Homeowners Association, who purports to understand the nuances of cemetery law better than Mr. John Resich, an internationally recognized expert on cemetery law for more decades than Mr. Resich likely cares to admit. The letter advises that there is only one statute in California regarding the removal of remains from a cemetery, and 4533-000- 1475900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 68 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 9 notes that that law does not govern the removal of remains from a cemetery plot. Accordingly, the author seems to conclude that remains may be moved around a cemetery with impunity, subject only to a requirement that a permit for such be obtained. The author is mistaken. There are several statutes in California regarding the removal of remains from a cemetery plot, and these mandate compliance with strict guidelines. One such statute states that disinterment is permitted only with the express consent of the cemetery and a select number of surviving family members (spouse, children, parents, or siblings). Another statute provides that if the express consent cannot be obtained, removal is permitted with permission of the court. A third statute details how approval of the court may be obtained. See California Health & Safety Code Sections 7525-7527.11 Evidence of the perils of improper removal can be seen in the case of Eden Memorial Park in the northwest valley area of Los Angeles, which recently settled a lawsuit relative to improper disinterment for $80 million. Green Hills consulted with attorneys involved in that case in connection with the matter here. As could be expected, Green Hills was strongly advised not to disinter anyone without an express court order.12 In view of Eden Memorial Park's situation, Green Hills' cautions relative to disinterment can hardly be seen as empty "scare tactics." D. Comment on One Proposed Condition of Approval. We have one comment on the sixth-bulleted proposed new operational condition contained in the October 28, 2014 Staff Report. This condition provides, among other things, that "[p]re-service burial and plot preparation... on the ... Mausoleum ... shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m." We note that when burial services are scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m., Green Hills' staff typically begins to set up chairs, arrange flowers and engage in other organizational activities to ready the site for the service. If these activities are deemed 11 We should also point out that long-standing public policy disfavors disinterment, urging respect for the "sanctity of the grave" out of recognition that, once buried, a body should not be disturbed. As articulated by Justice Benjamin Cardozo nearly a century ago, "[t]he dead are to rest where they have been lain unless reason of substance is brought forward for disturbing their repose." Ymia v, Gorniati 242 N.Y. 395, 403 (1926). 12 It is with great restraint that we decline to comment further on the crassness of the author's reference to "body counts" and "human shields," evidently intended to be a cute or clever turn -of -phrase, but to those in a business that values life and dignifies death, it is an utterly disrespectful portrayal of poor taste. GM3-000 -- 1475900.7 Pub. Corr - Page 69 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 10 "pre -service burial ... preparation," Green Hills could find the Simple act of arranging chairs to ensure mourners' comfort brings about allegations of "CUP violations" (which of course, inevitably leads to cries for "revoke the CUP!") if such activities occur before a 10:00 a.m. service begins. We believe that the City's goal is to prevent "pre -service burial and plot preparation" that involves the use of mechanized equipment, and would request that the condition be modified as such. E. The Master Plan Compliance Review Contains Inconsistencies and Reaches Erroneous Conclusions. There are several inconsistencies and errors of in the Master Plan Compliance Review (the "Review"). A few are summarized here: v The Review states, under Condition 7, that the Mausoleum is in violation of the setback requirement, notwithstanding that the Condition expressly permits the Mausoleum to be setback 8 feet from the property line. The reviewer, however, concludes that such approval was not permitted without a variance — a conclusion that involves a legal determination relative to the scope of the City's authority, the propriety of the Commission's actions, interpretations of conflicting provisions of the City Code, and an analysis of the law governing (among other things) vested rights and equitable estoppel that. With all due respect, we believe such legal opinions are not within the reviewer's purview as a land use compliance investigator. Y The Review cites another alleged violation relative to "certain small structures... placed within the five foot structural setback along the west property line." It is has been Green Hills' understanding that these structures are family estates permitted pursuant to Conditions 6 and 1(i) of the CUP. Specifically, Condition 6 permits a 0 setback with respect to below ground interments and garden burials sites located along the eastern and western property lines. Condition 1(i) provides that ground burial and garden burial sites "may include family estates that are enclosed by low garden walls around their perimeters to enclose these burial estates," so long as these structures are no taller than 6 feet tall and are not within Area 4. Thus, it is Green Hills' understanding that these walls are permitted by Conditions 6 and 1(i), as they are: (i) low garden walls;' (ii) enclosing family estates; (iii) in an area 13 Green Bills will confirm that the walls are all less than 6 feet high. CMI -000 •- 1475900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 70 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 11 identified for below ground and garden burials (that are permitted to have a 0 setback); and (iv) not located within Area 4. If the City has a different interpretation about the nature of these family estates, we hope that we can engage in a meaningful dialogue that attempts to reach a common understanding and resolution about them and about future family estates on a going forward basis. The reviewer was apparently unable to locate certain reports, records and permits in the City's files. The Review therefore reaches the somewhat illogical conclusion that her inability to locate records means that the "condition not in compliance." However, most of these documents do exist in the City's records; if they cannot be located, perhaps the City has not complied with its rules regarding appropriate record-keeping as set forth in its February 7, 2012 memorandum "Records Retention and Destruction Schedules." For example, the Review notes that no Geotechnical Reports were found in the City's records. These were unquestionably provided to the City (otherwise, the City would not have issued the relevant permits), and we assume they still exist somewhere as the City is required to retain these as part of its permanent project records. Y The Review renders a finding of non-compliance for the alleged failure to obtain a grading permit for the ground burials in Area 4. The reviewer is mistake about this topic. Grading permits are required for "grading operations," but no such grading operations have occurred in Area 4. Grading permits are not required for "cemetery graves." See 2013 California Building Code Appendix]., Section 1103.2 sisbsecti.on 3. As Green Hills has only placed ground burials within Area 4 but has not done any grading, no grading permit was required. y The Staff Report notes that there is a "violation" of the CUP conditions relative to the "encroachment ... on the roof of the Mausoleum within the required sixteen foot setback." In fact, the Review does not appear to call out burials on the roof of the Mausoleum within the 16 foot setback, which makes sense given that no burials have been placed within the alleged sixteen foot setback, nor have any plots been sold within that alleged setback area. We are thus unclear as to what, exactly, constitutes the improper encroachment referenced in the Staff Report, and request clarification of this issue. 0583-000 - 1475900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 71 The Planning Commission October 28, 2014 Page 12 Thank you for your consideration. I will be present at the hearing tonight. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF cc: Carolynn Petru Carol Lynch Joel Rojas Eduardo Schonborn GSS3.000 -- 1475900.1 Pub. Corr - Page 72 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. Pub. Corr - Page 73 -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 Pub. Corr - Page 74 -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, Pub. Corr - Page 75 -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 J Martin Pub. Corr - Page 76 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:19 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Staff Report Late correspondence. From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:01 PM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: PC; CC Subject: RE: Green Hills Staff Report Hi Carolynn, I have losttrust in our city management because of the serious issues that have degraded our city and have caused and continue to invite expensive litigation. The litigation will grow and continue until the serious issues are resolved. I have spoken to you about this in person. Since you and Carol Lynch are providing oversight in the Green Hills matter then it seems appropriate that you both sign your names to these memos and reports stating "approved by RPV City Attorney Carol Lynch and City Manager Carolynn Petru" or something like that so that now, and in time to come, everyone will know you both reviewed and approved these serious issues. As of now, there are many unanswered questions like, should this properly be in front of the City Council rather than the Planning Commission? Can you recommend that Green Hills apply for a variance at this point when it has not yet been determined whether the illegal mausoleum was constructed by mistake (which may allow for a variance process) or intentionally constructed without a variance and without discussing the violations with the planning commissioners? (which would not allow for a variance process)? I am glad you found the missing documents (I had the same problem with the files) and have provided them to Lilley Planning Group. I will look for their opinion on the changes between the original architect's drawings on the area 11 mausoleum approved by the planning commission and the later architects' drawings approved by Staff. It would be helpful to the planning commission and all concerned for the consultants (or you) to provide a list of the documentation, including review of the videotaped meetings, etc. that you gave to the consultants on which they made their report. Now the planning commissioners know that at the very least the Lilley report, supporting the staff report, is incomplete as of this date and they can watch for supplementation tomorrow. Thank you Carolynn, Diane From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:Carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:29 PM To: Diane Smith Pub. Corr - Page 77 Cc: PC; CC Subject: RE: Green Hills Staff Report I understand that you disagree with my handling of the Green Hills matter. However, although our names do not appear on the Planning Commission staff report, as I explained in prior emails, both the City Attorney and I have been providing oversight of the Green Hills project since last August. Further, I retained a consultant to conduct the Compliance Review requested by the Planning Commission, rather than having staff do this work, in order to provide a third --party, independent analysis of the situation. The Lilley Planning Group has worked diligently on this assignment, under a very tight time schedule. The records regarding the building, grading and geology certifications have been located and provided to the consultant. Any remaining issues will be addressed at tomorrow night's Planning Commission meeting. It will be up to the Planning Commission to determine whether the information provided is adequate to complete their review. I do not have the authority to postpone their review pending the outcome of the internal investigation. The Planning Commission can take that action, however, if it so chooses. Sincerely, Carolynn From: Diane Smith fmailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:41 PM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: PC; CC Subject: FW: Green Hills Staff Report I am astounded that you have once again allowed Eduardo Schonborn and Joel Rojas to advise our Planning Commissioners on Green Hills and in particular the mausoleum in Area 11 that they themselves misrepresented to the then planning commission and allowed the project to go forward without City Council approval, and without adhering to our City codes. is this why neither your name nor Carol Lynch's name are anywhere to be found on the attached agenda and staff report to our Planning Commission that was forwarded to me, by Eduardo Schonborn? Why would you and Carol Lynch allow Joel Rojas and Eduardo Schonborn to give more advice to our Planning Commission when Joel and Eduardo are under investigation, and their report is based on your consultants' incomplete assessment of compliance? Why would you waste our planning commissioners time when you and Carol Lynch know that you are exposing our planning commissioners as they cannot make any decisions under these circumstances? Once again, I ask that the Green Hills matter be taken off the Planning Commission Agenda until the independent investigation of Joel Rojas and Eduardo Schonborn are completed and until your consultant has made a complete assessment of compliance. It is also surprising to me that you and Carol Lynch would be undertaking a review of your long-time co-workers Carolynn, to recap: On August 25, you responded to my August 24 inquiry as follows: Hi Diane — Pub. Corr - Page 78 I retained the consultant to conduct a compliance review of the Green Hills Master Plan, as requested by the Planning Commission on August 121h. As part of that assignment, the consultant reviewed the public records associated with the project, including the videotapes of the Planning Commission meetings conducted in 2007. However, they were not tasked with reviewing and commenting on the conduct and actions of the staff in processing the applications. That is a separate effort which, as I indicated in my prior email to you, is still on-going. Sincerely, Carolynn From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.netj Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:42 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan Review by Lillie Planning Group of Fullerton Dear Carolynn, I have read the report by Lillie Planning Group and I have taken a look at their website. I would like to know if you directed Lillie Planning Group to our RPV Video of the critical Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 2007 or any other Planning Commission meetings. In particular, I would like to know if Lillie Planning Group was asked to consider representations made by Eduardo Schonborn to our then Planning Commissioner Jim Knight on April 24, 2007. This is the heart of the big problem that I have spoken to you about Carolynn. Our City Staff presented our Planning Commissioners with an enormous stack of documentation to consider at the April 24, 2007 planning commission meeting. Our City Staff is educated and knows full well about setbacks and enforcement of our city codes — they get paid very well to know these things. Our Commissioners and City Council must be able to rely on their expertise and honesty and integrity when giving reports, advice and recommendations. Lillie Planning Group notes there was no discussion of changing the setbacks and agrees it is illegal. What good are our rules and laws if our own staff intentionally abuses them, figuring they can just say they made a mistake and get a back- dated permit or variance for developers? I would like to know the opinion of your expert Lillie Planning Group regarding RPV's seasoned head of planning, Joel Rojas' whisper to subordinate Eduardo Schonborn, to "just say no" in response to Planning Commissioner Knight's request for assurances that the project would not adversely affect resident neighbors (April 24, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting) etc. See, again, at the end of the lengthy April 24, 2007 video of RPV Planning Commission Meeting: http://youtu.be/m8aWm hzkSCt Or is that portion of the video more properly being considered by the independent law firm? Please let me hear from you Carolynn. Thanks, Diane Smith Pub. Corr - Page 79 On August 23, 2014 you assured me: Both City Attorney Lynch and I are providing oversight of the Green Hills Master Plan currently before the Planning Commission. As neither one of us was involved with the matter in 2007, we are providing independent review of the Staff's actions and recommendations. We plan to attend the meeting next Tuesday night, as we did on August 12th. On October 24, 2014 you confirmed to me that the internal investigation of Joel and Eduardo has not been concluded. Again, the Green Hills Master Plan review must be removed from the Planning Commission Agenda as premature. Green Hills cannot object because they knew full well that any reduction of the City's Cemetery Code set back would require a variance; and Green Hills knew full well they should not conduct burials within the City's set backs; and City Staff knew full well that any reduction of the City's Cemetery Code set back would require a variance and the City Staff knew full well they should advise the Planning Commission — but they did not — they hid the illegal reduction of the setback and when Planning Commissioner Knight asked, again, for assurances that the mausoleum did not interfere — the City Staff said no, with a back-up whisper caught by the videotape, "just say no." Our Planning Commission was INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED - http://voutu.be/mBaWm hzkSQ Green Hills and City Staff cannot just say, "oh, we made a mistake and all we have to do is back -date a variance and clean it up." There were terrible wrongs done here Carolynn and our City Staff cannot be permitted to continue this behavior with other City projects. This is not a matter back -issuance of codes to allow a great big American Flag at Trump National, Carolynn. As a long- time resident and concerned citizen resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, until this matter has been thoroughly investigated and concluded, by impartial parties, I request the Green Hills matter be removed from the Planning Commission Agenda until resolution of all investigations. Diane Smith From: Eduardo Schonborn [mailto:EduardoSCZ0rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:32 PM To:'Ellen Berkowitz'; Michael N. Friedman; 'Matthew Geier'; Diane Smith;'matthewhmartin@yahoo.com' Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: Green Hills Staff Report The October 28`h Planning Commission agenda is now available on the city's website, or by clicking on the following link: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/AGENDAS - Current Age ndas/PlanningCommission/2014/2014 10 28 Planning Commission Agendal You will find a link to the staff report and the various attachments. Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner 00ty of Ranc(co Talos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Pub. Corr - Page 80 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f eduardos(@_rpv.com Pub. Corr - Page 81 Eduardo Schonborn From: Sent: To: Subject: Late correspondence Joel Rojas Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:21 PM Eduardo Schonborn FW: Green Hills Staff Report From: Diane Smith <radlsmith@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:41:14 PM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: PC; CC Subject: FW: Green Hills Staff Report I am astounded that you have once again allowed Eduardo Schonborn and Joel Rojas to advise our Planning Commissioners on Green Hills and in particular the mausoleum in Area 11 that they themselves misrepresented to the then planning commission and allowed the project to go forward without City Council approval, and without adhering to our City codes. Is this why neither your name nor Carol Lynch's name are anywhere to be found on the attached agenda and staff report to our Planning Commission that was forwarded to me, by Eduardo Schonborn? vVhy would you and Carol Lynch allow Joel Rojas and Eduardo Schonborn to give more advice to our Planning Commission when Joel and Eduardo are under investigation, and their report is based on your consultants' incomplete assessment of compliance? Why would you waste our planning commissioners time when you and Carol Lynch know that you are exposing our planning commissioners as they cannot make any decisions under these circumstances? Once again, I ask that the Green Hills matter be taken off the Planning Commission Agenda until the independent investigation of Joel Rojas and Eduardo Schonborn are completed and until your consultant has made a complete assessment of compliance. It is also surprising to me that you and Carol Lynch would be undertaking a review of your long-time co-workers Carolynn. To recap: On August 25, you responded to my August 24 inquiry as follows: Hi Diane — I retained the consultant to conduct a compliance review of the Green Hills Master Plan, as requested by the Planning Commission on August 12th. As part of that assignment, the consultant reviewed the public records associated with the project, including the videotapes of the Planning Commission meetings conducted in 2007. However, they were not `.asked with reviewing and commenting on the conduct and actions of the staff in processing the applications. That is a separate effort which, as I indicated in my prior email to you, is still on-going. Sincerely, Pub. Corr - Page 82 Carolynn :rom: Diane Smith f tnailto.radlsmith@cox.net) Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:42 PM To: Carolynn Petru Subject: Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan Review by Lillie Planning Group of Fullerton Dear Carolynn, I have read the report by Lillie Planning Group and I have taken a look at their website. I would like to know if you directed Lillie Planning Group to our RPV Video of the critical Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 2007 or any other Planning Commission meetings. In particular, I would like to know if Lillie Planning Group was asked to consider representations made by Eduardo Schonborn to our then Planning Commissioner Jim Knight on April 24, 2007. This is the heart of the big problem that I have spoken to you about Carolynn. Our City Staff presented our Planning Commissioners with an enormous stack of documentation to consider at the April 24, 2007 planning commission meeting. Our City Staff is educated and knows full well about setbacks and enforcement of our city codes — they get paid very well to know these things. Our Commissioners and City Council must be able to rely on their expertise and honesty and integrity when giving reports, advice and recommendations. Lillie Planning Group notes there was no discussion of changing the setbacks and agrees it is illegal. What good are our rules and laws if our own staff intentionally abuses them, figuring they can just say they made a mistake and get a back- dated permit or variance for developers? I would like to know the opinion of your expert Lillie Planning Group regarding RPV's seasoned head of planning, Joel Rojas' whisper to subordinate Eduardo Schonborn, to' just say no" in response to Planning Commissioner Knight's request for assurances that the project would not adversely affect resident neighbors (April 24, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting) etc. See, again, at the end of the lengthy April 24, 2007 video of RPV Planning Commission Meeting: htto://youtu.be/mSaWm hzkSQ Or is that portion of the video more properly being considered by the independent law firm? Please let me hear from you Carolynn. Thanks, Diane Smith On August 23, 2014 you assured me: Both City Attorney Lynch and I are providing oversight of the Green Hills Master Plan currently before the Planning Commission. As neither one of us was involved with the matter in 2007, we are providing independent review of the Staff's actions and recommendations. We plan to attend the meeting next Tuesday night, as we did on August 12th. On October 24, 2014 you confirmed to me that the internal investigation of Joel and Eduardo has not been concluded. Pub. Corr - Page 83 Again, the Green Hills Master Plan review must be removed from the Planning Commission Agenda as premature. Green Hills cannot object because they knew full well that any reduction of the City's Cemetery Code set back would equire a variance; and Green Hills knew full well they should not conduct burials within the City's set backs; and City Staff knew full well that any reduction of the City's Cemetery Code set back would require a variance and the City Staff knew full well they should advise the Planning Commission — but they did not —they hid the illegal reduction of the setback and when Planning Commissioner Knight asked, again, for assurances that the mausoleum did not interfere — the City Staff said no, with a back-up whisper caught by the videotape, "just say no." Our Planning Commission was INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED - http://youtu.be/m8aWm hzkSQ Green Hills and City Staff cannot just say, "oh, we made a mistake and all we have to do is back -date a variance and clean it up." There were terrible wrongs done here Carolynn and our City Staff cannot be permitted to continue this behavior with other City projects. This is not a matter back -issuance of codes to allow a great big American Flag at Trump National, Carolynn. As a long- time resident and concerned citizen resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, until this matter has been thoroughly investigated and concluded, by impartial parties, I request the Green Hills matter be removed from the Planning Commission Agenda until resolution of all investigations. Diane Smith From: Eduardo Schonborn [mailto:EduardoS@rpv.comj Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:32 PM To: 'Ellen Berkowitz'; Michael N. Friedman; 'Matthew Geier'; Diane Smith;'matthewhmartin@yahoo.com' Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: Green Hills Staff Report The October 28`h Planning Commission agenda is now available on the city's website, or by clicking on the following link: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/AGENDAS - Current Agendas/PlanningCommission/2014/2014 10 28 Planning Commission Agenda/ You will find a link to the staff report and the various attachments. Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner 00ty of Rancho Talos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/planning;-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f eduardostc rpv.com Pub. Corr - Page 84 GRESHAM ' SAVAGE Elle.n.Be:rko3t,itzCiCrc>stiamSavar;e.com - Los-Angehs (213)213-7249 fox(213)213-7391 October 24, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms. Carol W. Lynch City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes 355 S. Grand Ave., 4001 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Re: Green Hills Memorial Park's Annual Review Dear Ms. Lynch: On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills"), this letter responds to your October 3, 2014, correspondence requesting that Green Hills take several actions: (1) offer a financial incentive to the families of individuals who are interred in the previously defined Northwest Plots' area of the cemetery to disinter and move their loved ones; (2) apply for a variance to permit the continued interment of the 13 individuals located within the Northwest Plots (including the potential use of the six companion plots); and (3) apply for a variance for the Pacific Tel -race Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum"). While Green Hills hopes to find common ground upon which it can resolve its issues with the City, Green Hills cannot take actions that are insensitive to the families of those individuals that have been laid to rest in the Northwest Plots or that are incompatible with basic principles of law and equity. 1. Permitting the 13 Interments to Remain, While Undertaking Additional Steps to Eliminate Further Burials within the Northwest Plots, Minimizes Impacts to the Families of the Deceased and to the Neighbors. In our September 18, 2014, correspondence to you, we explained the steps Green Hills was prepared to take to rectify the sale of the 41 Northwest Plots, including: (i) no .further sales of Northwest Plots; (ii) relocation of all individuals from the sold, but unoccupied Northwest Plots; and (iii) an offer for relocation of the six companion plots 1 In our previous correspondence, the "Northwest Plots" were defined as the "ground burial plots within the sixteen (16) foot setback area in the northwest corner of the park." k',; `!; l siert 550 Past Hospitakty 1_anc, Smic ,00 e San Scrnardino. (; a71fo3',nr.1 9240S 3750 11nn-cr.ity ANenuc, Suilc 250 - Rig-cr,iiii 1 92501 550 VVer ( C sheet, shite tS10 . San Diceo_ Colrtbrnia 92101 333 South !lupe Street, 35" PlooI o Lott Angeles. ('aIiforma 90071 G593-000 -- 1975235,1 Pub. Corr - Page 85 Ms. Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 2 to accommodate a second interment when those plots would be re -opened for that purpose.? We also explained at some length Green Hills' struggle to balance the competing interests involved in this request, and discussed Green Hills' ultimate conclusion — based on its 65+ years of experience in the cemetery industry and its consultation with industry experts and its own grief counselors — that offering financial compensation to families in exchange for the relocation of their deceased relatives is contrary to the very principles of "eternal rest" upon which cemeteries such as Green Hills are founded. This principle is based on the strong public policy disfavoring disinterment, respect for the "sanctity of the grave," and the recognition that, once buried, an individual should not be disturbed 3 Given this, we are surprised the City continues to push for disinterment, particularly in view of the fact that the actual impact of the existing interments is negligible (but for a simple headstone, no one would ever know people are buried. there). Moreover, if the purpose of the 16 foot setback is to protect the adjacent neighbors, we note that the removal of those 13 individuals would cause greater impacts in terms of noise and disturbance than allowing the individuals to remain interred. Accordingly, as we advised in our September letter, Green Hills intends to apply for an amendment to its Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") relative to the 13 individuals currently interred and the six potential companion burials that may be located within the Northwest Plots. '` Green Hills has already ceased all Northwest Plot sales and is currently relocating individuals from the sold but unused plots. s As articulated by Justice Benjamin Cardozo nearly a century ago, "[tjhe dead are to rest where they have been laid unless reason of substance is brought forward for disturbing their repose." Yomn v. Gorman 242 N.Y. 395, 403 (1926); see also Tulp v. Tulp, 226 Ga. 653, 653-654 (1970), which held that: "Disinterment of a body is not favored in the law. Public policy frowns on the disinterment of a body and its removal to another burial place, and it is the policy of the law, except in cases of necessity or for laudable purposes, that the sanctity of the grave should be maintained, and that a body once suitably buried should remain undisturbed. While the right to have a dead body remain undisturbed is not absolute, a court will not ordinarily order or permit it to be disinterred unless there is a strong showing that it is necessary and that the "interests of justice require it." G593.000 -- 1475235 1 Pub. Corr - Page 86 Ms. Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 3 2. A New Variance to Permit the Continued Use of the Plots Located Within the Setback Area is not Necessary or Consistent with Past City Practice. The City has requested that Green Hills apply for a variance to allow the 13 individuals interred within the Northwest Plots to remain, ostensibly because the City's Municipal Code ("Code") was amended in 1997 to require all below -ground interments to be 40 feet from a residential property line. However, Green Hills has already received a variance that covers all below --ground interments within the park, and allows all such interments to be placed within the otherwise applicable setback area. Specifically, Variance No. 262, approved in connection with Green Hills' 1991 Conditional Use Permit (the "1991 CUP") for the original Master Plan, provides for a deviation for below -ground burials from the setbacks otherwise required by the Code. These below ground burials are generally permitted to be 8 feet (including property lines running adjacent to residential areas), with the exception of the area in the northwest corner, which is to be 16 feet. The resolution approving Variance No. 262 expressly stated that, notwithstanding the 40 foot setback set forth in the Code, the City deemed a reduced setback for below -ground interments to be reasonable for cemetery property abutting residential areas. Although the Code relative to below - ground interments may have not been officially amended until 1997, the City clearly treated the 40 foot setback as applicable to below -ground interments, as evidenced by the fact that it deemed it necessary to grant Variance 262 to permit below -ground interments within the setback area. These reduced setback allowances were incorporated into the Master Plan Revision CUP granted in 2007 (the "2007 CUP"), which allowed thousands of new below - ground interments. Thus, notwithstanding the 1997 Code revisions, the City did not require new variances for these new below -ground interments when it approved them in the 2007 CUP. Rather, the City incorporated the 1991 CUP conditions of approval relative to setbacks as part of the 2007 Master Plan revisions. This approach is consistent with the requirement set forth in the 1991 CUP, which expressly states that all revisions to Green Hills' Master Plan are to be made by a "Major Conditional Use Permit Revision."4 Accordingly, consistent with these requirements, the only approval necessary at this point to authorize the continued use of the 13 Northwest Plots (and the possible use of 4 See Exhibit A of Resolution No, 91-7, Section 4: "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." 6533-000 -- 1475_^ 35,1 Pub. Corr - Page 87 Ms. Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 4 the six companion plots) to be placed 8, rather than 16, feet from the property line, is a simple revision to the existing 2007 CUP as follows: North and South — 8' (except the northwest corner between the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16', with the exception of the 13 interments already placed within this northwest corner and the six companion plots which have already been sold, which may be 8'.) Upon the approval of this CUP Revision, the 13 interments and six companion plots will be fully authorized consistent with the City's past practice and procedure. 3. A Variance Relative to the Mausoleum is Inappropriate Because Green Hills has a Vested Right to Maintain and Operate the Mausoleum, and Because the City is Estopped and Barred from Requiring Green Hills to Apply for a Variance for the Mausoleum. a. Green Hills has a Vested Right to Maintain and ,Operate the Mausoleum. As raised in previous correspondence with the City, California law recognizes the concept of vested rights in property development and ownership. This doctrine provides that when a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a City permit, the property owner acquires a vested right to complete construction and/or continue with the use of the development in accordance with the terms of that permit. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.App.3d 785, 791-799. Similarly, the granting of a CUP to a property owner, with subsequent reliance on that CUP, also creates a vested right to continue the use authorized under the CUP. Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc. v. Country of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.AppAth 359, 367; Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.AppAth 1281, 1294. Vested rights are property rights "rooted in the Constitution." Pardee Construction Company v. California Coastal Commission (1979) 95 Ca1.App.3d 471. Because vested rights are controlled by constitutional principles, they may not be abrogated by municipal ordinances or policies; if they are, the government is required to pay just compensation for taking private property.' See Miller v. McKenna, (1944) 23 Cal.2d 774 (vested rights are constitutional guarantees that must be recognized and protected and of which the individual may not be deprived); see also Billings v. California Coastal 5 See generally, C. Siemon, W. Larsen, & D. Porter. Vested Rights—Balancing Public and Private Development Expectations, Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, September 1982. 6583-000 - 1479235.7 Pub. Corr - Page 88 Ms. Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 5 Connnission, (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 729 (vested rights are rooted in the doctrine of equitable estoppel). Here, Green Hills built the Mausoleum in good with reliance on the discretionary approvals obtained from the City's Planning Commission in 2007, after extensive public hearings and on the ministerial grading and building permits allowing construction issued by the City thereafter. The Mausoleum was built in full compliance with all of these approvals and permits. As a result, Green Hills has acquired a vested right to operate and maintain the Mausoleum. At this juncture, the City does not have the authority to require Green Hills to apply for a new discretionary approval relative to the continued use and operation of the Mausoleum. As discussed more fully below, should Green Hills apply for the variance, and the City were to purport to "deny" Green Hills' application, the City could not prohibit Green Hills from continuing to use the Mausoleum as permitted. Moreover, we find the City's recent decision relative to the need for a variance inconsistent with prior admissions by the City, including several statements and representations that the CUP was fully approved and operative, and at odds with the City's prior actions relative to approval of the 2007 CUP. As noted above, the 1991 CUP set forth the procedure required for all future revisions of the Green Hills Master Plan, and specifically provided that '[a]ny development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision .116 In approving the 2007 CUP, the City followed this procedure exactly as specified. The City did not require or deem necessary new variances for any portion of the 2007 Master Plan revisions — not for the Mausoleum or the newly permitted below -ground burials as discussed above — because the City followed its specified procedure to approve and process a major CUP Revision. Indeed, the term "variance" was never mentioned or contemplated until the recent hearings, seven years after the approvals were granted and Green Hills' rights had vested. This new position is made notwithstanding the fact that the location of the Mausoleum was well-documented in the applications Green Hills submitted in connection with the 2007 CUP, and the fact that Green Hills worked collaboratively with the City on refining the 2007 Master Plan revision for a period no less than three years preceding its approval. Thus, since initially proposed, nearly a decade has passed before the City has had an apparent epiphany that a variance should have been required. 'Section 4 of Exhibit A to Resolution No. 91.7. 6583-000 --1475235.1 Pub. Corr - Page 89 Ms. Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 6 Nevertheless, as noted in prior correspondence, if the City believes it erred in some respect, the City has the authority to issue an after -the -fact variance per section 17.64.050(B) of the Municipal Code.7 Such a variance may be made without the need to require Green Hills to submit a variance application, and Green Hills recommends the City pursue this option if it believes it is warranted. Notwithstanding this, certain statements made at the Planning Commission suggest that the Commission has no intention of issuing an after -the -fact variance pursuant to §17.64.050(B), but instead hopes to require Green Hills to apply anew pursuant to §17.64.050(A), as though no prior approvals had ever been issued for the Mausoleum and the building had never been constructed. Indeed, certain members of the Planning Commission have made clear that they intend to examine whether variance findings can be made pursuant to subsection (A), and to deny the variance if it decides the findings cannot be met. As will be further discussed in the next section, the City would be estopped from denying the variance based on principles of equitable estoppel. Moreover, any denial would abrogate Green Hills' vested rights to continue to use the Mausoleum as constructed, and would violate basic principles of due process. This is exactly the type of prejudicial conduct for which the doctrine of vested rights was established. b. The City is Estopped and Barred from Requiring Green Hills to Apply for a Variance for the Mausoleum. After failing to do so for more than seven years, the City is barred from requiring Green Hills to apply for a variance based on the principles of equity, estoppel, and laches. 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." See 3 Local Government Law § 16:64; see also Anderson v. City of La Mesa (1981) 118 CA.3d 657 (local government estopped from denying after the fact variance). ' Code Section 17.64.050(B): "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." c513-000 --1475215.1 Pub. Corr - Page 90 Ms, Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 7 The principles behind zoning estoppel, like other forms of estoppel, arise out of equity and are derived from fundamental concepts of justice and fairness. In general, a municipality will be estopped from denying a permit when a property owner: (1) relying in good faith; (2) upon some act or omission of the government; (3) has made such a substantive change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights which the property owner ostensibly had acquired.' Here, the City approved the 2007 CUP for the Mausoleum and issued building permits after multiple public hearings and plan checks. For seven years, the City has treated the 2007 CUP for the Mausoleum and other permits as validly issued, fully approved and operative; the City knew and intended that Green Hills would rely on the approvals and permits granted. Based on these principles, the City is estopped from requiring Green Hills to apply for a variance now. Further, pursuant to the same principles, in the event Green Hills were to seek a variance, the City would be estopped from denying it. Accordingly, any acts of Green Hills in applying for a variance, and any acts of the City in purporting to consider the variance, would be idle. The law does not condone idle acts. As one court held, "a property owner need not pursue such applications when a zoning agency lacks discretion to grant variances or has dug in its heels and made clear that all such applications will be denied." Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Crnn'n (2d Cir. 2005) 402 F.3d 342, 350 (citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1012 n. 3 (1992) (stating that an application for a variance is not required when it would be "pointless"). In any event, if the City believed a variance was required, it should have said so long ago. At this point, the principle of laches bars the City from requesting one. 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 Lonza Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 68; see also City and County of San Francisco v. Pacello (1978). 85 CaLApp.3d 637 (court deemed zoning administrator's eight year delay in pursuing enforcement action unreasonable and prejudicial and as such, barred by laches). 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. After approving the 2007 CUP, and after subsequently issuing several building and 8 Heeter, Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes, 15 URB. L. ANN. 63, 65 (1971). G5U-000 -- 1475235.1 Pub. Corr - Page 91 Ms. Carol W. Lynch October 24, 2014 Page 8 grading permits, CUP revisions, and other approvals, all in reliance on the seven year old CUP, the City may not now require Green Hills to apply for a variance. As we have expressed to the City repeatedly, Green Hills hopes to resolve its differences with the City respectfully and cooperatively. It recognizes and is taking steps to remedy the setback issues relative to the Northwest Plots by relocating all but the 13 individuals currently interred there, and has tried to balance possible disruption to the neighbors with respect for human dignity. Meanwhile, Green Hills has voluntarily implemented numerous operational measures in an effort to achieve a more peaceful and harmonious coexistence with its neighbors, including a concession not to construct a second mausoleum adjacent to the existing Mausoleum as part of the development of "Phase II." At the same time, Green Hills is obligated to protect its rights and the rights of the families it serves. We sincerely hope that we can work together with the City to find a resolution to these matters. Very t my yours, Ellen Berkowitz; of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:dff 6583-000 "- 1475235.1 Pub. Corr - Page 92 HIRSCHBERG & RAE N, LLP 5023 N. PARKWAY CALABASAS CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302-1421 LESLIE D. HIRSCHBERG EMAIL I(Jhosq@tifilp.com TELEPHONE (818)225-9593 MICHAEL N. FRIEDMAN EMAIL mnfesq@hfllp.com FACSIMILE (818) 225-9593 October 21, 2014 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills Meinoi,ial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment 27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CASE NO. ZON2003-00086 Hearing Date: October 28, 2014, Agenda Itern: No. I Dear Commissioners: This office continues to represent the Vista Verde Owners Association ("Vista Verde") in connection with the review of the Green Hills Memorial Park conditional use permit. I airt writing to you to address the following issues: (1) unreasonable delay by the commission in taking action to address the significant adverse impacts of Green Hills' Memorial Terrace Mausoleum; (2) the immediate adoption of the resolutions that were approved at the commission's meeting of August 12, 2014; (3) an overview of burial law in California and the commission's authority to require the disinterment and reburial of persons buried in and on top of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum; and (4) adoption of a moratorium precluding all burials and sales of burial plots in and on top of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum until a decision is made with respect to the variance Green Hills failed to obtain prior to construction of the mausoleum. It is my sincere hope that the commission will also address these issues on the record at its next meeting. 1. Unreasonable DelqjBy the Commission in Taking Action Against Green Hills The Memorial Teri -ace Mausoleum was substantially completed in the late summer/early fall of 2013. Funerals commenced shortly afterward. On October 26, 2013, Vista Verde resident Matthew Martin contacted then mayor, now City Council member Susan Brooks regarding adverse Impacts resulting from the mausoleum. She responded promptly and contacted Community Development Director Joel Rojas to investigate. On October 28, 2013, ), Mr. Martin wrote to Mr. Rojas regarding the adverse impacts emanating W Primed un Recycled Paper. Page 79 Pub. Corr - Page 93 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills .Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Anlendinent October 21, 2014 Page 2 from the mausoleum. Oil October 29, 2013, Mayor Brooks again wrote to Mr. Martin advising him that planning staff was investigating and would report back to them "ASAP," Attachment I hereto is a true and correct copy of the string of emails between Mr. Mal -till, Mr. Rojas and Mayor Brooks. By October 29, 2013, when the Mayor and Community Development Director were advised of the problems created by the mausoleum and rooftop funerals, 13 bodies had been buried in the rooftop graveyard, See Attachment 2 - Green Hills Burial Activity Report (originally attached to the Con -emission's Agenda Report of August 12, 2014.) Vista Verde residents believe, however, that burials did not actually commence until about October 2013, which is what prompted their complaints at that time. While "ASAP" generally connotes something done speedily or with haste, in this case, nothing was done by the City until February 25, 2014, four months later, when planning staff set an "operational review" of Green Hills' conditional use permit. Although Green Hills' CUP called for annual review of its operations, this was the first one since the approval of the CUP in 2007. Some attention was paid at that meeting to the noise levels of operations on the mausoleum's rooftop graveyard, as well as the hours of operations on the rooftop. However, the vast majority ofthe time at that hearing was appropriately spent addressing the height of the mausoleum and its proximity to the Vista Verde condominiums, Despite the fact that the commissioners expressed true surprise and dismay at the proximity of the rooftop grave sites to the Vista Verde residents' balconies, no action was taken with respect to those critical issues. Instead, the "operational review" was continued to March 11, 2014. Between October 29, 2014, and February 25, 2014, Green Hill buried an additional 18 bodies in the mausoleum's rooftop graveyard, bringing the total body count to 31. In all fairness to the Planning Commission, it did vote unanimously to instruct staff to prepare a resolution for a 90 -day moratorium oil rooftop burials. That resolution came before the commission on March 11, 2014, as part of its operational review of Green Mills' CUP. The commission did not approve the resolution it unanimously favored two weeks earlier. Instead, it allowed the attorneys for Green Hills and Vista Verde to try to work things out between them, leaving Green Hills to conduct business as usual in the interim. The Planning Commission thus continued its operational review hearing to April 22, 2014. Unsurprisingly, with no pressure exerted upon either side by the Planning Commission, the two lawyers were unable to accomplish anything other than to increase their hourly billings to their clients. Green Hills' attorney requested further delay which, contrary to statements rnade in staffs agenda report for May 13, 2014, was not supported by the (D Primed - Recycled paper. Pub. Corr - Page 94 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Meinoi-ial Park - Masten Plan Revieiv and Ainen(linent October 21, 2014 Page 3 attorney for Vista Verde. According to Vista Verde's attorney, it was Community Development Director R(Jas that was seeking another continuance of the operational review. Accordingly, the hearing was continued for a full three months to August 12, 2014. Between February 25, 2014 and August 12, 2014, Green Hills buried at least 12 more bodies in the mausoleum's rooftop graveyard, bringing the total body count to 43. (Green Hills' disclosure of the burial activity in the rooftop graveyard extends only through July 31, 2014,) Twelve families became entangled in the rooftop graveyard controversy because the Planning Commission never took action on the moratorium resolution it voted unanimously to have staff prepare at its February 25, 2014 meeting. At the August 12, 2014, meeting, which I attended, planning staff recommended to the commission that it find that Green Hills proceeded with construction and use of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum without a required variance to allow its 8 -foot rear yard setback despite the City's code -mandated 40 -foot setback. It acknowledged that this was an error and many present and former commissioners stated on the record that they never realized what they were voting on when they approved Green Hills' Master Plan/CUP amendment in 2007. Now that the approval for the entire mausoleum structure was found to have been issued in error and in violation of the City's development standards for cemeteries, it would have been manifestly appropriate to impose the moratorium that was first raised at the February 25, 2014 meeting. Instead, the Planning Commission, in a split decision, voted not to approve a moratorium after all, allowing Green Hills to bury more bodies in and on top of the mausoleum which had just been found to have been approved in error and in violation of the City's development standards for cemeteries. The resolution requiring Green Hills to file an after -the -fact variance application within 90 days was brought to the Planning Commission at its next meeting on August 26, 2014. Once again, the commission took no action except to continue the hearing regal•ding the resolution and a companion resolution regarding minor operational changes, an additional 60 days to October 28, 2014. One full year has passed since Vista Verde provided notice to the City regarding the adverse impacts caused by Green Hills' construction and use of its Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, which mausoleum we now know to have been approved in error and in violation of the City's development standards for cemeteries. Vista Verde's residents have been heartened by the empathetic comments made by many of the commissioners over the past year and those comments have been a source of hope for Vista Verde's residents. But one year is more than ample time for a planning commission intent upon taking action to do so. 0 Primed o.Recycled Paper. ■ Pub. Corr - Page 95 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Mills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment October 21, 2014 Page 4 To the contrary, the passage of one year without any action by a planning commission of a problem brought to its attention suggests, irrespective of commissioner comments at public meetings to the contrary, that the commission has no intention of taking appropriate action. For a planning commission to take one year without taking any action is, by all measures, an unreasonable delay. Vista Verde wants to believe that this commission is capable of delivering more than kind, empathetic comments when in the public spotlight, Vista Verde has placed its trust in this commission to do what it acknowledges is the right thing. Vista Verde has been very patient with the Planning Commission, knowing how difficult it is to take action against a major business interest in the City. Enough. The time has come to take immediate action. No more continuances, no more delays. How many more families are going to be affected by Green Hills' conducting business as usual because the Planning Commission has readily allowed it to do so? How many more bodies will becorne the subject of legal controversy because the Planning Commission took no action when it was always empowered to do so? What kind of liability will the City face for wilfully allowing Green Hills to bury persons in and on top of a mausoleum which was known or should have been known to the City to be approved in error and in violation of the City's development standards for cemeteries? Clearly, the time has come for the Planning Commission to make some difficult decisions and to take decisive action with respect to Green Hill's Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. 2. The Planning Commission Should Adopt the Resolutions Approved at the August 12, 2014 Meeting Immediately. Green Hills and Vista Verde could go on and on about the operational conditions approved by the commission at the August 12, 2014 meeting. For Green Hills, those conditions go too far. For Vista Verde, they don't go far enough. It doesn't matter. Whether or not the conditions are perfect or whether or not they could ever be made to be perfect, they need to be approved now. They can always be changed at a later date if absolutely necessary. Likewise, the 90 days staff'proposed for Green Hills to file a variance request have already passed but, without a resolution, the 90 days have not yet begun to run. At your last meeting, one of the commissioners asked if Green Hills had filed its variance request yet and was told that it had not. Let's not be unrealistic. We all know that Green Hills does not believe it is obligated to file a variance request. It will not do so ED 116,,tedmRecycled Npm 9�** Pub. Corr - Page 96 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green .mills Meinorial Park - Muster Plan Review at7d AinendInent October 21, 2014 Rage 5 voluntarily or without a fight. Anticipate appeals and judicial review. 'Vista Verde does. But Vista Verde must wait for the commission to make the first order. It has been waiting patiently since August 12, 2014, It urges the Planning Commission to adopt its resolutions. 3. C'alifornia'n Burial Let wv Will.Not Preclude the Plan n ing Commission From Requiring Green .1 -fills to Comply With the City's Zoning Laws and Orders Made Pursuant Thereto Because the Planning Commission approved Green Hills' Manorial Terrace Mausoleum in its current height and location, and because it has allowed Green Hills to conduct business as usual with knowledge of the adverse impacts the mausoleum has created, the City must now confront the fact that bodies are buried in a structure that was approved in error and in violation of the City's development standards for cemeteries. The Planning Commission proposes to order Green Hills to apply for a variance to address this error, Vista Verde, perhaps naively, believes that it has a fair chance to persuade the Planning Commission that Green Hills is not entitled to a variance for the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and that the building must be physically modified and/or relocated in order to comply with the City's development standards and the policies they advance. However, if the City believes it has no power to compel Green Hills to relocate bodies that. have been buried in and on top of the mausoleum, the issuance of a variance is effectively non - discretionary and approval of the variance without conditions that could disturb the remains of those buried there is a foregone conclusion. John Resich, an attorney and CEO of Green Hills, has stood before the Planning Commission and told you that state law forbids you from requiring the disinterment of any bodies buried at Green Hills without an order of the Superior Court. Green Hills' attorney has also told you that you do not have the power to require any bodies to be relocated. What they told you is bunk, It was a scare tactic designed to intimidate the Planning Commission and cause it to believe that it is powerless to enforce the City's Municipal Code and to take actions specifically delegated to it with respect to development projects within its jurisdiction. California law does not strip its cities of law enforcement authority that is, in fact, conferred by California law. The fact is, there is no California law precluding the disinterment of human remains and their relocation within a cemetery. California Health and Safety Code §7500 is the only statute regarding the removal of remains. It states, in pertinent part: �i! 1'rinled mi Recycled Toper. 9 =0 Pub. Corr - Page 97 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Metnorial Park - Master Plan Revieiv and AnIendinent October 2-1, 2014 Page 6 "No remains of any deceased person shall be removedfi-0111 any cemetery, except upon written order of the health department having jurisdiction, or of the superior court of the county in which such cemetery is situated." [Emphasis added] This statute addresses only the removal of human remains frorn a cemetery, not from a cemetery plot. It does not address the situation of a relocation of remains from one plot in a cemetery to another plot in the same cemetery. However, there is another statute that appears to be more on -point. California Health and Safety Code §7501 relevantly provides: "A cemetery authority shall not remove or permit the removal of any interred remains, unless a permit for the removal has been issued by the local registrar of the district in which the premises are located, and delivered to the cemetery authority. Any person entitled by law to remove any remains may apply to the local registrar for a permit to remove them. The local registrar shall issue a permit, which in all cases, shall specify the name of a cemetery where the remains shall be interred, and shall retain a copy, except that if' cremated remains are to be buried at sea as provided in Section 7117 of this code, the permit shall so specify and indicate the county where the fact of burial at sea shall be reported." What is interesting about this statute is that the issuance of such a permit is not discretionary. The goal of the statute is not to determine whether good cause exists to require the disinterment of human remains but rather that there be adequate record-keeping to make ,sure that human remains are not lost, particularly to family or loved ones. Even more interesting is the fact that California Health and Safety Code §7502 states that separate permits are not required when multiple bodies are disinterred. In other words, the statutory scherne anticipates the need the relocate multiple bodies at one titric and requires in such instances only that adequate records are kept to make sure that family will be able to locate their departed loved ones after they have been relocated by a cemetery. Most importantly, California Health and Safety Code §8115 provides: "The governing body of any city or county, in the exercise of its police power, may by ordinance prescribe such standards governing burial, illUrnment, and entombment and such standards of maintenance For cemeteries, including mausoleums and COILImbarluins, as it shall determine to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health or safety, assure decent and 0 Printed on Recycled Pop,,,. 9� Pub. Corr - Page 98 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green hills Meniorial Park - Master Plan Reiievi, and Aineluhnent October 21, 2014 Page 7 respectful treatment of human remains, or prevent offensive deterioration of cemetery grounds, structures, and places of interment. Such standards may be made applicable to every public and private cemetery within the city or county." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes enacted development standards for cemeteries within its borders and those development standards call for a 40 -foot setback from residential development. The Memorial Terrace Mausoleum was constructed in clear violation of the City's development standards. Green Hills cannot use bodies buried inside and on top of the mausoleum as "human shields." As disturbing as relocating buried bodies may be to the families and loved ones of those bodies, their interests do not automatically trump the interests of Vista Verde's residents, who must live with this over -sized, over -developed mausoleum within a stones throw of their homes, The Planning Commission is often called upon to make decisions where one set of stakeholders will be pleased with the decisions while competing stakeholders are very upset by them. This matter is no different. Vista Verde is entitled to assert its interests on an "even playing field" where they are not placed in an unwinnable position because their interests are in conflict with families and loved ones of the dead. 4. The Planning Coinin ission Should Order an hn mediate Moratorium on. All Burials Inside and On Top of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum to Protect the Families of Those Whose Loved Ones May Need to be Relocated Until now, the Planning Commission has focused on whether Green Hills' business interests will be impaired by the adoption of a moratorium. The commission's focus has been misplaced. If the feelings and emotions of those who have lost loved ones are, in fact, important to the commission, the interests of Green Hills' customers should be paramount in the ininds of the commission to Green I -lilts' commercial interests. Unless the variance required of Green Hills will, as a foregone conclusion, be granted without any conditions that would disturb the remains of those buried inside or on top of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, it is manifestly wrong to allow Green Hills to sell any more spaces in the mausoleum or on top of it, or to bury any more bodies there, until the status Of the mausoleum has been determined. A moratorium will create an incentive to both Green Hills and the Planning Commission to move forward with the variance application without the kind of delay that has thus -far marked these proceedings. 9 Nra,d oa Rec)vled Papm 9� Pub. Corr - Page 99 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment October 21, 2014 Page 8 A moratorium does not create an unfair advantage for Vista Verde because, as long as the mausoleum continues to remain in its current location at its current height, most Vista Verde residents will continue to be deprived of the harbor/ocean view they paid for and once enjoyed. A moratorium will also make the operational changes more workable for all concerned. The Planning Commission was wrong when it voted against a moratorium at the August 12, 2014 meeting. That should be obvious given that Green Hills has not applied for a variance since that time. On February 25, 2014, the coininission voted unanimously to impose a moratorium. The lack of progress and the discovery that the situation was worse than the commission thought at that time should compel the commission to impose a moratorium now. Public Hearing I will be present at the October 28, 2014, hearing and will be available to respond to any questions you may have at that time. Additionally, residents of Vista Verde intend to appear and speak on their own behalf and not as representatives of Vista Verde. It is my hope that you will allow adequate time for me and for these residents to be heard. Thank you for your service and consideration. cc: Mr. Brian Carter ® Printed nn Recycled Paper. Very truly yours, HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP By:L MICHAI±N. EDMAN Pub. Corr - Page 100 WiTINIMMTHE Pub. Corr - Page 101 Subject: From: Matt Martin [mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:54 AM To: Michael N. Friedman Subject: Fw: Green Hills Cemetary has Ruined our Community Michael Below is the correspondence between me and the "then mayor now city council member" Susan Brooks. The first letter I wrote is dated 10/26/13 Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:45 PM, Susan <subrooks08()Qmail.com> wrote: Dear Matt, Staff is following up and will get back to all if us ASAP. I am so very sorry for your situation. Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Matt Martin <matthewhmartin(a@yahoo.com> wrote: Mr. Joel Rojas Thank you for looking into this. We are just as worried about the noise from funeral services and public gatherings as we are from the equipment. The vibrations and sound amplification created by running heavy machinery on top of this hollow building is astounding. I can't enjoy being anywhere in my home because it vibrates our entire building and is, of course, a HUGE eyesore. We have been living with this construction noise for over a year and I realize now that it's NEVER going to stop. There are no walls or trees obstructing any sound coming from the top of this Mausoleum. I don't think there can be because it would violate their height limit and also obstruct our views even further. Just having people on top of this Mausoleum talking is loud enough for me to hear in my living room with all my Pub. Corr - Page 102 doors and windows closed. I'm not familiar with RPV building laws, but isn't there a rule against building a structure that obstructs other owners views or privacy? If so, how could this be approved when it's obstructing the views of many residents in this complex? Our rec area is completely in the shade now from the Mausoleum. Instead of a view of RPV and Long beach we see a giant concrete wall. I'm on the 2nd floor and my view is heavily obstructed. The owners on the first floor had their view completely taken away. I bought this condo in 2008 with a beautiful view and privacy. Now there are headstones practically in my living room and frequent public gatherings. This is not the same condo I paid for. This structure has devestated me. It's mostly older, quiet couples in this community and I feel like I'm on my own here. We are all upset, but many feel helpless against the big money and influence of Green Hills. This community has been perfect neighbors to Green Hills for decades and they are not returning the favor. I don't enjoy living in my own home anymore. I never open the blinds in my living room because people can look directly into my entire living room from the roof of this Mausoleum. The living room and balcony area is why i bought this condo and now its why I can't stand it. Thanks to the housing crisis plus this giant Mausoleum, I can't afford to leave now. I was never notified that this building was going to be built, and I surely never imagined that they would bury people on top of it. Who is responsible for approving this? I believe we should respect the dead but what about respecting the living? Who deserves to have funerals, caskets, heavy machinery, and mourning families in their living room? Who would buy a condo with that in thier face? I don't think Green Hills should be allowed to sell plots or bury people on top of this Mausoleum. Thanks again for your help. It gives me some hope that you are listening. If there is anything you need from me just ask. Matthew H Martin MatthewH Marti n(a)yahoo.com On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:00 PM, Joel Rojas <JoeIR &-rpv.com> wrote: Mr. Martin Let me look into this issue. While the new mausoleum was constructed in accordance with city approvals, the use of equipment at that noise level does not sound right. Let me look into this and get back to you. Joel Rojas Community Development Director From: Matt Martin fmatthewhmartin(a--)yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 1:15 PM To: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08(aD-gmail.com> Pub. Corr - Page 103 Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: Re: Green Hills Cemetary has Ruined our Community Mayor Brooks and Joel They just buried someone in it this morning, despite our letter asking them to wait. I know you directed me to the City Planning person, but I believe we have already communicated with them. Is there something else we can do? Thanks Matthew Martin MatthewHMarti n(a)yahoo.com On Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:10 PM, Matt Martin <matthewhmartinp_vahoo.com> wrote: Susan Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm relieved to see that you are willing to help us out. We are right of the border of RHE, RPV, and Lomita. If you can do anything to mitigate the invasion of peace and privacy that has occured here It would mean a lot to this community. I don't believe they have buried anyone on top of this thing yet so I hope we can do something to stop it before it's too late. This isn't fair to the people who paid for these condos and, in my opinion, it's not appropriate for families to be sold these graves so close to our living rooms. I've attached a before and after picture from my living room balcony to give you an idea... believe it or not, there are units below me who have had their views completely destroyed. Thank you Matthew H Martin MatthewHMartin o)yahoo.com On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:03 PM, Susan <subrooks08(c-gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Martin, Your email is very disappointing and all news to me, and probably to This Council, as well. I'm cc'ing staff to get some clarification of why this occurred and what can be done to mitigate further problems. Are you in RPV or RHE? I'm sorry for your extreme inconvenience. Regards, Susan Page 90 Pub. Corr - Page 104 Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes 310/ 707-8787(cell) Sent from my iPhone On Oct 26, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Matt Martin <matthewhmartin(ayahoo.com<mailto:matthewhmartin(a)yahoo.com>> wrote: Mrs. Susan Brooks I'm a condo owner in the Vista Verde complex at 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N #208. I'm writing to you in regards to the new Mausoleum that was erected this summer. Not only does this building violate multiple building codes including height restrictions, it also blocks many of the views that our condo owners paid for. The view from our pool/rec area is completely gone including all sunshine. Our entire pool is in the shade now. To add insult to injury, the equipment that they are now running on top of this thing is producing sound levels much higher than deemed acceptable by RPV ordinances. Today I measured a sustain DB level of 77 for over an hour from INSIDE my condo. If i went to my balcony or property line and measured it would be even higher. I did not measure the vibration levels but I'm sure that those are above acceptable levels as well. In addition to equipment running, they are planning on conducting funerals on this mausoleum which can include 7 gun salutes, bands, and large gatherings. All of those events will violate noise levels for our community as well. Our privacy is another issue because these public gatherings can peer directly into my condo. To say that this Mausoleum has ruined our community is an understatement. It has devestated us. I'm writing in hope that you can help stop the abuse that the Green Hills Cemetary has been giving us. It's my wish that Green Hills be disallowed from use large machinery on top of the Mausoleum or conducting funerals. Thank you for reading and I appreciate any action you can take. I would also welcome advice on what else I can do to stop this. Thanks Matthew H Martin MatthewHMarti n(a)yahoo.com<mailto:MatthewHMarti n(a.yahoo.com> Page 91 Pub. Corr - Page 105 ,.,r?Tf l Page 92 Pub. Corr - Page 106 BURIAL tRAL i e REPORT f w ROOFTOP iR,. AT t, MEMORIAL TERRACE � Pub. Corr - Page 107 -l-1.h Q �. n- - m Q It FE FE FE FE FE FE FP eg ax " )-j 27 : KN . 429 _ 439 01 4452 A1.8 AJn' B Aie".XII Ale AIN I AFI AS OF JULY 31, 2014 ZLI.��! Ll_S 6;1�L�1'( 111 Ai PA ftk Pacific Terrace Rooftop — Interments J Page 126 Page 94 Pub. Corr - Page 108 472: 477 -474 :476. 416 177 .478: 422 423 424 426 - A. B C 0 .. 'A 8 C '0 . .8C A R C D ;A '•8 C 'A' c! A 8 'C D A 8 ' ' .0 D B c "D A . 'A 8 'c ," A C 'D .A'- 8 G tl A D C tl A D C '..t Alt C Y� ..443 „ .442 ,141 , .440 :. 99 , . :486. ... .. 436 -435, ' , k 433 432 431 I 430 Al B C D :A 8 :G 6 A E 61.,i A 81.0 O .A� ■ 0 'Q ,B C. :A D Q A .4 :C. .4 8 0 A 8 C D A 1 0 1 G 1D i D C I u A 15 1 C 0 468 469. 470. 471'. 472 4fl. '.: !1 17B_ 477 478 l i 479 460 481 A1.6 b b A 6 C -b A 01b b Ajojolo A alb 0 6 pq 6 A of .0 A.bt D AINIO'DI..i A e C OI .B i'` {l IIe 1❑ �-- A e C Q ? 499. 4% - 491 496 .E 496 494 493 -492 481 490 488 488 487 488 A - e GDA -8 A"8 DB OA� hID Aa`:C 'BD DD �BGD ¢22 -- 323 :.824 626. .. .¢29.,: .:427 426 4529 tS 830 631 B32 533 6344 638 .A18 -I:- .A Q :G .Qb. A 0 :G .0 h D .0 4 A EI.0 '- A151. 0 A h -+ 4I O 0 C. D A e .C. D A 8 C D A D C Q 653 362 .. .361 '' . 360 .' d49; ::.:#4b .:...44r:::.. '`14 646 644 543 542 641 640 .* F 1 bl 0 A.g 1 E 10 i1.B I Pj b h B.b 1 b k1 b.P Jb A b O p A10 f0l A 8 C D A 8 C 0A !1C D A e C 0 A B C 0 A 8 C 0 AS OF JULY 31, 2014 ZLI.��! Ll_S 6;1�L�1'( 111 Ai PA ftk Pacific Terrace Rooftop — Interments J Page 126 Page 94 Pub. Corr - Page 108 Page 127 Page 95 Pub. Corr - Page 109 Sun Man Tue Wed Thu Fri Sal Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sal 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 7 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 M9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 10 21 13 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 13 15 16 I8 19 10 11 22 23 24 22 13 24 25 26 17 28 10 11 22 23 025 26 17 IS 19 20 _14 11 22 23 15 26 27 30 29 30 2T 29 2d 15 26 28 29 30 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat ,Sun Mon Tue Wad Thu Fri Sat 1 8 15 22 2 9 16 23 3 10 17 24 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 11 28 1 2 3 4 5 M7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 1617 19 10 21 22 23 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 11 13 16 17 18 7 14 21 1 8 15 21 2 9 16 23 3 10 17 24 4 11 18 25 S 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 11 28 1 8 15 21 29 29 Sun 30 Mon 31 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 26 Sun 27 28 Mon Tue Wed Thu 31 Fri Sat 23 24 25 26 27 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu 28 Fri Sat 30 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 S 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 M 17 18 19 20 13 15 M 17 M 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 12 23 24 m7 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 28 19 30 25 26 27 28 19 30 M 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 lob 2 it Interments Per Day Pacific Terrace Rooftop — Interments Page 127 Page 95 Pub. Corr - Page 109 Pacific Terrace Rooftop -- Interments Page 128 Pub. Corr - Page 110 Pacific Terrace Rooftop Interments By Month As of July 31, 2014 I Mquf atta03r NenmM a�unbr 2013 Jnury i�Drury MMen April 2M< MM nn� JW Pacific Terrace Rooftop -- Interments Page 128 Pub. Corr - Page 110 Pacific Terrace Rooftop Interments By Day As of July 91, 2014 �t1���ILLS \ti �M ORIAi PARI. Pacific Terrace Rooftop — Interments J Page 129 Page 97 Pub. Corr - Page 111 0 1m.=" I MMOAM it' vOIM II w"AM 12! MI. 1WW - I"=- SW W w 2 I W VM IM"M M 1'00W 0M 1�W - Pacific Terrace Rooftop Interments By Time As of July 23, 2014 E AL US MIAt(4 RI Pacific Terrace Rooftop —Interments Page 1 Page 98 Pub. Corr - Page 112 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 Page 99 Pub. Corr - Page 113 DThe permit isbeing or recently has been, exorcisodumhnty to the terms mconditions of such permit. " The city has grounds for issuing a revocation hearing for the following reasons: - Green Hills has committed CUP violations and has not corrected them, This qualifies as exercisivgcontrary tuterms ofthe CUP (17.O6.O6O(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 17J8.U4O(8)states that, "The amendment tnthe project (original CUP) shall boconoidenrdbythe same body which took the final action ingranting the original applirabun utilizing tile same hearing and noticing procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures as required by this title, for consideration ofthe original app0uation." Statements made bythe Green Hills Architect aithe2007[UPnevbionheehngc|aimthatthe 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 noadverse impacts onsurrounding residentd.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 asshown below: "The planning commission, may grant aconditional use permit, only /f/t finds Y. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all ofthe 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 wnadjacent land and within the neighborhood; 2. That the site for the proposed use relates tostreets and highways sufficient tocarry the type and quantity oftraffic generated bythe subject use; 3. That, /napproving the subject use atthe specific location, there will b*no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, 4. That the proposed use /anot contrary tothe general plan; 5. 7 -hat, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by (OwydayControl Districts) ofthis title, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements nfthat chapter; and Page����� ���� � ��� � Pub. Corr — orr—age 114 0. That conditions regarding any ofthe requirements 0afed/nhh/aparag/aph.wt/xh the planning cnnnon/sa/nn finds to benecessary h7protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffers; b. Fences orwalls; c. Lighting; d Vehicular ingress and egress; e. Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; [ Landscaping; A. Maintenance ofstructures, grounds orsigns; h. Service roads oralleys; and i Such other conditions aswill make possible development oftheo/tyman orderly and efficient mariner 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 rnade here, big mistakes. These 1nisLakes"mayhavebeeoduetoinadequatedisc|ouureand/orfraudu|entinformationprovide6by Green Hills and their architect. After nearly ayear o[investigating this matter indepth itappears that the main problem at hand is the size and length of the Green Hills Master Plan (127 acres and 60-F 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 issyes),|believe this is the reason that such anegregious oversight took place and Green Hills wasah|eto8et°approva|"furastruUurethatvvasn'tadequate|ydisdosedtntkeP|anningCommission' the public, or the City Council. While Green Hills wishes to have each of these structures in their Master Plan iobetreated asseparate pnojectsundersepe/atepermits,thatisn'trea|by. All ofthese 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 projectsrequiring individual permits, variances, and approvals. For this reason it's my hope that, rather than further monopolizing everyone's firne 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 1.1 where the Mausoleum currently sits. I would also like to point out again that RPV code 17.78.040(B) states that, Pub. Corr — age 115 "The amendment to the project (original CUP) shall boconsidered bythe same body which took the final action /ngranting the original application, utilizing the same hearing and noticing procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures asrequired bythis title, for consideration nfthe original aAolioation" It was the City Council, and riot tile planning commission, which took final action oil the original CUP approval. As a result, the Planning Commission may not have the authority to modify tile CUP in any substantial manner. Substantial amendments apparently must beapproved bythe City Council according toRPV municipal code 17J&O4O(B) Substantial changes may also require evariance application. ln regards tothis haoi, 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 n*omonab|m dnne frame (days rather than months). Kind Regards, Matthew Martin Page����� ���� n ��� � Pub. Corr - age 1 1m Eduardo Schonborn From: Michael N. Friedman <mnfesq@hfllp.com> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:45 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: 'Brian Carter'; julieikeye@aol.com; matthewhmartin@yahoo.com Subject: FW: Green Hills Memorial Park - Vista Verde HOA Hi Eduardo My reference to September 91", below, should have been August 26tH , 818) Ce 1; t 8 18) 642 08.?2. Email mnfes hfllpcc�m V'V'elbsit:e www.hfIIp,com From: Michael N. Friedman [mailto:mnfesq@hfllp.com] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:26 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn (EduardoS@rpv.com) Cc: 'Brian Carter';'julieikeye@aol.com';'matthewhmartin@yahoo.com' Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park - Vista Verde HOA Hi Eduardo 1 have reviewed the status of this matter, as of the September 9' PC meeting, and am planning on submitting correspondence on behalf of Vista Verde to address the issues first raised at the Commission's August 12th meeting. Can you please send me, as soon as it is available, the revised resolution that was originally directed on August 12th and again directed with corrections on September 91"? 1 am concerned that, because of the numerous changes raised at the September 9th meeting, the public will be shut out of the decision-making process because the public hearing was closed on August 12th. The Commissions' comments and instructions to staff appear to have changed what was resolved on August 121h. Moreover, the significant passage of time without any action by the Commission, as it works with staff to agree on the language of its overdue resolution, is causing ongoing prejudice to Vista Verde residents, which prejudice Vista Verde wishes to describe/express to the Commission. Additionally, if, in the highly unlikely event that Green Hills has submitted a variance application or other material relative to the bodies interred within the 16 -foot setback or the construction of the mausoleum 8 -feet from the property line it shares with Vista Verde, I would appreciate it if you could either send me copies or advise me that they are available for copying at your office (if they are not in digital form.) It has been nearly one year since the rooftop burials began. Vista Verde's complaints to the Planning Commission began shortly thereafter. This last year has produced a great deal of discussion but no action. We would like that to change and the sooner the better. Thank you very much. Pub. Corr - Page 117 Michael Page 145 Pub. Corr - Page 118 110,4lfi RICHARDS WATSON I GERSHON RW14r ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355, South Grand Avenue, Goth Floor, los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8480 Facsimile 213.626.oO78 RICHARD RICHARDS October 3., 2014 ;1916-iQ88) GLENN R. WATSON `}17 -mw) VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U. S. MAIL HARRY L. GERSI-ION (1922-2007) SIEVEN L. DORSEY Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. WILLIAM L. STRAUSZ PAI TCHEI. L E. ABBOTT pp�� 'j Gresham SUC.avage Nolan A Ilden, PC GREGORY W. SrEPANILIU4 QUINN M. BARROW 333 South Mope Street, 35th Floor CAROL W. LYNCII GREGORY M, KUN€RT !"i 00 71 l.. Pl. >l1l/ / F Los A nc cles, C A 90071 THOMAS M. IT MBO b. ROBERT C, CECCON STEVEN H. KAUFMANN KEVIN 6- ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS Re: Green Hills Memorial Park and Its Violation of the Conditions of Approval of ,Y9 CHAEL ESTRADA LALrRENCe NIP Bli . ILOENEN LKIM. T. ASAMURA Its Conditional Use Permit .SASXiA KAYSER O, 1Ut4E PETER M. THORSON Dear Ms. Bel-kowitz: JAMES L. MARK MAN CRAIG n, STEELE T. PETER PIERCE TERENCE R, BOC,A SA BOND Thank you for your letter of September l 8th in response to my letter of September JANET F. COLESON R DJAZ G 5th regarding Green Hills Memorial Park (``the Park"). In addition, thank you for IM 6. A SON JIM G. GRAYBON ROY A. CLARKE forwarding the letter signed by the Park's Board of Directors which the City had MICHAEL F. Yo S116A REGINA N. DANNER PAULA GUTIE.RREZ 8AEZA BRUCE W. GALLOWAY requested. DIANA K, CHUANG A. PATRICK BOBKo NORMAN A..DUPONT The City Council certainly appreciates the difficult situation that Green Hills is facing DAVID M. SNOW LOLLY A. E,NRIQUE Z with respect to its improper sale ofplots within the sixteen foot setback in the KIR31'EN R. BOWMAN GI NETTA L. GIOVINC0 TRISHA OR IT northwest corner of the Park and the interment of thirteen individuals within that area. CANDI CE K. LEE )EN?CAN ICEK.UE The City Council also appreciates Green Hills' commitment that it will relocate STEVEN L. FLOWER, TOUSSAINT S. BAILEY AIAY GREYSON owners of plots within that area where no burial has Occurred to other areas of tile DEBORAH R. HAKMAN Park, D. CRAIG FOA MARICELA E. MARROQUIN KATHERINE L. WISINSKI S ERITA R. YOUNG sI IRI KLIMA Green Hills' suggestion about how to deal with the six companion plots will be DIANA H_ VARAT SEAN 6, GIB BONS reviewed and considered by the City Council in closed session at a future City )UL 1EA, HAMILL AARON C.O'DELL AMANDA L. STEIN Councilil-ieetin� In the meantime, the City Council Would like me to assure Green p• STEPHANIE CAO SPENCER B.KALLICK HilW clients that the City Council does not wish to cause additional distress to the PATRICK D. SKAHAN STEPHEN D. LEE families of individuals who already have been interred within the setback in the YOUSTINA N. AZIZ KYLE SR.CHI"ARD NICHOLAS R. GHIRELID northwest corner and does not wish to have those individuals disinterred over the IT objection of their families. The question, however, is whether Green Hills is doing ROCHELLE BIZ OW IE SAYRE WEAVER everything that it reasonably can to try to address this situation and to provide a TERESA HO-URANO GENA M. STINNETT satisfactory remedy for the problem that it caused, including offering financial compensation to the families of the individuals who are interred in the setback in the TELEPHONE 415,421.8118/f northwest corner. TELEPHONE 714 990-0901 With respect to the forthcoming application to amend the conditional use permit so TELEPHONE 9;1.6952373 that the thirteen individuals who were improperly interred within the setback can remain at that location, along with the potential for the interment of six additional Pub. Corr - Page 119 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAS^! -A Pf 01:t ,SloNAL CORPORATION 1:Ilen Berkowitz, Esq. October 3. 2014 Page 2 spouses, should they and their families choose to stay in the current location, please be advised that a variance application will be required along with the application for an amendment to the conditional use permit. 1 -he reason that a variance also is required is because the Municipal Code ,vas amended in 1997, following the granting of the conditional use permit to Green Ifills in 1991, to require a forty foot setback from interior side yard and rear _yard property lines adjacent to residential zones to structures and below -grade interments within cemeteries. (See Municipal Code Section 17.28.040 A 2.) Since that setback requirement is currently required by the Municipal Code, a variance is required now, even though a variance was not required in 1991, when the conditional use permit was approved by the City. Likewise. it is this requirement that is the basis for the Planning Commission's direction to Green Hills to submit a variance application to the City for the Pacilic'herrace Mausoleum. Indeed, there is no reason why Green Hills cannot submit variance applications for both items so that they can be processed concurrently with the application to amend the conditional use permit. We suggest that Green Frills submit its applications as soon as possible, to comply with the direction from the Planning Commission. `1'lie City appreciates Green Hills' anticipated prompt response to this letter and the submission of its applications to amend the conditional use pern-fit and to obtain a setback variance. Very truly yours, Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Mayor f)uhovic and City Council Members Chairman Leon and Members of the Planning Cornmission Carolynn Petro, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development 175.33035 1 Pub. Corr - Page 120 Eduardo Schonborn From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:08 PM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: 'cc@prv.com`; PC; Carolynn Petru; Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Response to September 5, 2014 Letter Attachments: Letter to Carol Lynch 9_18_04.pdf Dear Ms. Lynch — On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park, please see the attached response to your letter of September 5, 2014. Please let me know if you have trouble opening the document, or if you have any questions or comments regarding the substance of the letter. Thank you. Ellen Berkowitz Ellen Berkowitz Sharel told c), 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 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavaae.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not use, disclose, print, copy or disseminate the same If you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message. 2. IRS Circular 234 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS. or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party 3. Transmission of viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free. and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in anyway from its use. 4. Security of Email, Electronic mail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure Thus, we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1 Page 148 Pub. Corr - Page 121 GRESHAM SAVAGE September 18, 2014 VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL Carol W. Lynch City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes 355 S. Grand Ave., 4011, Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Ellen.BcrkoN,ti,itz(tl,GreshatriSavagc.coni Los An;,,eles (213) 213-7249 • fa.t (213) 213-7391 Re: Response to September 5, 2014 Letter Regarding Conditional Use Permit Dear Ms. Lynch: This letter responds to your September 5, 2014 letter to Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills"). Green Hills has authorized me, as its legal counsel, to communicate with City representatives, including the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and the City Council, and to make commitments on its behalf. The Green. Hills Board of Directors is preparing a letter to that effect that the City can keep on file so separate resolutions are not needed when other issues and questions arise. Accordingly, as stated in my August 291' and September 2-1 letters to you, Green Hills confirms the following: (1) Green Hills will not sell any additional ground burial plots within the sixteen (16) foot setback area in the northwest corner of the park, referred to in the previous correspondence as the "Northwest Plots." (2) Green Hills has already begun notifying purchasers of unoccupied Northwest Plots that they must be relocated elsewhere within the park. (3) Although Green Hills does not believe the 16 foot setback requirement relative to the northwest corner was intended to apply to the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum ("Mausoleum"), Green Hills nonetheless agrees to refrain from selling plots within the area at issue at this time. Further, because Green Hills understands from your September 511, letter that the language "at this time" ktl 01\t, 550 Bast IIoshitaIitg I.anc. Suitc 300 < San licrnardmo, CaIiCortua 02405 3750 Univcr�ity Avenue, Suit: 250 a Riverside. California 9201 550 \V'<st C Strcct, Suite 1510 s tiara t;)iceo, Culiliunrt 92101 '33 South !lope Street. _;j" (`loot • Los Angde,,, ('alifoima 00071 149 Pub. Corr - Page 122 The Planning Commission September 18, 2014 Page 2 causes some concerti to the City, Green Hills agrees to provide at least sixty (60) days advanced written notice to the City before selling any plots or interring anyone on the Mausoleum roof within 16 feet of the property line. Green Hills understands that it erred in selling the plots and interring individuals within the Northwest Plots, as its Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") required a 16 foot setback. Accordingly, Green Hills has agreed to partially remedy the situation by agreeing not to sell any further plots in that area and to notify the purchasers of unoccupied plots that they will need to be relocated, as set forth above. With regard to the thirteen (13) people already interred in the Northwest Plots, Green Hills would also like to rectify the situation to the extent feasible. Accordingly, Green Hills has seriously considered the City's request to ask the families of those 13 individuals if they would be amenable to relocating their deceased relatives. After discussing the matter with grief counselors and experts in the industry (including those within Green Hills itself), Green Hills is deeply concerned about the considerable distress such a request could cause to the families by the :re -opening of the wounds associated with their loss. People move through various stages during the grieving process, and for those who are coming to terms with the loss of their loved ones, receiving a request of this nature could be damaging to that process. Instead, to eliminate possible issues of non-compliance with its CUP, Green Hills would propose to seek an amendment to its CUP to authorize the interment of the 13 individuals. Given the importance of honoring the requests of those who purchased companion plots and continue to have a surviving spouse/companion (there are six [6] such plots), Green Hills would also request authorization to inter up to six additional individuals in the existing partially occupied companion plots, However, Green Hills will consider, on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with its grief counselors, whether to approach the surviving companion to inquire whether he/she would be agreeable to relocating their plot when the survivor passes. Green Hills is prepared to begin preparation of the CUP amendment application immediately. Green Hills hopes that the City accepts its request for an amendment to its CUP in the spirit in which it is requested: not as a rejection of the City's request to contact the families, but as Green Hills' obligation to treat the families whose loved ones are interred within the Northwest Plots in the most compassionate and humane manner possible. The hurtful and derogatory comments from some Planning Commissioners at the last hearing (without any objection by any other Commissioners) continue to ring loudly in Green Hills' collective psyche. We sincerely hope that we can change Gt,,_,0Pagel 150 Pub. Corr - Page 123 The Planning Commission September IS, 2014 Page 3 the nature of the dialogue to find productive and positive resolutions to the issues before us. Thank you for your continued consideration. Very truly yours, C Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF Enclosure cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council Members Chairrnan Leon and Members of the Planning Commission Carolynn Petru, City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development Eduardo Schonborn, Senior Planner (,,I.,,,,P,age 151 Pub. Corr - Page 124 Date; September 18, 2014 From; Charles R. Roche ov E�tgti a;�Cyt�1���di'� �-r •ti�*�' i To; RPV Planning Commission, City of Lomita Residents Dear Residents and Planning Commission Members, I am writing this letter in support of Green Hills Memorial Park concerning our time honored tradition of Military Honors for the men and women who have sacrificed and served our great Nation. I am personally saddened and appalled to learn that this honorable and moral obligation to those who have served has been challenged. I ask and pray that each of you take a minute and search your conscious and souls and remember who you are, Americans first, what our country stands for and the sacrifices required to keep us a free Nation. To those of you who are neighbors of Green Hills Memorial Park, do you want us to believe that you are so arrogant that your personal comfort is far more important than honoring those who provided you with this comfort and that it inconvenience's you for a few seconds in your life? 1 assume none of you have served or no one in your families have served our Nation let alone died for it. I don't understand the mentality or logic behind such self serving Americans, what happened to us? I also know that the cemetery was there before most of you purchased your condo. Real Americans would be standing on their balconies flying our flag and taking those few seconds during the service and rendering a salute. To those of you on the planning commission, I urge, actually beg you to too do what is right and make an Honorable and Moral decision and not a political one in favor of our world recognized traditions. I have personal knowledge and experience with Green Hills Memorial Park and can assure you that the Board of Directors are Honorable and decent men who over the years have contributed to the city, providing at the Memorial Parks expense, the amazing Memorial Day event each year, the Viet Nam traveling wall at least three times and free concerts in the park and many other community services. I am an American and Viet Nam veteran, my Uncle Bob was killed at the battle of the Bulge and is buried in Holland, my father served with General Patton in Europe, my Uncle Ted operated a LST hitting the beaches on D Day and my Brother Gary was Killed in Viet Nam and they all have and will receive their Military Honors as they should have and deserve. It disgusts me to think that we have decided that our comfort and arrogance comes before Honoring those that sacrificed for the very freedoms we take for granted. I urge you all to be Americans and do not take away the last Dignity our Veterans deserve and have earned. Thank You and GOD Bless America. Who am I? My name is Chuck Boche Proud American, Veteran and Member of Chapter 53 VVA, the American Legion and the Patriot Guard Riders. Duty, Honor, God and Country Page 141 Pub. Corr - Page 125 Eduardo Schonborn From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@Gresham5avage.com> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:45 AM To: PC Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolynn Petru; Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonbom Subject: Green Hills Response to September 3, 2014 Complaint Attachments: Planning Commission -05 Re 08-30-14 Mausoleum Rooftop Burial Service.PDF Dear Commissioners: Please see the attached letter from Green Hills Memorial Park, responding to the email complaint from a Vista Verde resident submitted to the Commission on September 3, 2014, regarding a burial service held at the Park on August 30, 2014. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office main: (213) 213-7249 Fax: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 tivww.GreshamSavage.com 1, Privileged and Confidential Communication. the information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not use, disclose, print. copy or disseminate the Sallie If you have received this in error. please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message. 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments. is not intended or written to be used. and cannot be used, by you Or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS. or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party 3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication. and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus o: other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in r,ny way from Its use 4. Security of Email. Flectronic mail is sent over the public Internet and may not be secure -thus. we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1 Page 152 Pub. Corr - Page 126 GRESHAM SAIVAGE September 15, 2014 VIA EMAIL Members of the Planning Corninission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 lal I un.Ber],o\vitY0Y(-,i ushmiSavagexom Los Angeles, (21 3) 217,7249 , (ret (3 13) 213-739-1 Re: Green Hills: August 30, 201.4 Mausoleum Rooftop Burial Service Case No. ZON2003-00086 Dear Commissioners: We understand a resident of the Vista Verde condominium complex ("Resident") submitted a complaint on September 3, 2014, to the Planning Commission ("Commission") regarding a burial service that occurred on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum ("Mausoleum") on August 30, 2014. The complaint makes a number of allegations, including that Green Hills "continue[s] to violate the rules." Given that the Commission has threatened to revoke Green Hills' Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") if the Commission finds evidence of violations, Green Hills submits this letter to respond to each and every allegation presented in the Resident's complaint. We hope that, after reviewing the facts, the Commission will agree that the allegations in the complaint are without merit. The complaint alleges that: (1) the Resident was "forced inside on a Saturday morning" because a Green Hills representative was taking pictures of the Resident; (2) the ceremony took place outside the tent; (3) equipment was stored on the roof overnight; (4) tall bushes are growing; and (5) the sprinklers run at 10 p. in, and 2 a.m. "so nobody can see them" and "spill water." Each of these items is discussed below. 1. The Service. On the morning of August 30, 2014, a funeral service was field at the Green .I tills Memorial Chapel for Mr. Martin Rodriquez, who passed away on August 18, ' Name changed to respect privacy. 550 Nast 11o�pitalitV I anc, Smic 300 ® Sun Bcivardino, Cahfoima (K 400' 3750 Unnosit) A\emte, Smic 250 a Ri\cisidc, ('alif'otma 92501 j50 \Vc�l Suite ISIO SZ111 92101 South 11"pQ Succl, 3S Floor I oe Am-,cke Cohimma 90071 Page 153 655 k 000 - 144S2177.1 Pub. Corr - Page 127 The Planning Commission September 15, 2014 Page 2 2014, at the age of 69. The burial service was scheduled for 12:30 p.m. on the Mausoleum roof, Mr. Rodriguez was clearly a beloved and respected individual, as evidenced by the number of people who attended both his funeral and burial service. About an hour prior to the burial service, Green Hills' grounds crew visited the Mausoleum roof to set-up the privacy tenting and folding chairs. The tent and chairs were placed in an area as far away from the Vista Verde residences as possible; by doing so, Green Hills intended to direct: the pastor and mourners to congregate away from the residences and thereby reduce the potential for noise and/or visual impacts as much as possible. Just prior to the service, a chapel staff member delivered flowers to the burial site. A Vista Verde resident yelled from tier balcony at the chapel staff member, asserting that Green Hills was not permitted to perform burial services on Saturdays. A few minutes later, another Vista Verde resident entered Green Hills' property, and approached the chapel staff member, asking questions about Green Hills' "issues." The staff member advised he was not able to comment on or discuss any such "issues." At about 12:30 p.m., mourners began arriving for Mr. Rodriguez' service. As described in detail by Green Hills' staff: As the service was preparing to begin, one of the Vista Verde residents, situated on a balcony, began an extremely loud conversation on her telephone at a volume that was obviously noticeable and disruptive for the entire burial service. After concluding her telephone conversation, the resident then returned into her home, loudly slamming her door shut behind her. Soon thereafter, while the service was being conducted, the same resident returned to her balcony and proceeded to film and/or take photographs of the cerernony for approximately 5 minutes, before again returning to her home by loudly slamming shut her sliding door. To record the incident, Green Hills' staff took a photograph of the offending balcony, but did not engage or speak to the individual at any time. Notwithstanding these interruptions, Mr. Rodriguez' service was quiet, solemn, and brief. The pastor spoke at a low volume without amplification, and mourners were quiet, soft-spoken, and respectful. Paqe 154 G�833-000- 144��­ 1 Pub. Corr - Page 128 The Planning Commission September 15, 2014 Page 3 2. The Tent. The service was held almost entirely inside/within the privacy tenting, although, because of the large number of mourners in attendance, there was some overflow. At the end of the service, the pastor said a few more Words as the casket was lowered into the ground. As seen in the photograph the Resident submitted, some mourners gathered around to observe this event and listen to the pastor's final words.' Immediately following the service, the plot was filled in., the site was fully restored, and all activity on the rooftop was concluded. 3. The Equipment, On the afternoon of August 29, 2014, the day prior to Mr. Rodriguez' service, Green Hills prepared the plot for burial. During this 15-20 minute process, a small amount of backfill was removed from the plot, the burial vault was opened, the vault's lid was carefully placed next to the plot, and a cover was placed over the excavated plot as a safety measure. All other equipment and materials were removed from the Mausoleum roof and no equipment was returned to the roof until the following day, after the service. No "equipment" of any kind was stored or left on the Mausoleum roof overnight. Should the Commission request further proof of this fact, We Would be happy to provide time -stamped photographic evidence of the roof from the CCTV security video that monitors the area, 4. The Tall Bushes. As the Resident noted, the Mausoleum roof is permitted to plant ground cover — generally defined as plants that do not exceed eight (8) inches in height, Green Hills' staff has walked the site and examined the pictures attached to the Resident's complaint, and observed no "tall bushes" or other vegetation in violation of this requirement. 2 Logistically, it is not possible to place the tent around the casket, as there must be sufficient room to maneuver equipment to lower the casket into the ground. For that reason, even with tents erected, it is generally not possible to visually shield an entire service. Accordingly, Green Hilts is experimenting with the use of screening panels that can be easily erected and removed, one hour before and one hour after a service, to provide additional privacy for both the Vista Verde residents and the mourners. Page 155 GSII�_000 - 144S21.1 Pub. Corr - Page 129 The Planning Commission September 15, 2014 Page 4 5. The Sprinklers, Green Hills has implemented many measures to reduce its water usage and comply with regulations regarding the watering of its lawns, particularly during this time of unprecedented drought. As part of these measures, Green Hills waters the lawn on the Mausoleum roof for I I minutes at 9:00 p.m., and for another 11 minutes at 1:00 a.m., daily. The sprinklers are calibrated so as not to waste or spill water, and ensure that any runoff is minimal. We hope the inforaiation in this letter provides some additional context regarding the allegations in the complaint. Of course, should you have any questions or require any additional details, we would be happy to provide such information to you. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF Enclosure cc: Carolynn Petru Carol Lynch Joel Rojas Eduardo Schonborn Page 156 clss J-000 .. I I Pub. Corr - Page 130 From: Joel Rojas Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 6:47 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Files From: James <bubba32@cox.net> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 5:46:07 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: Carolynn Petru; CC; PC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Re: Green Hills Files Diane et al Thankfully, 1 now have a confinned copy of the signed P C Resolution No. 2007-33. This contains conflicting and/or erroneous statements that have a bearing on the issues of mausoleum construction, construction that would not have been possible or allowed if the Resolution was actually implemented. To wit; Section l; "Further, the proposed project complies with the setback requirements.." (Original Master Plan = 80', RPVMC = 40') Section 3; "There will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use because mitigation measures have been incorporated that reduce the potential impacts of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise". (None incorporated for View Impairment - Aesthetics) Section 6: "The grading will not adversely impact any views from surrounding properties .." "Further,..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". Section 7: The grading allows for excavations into slopes and backfill to extend the slopes to the mausoleum structures, thereby blending the structure into the natural contours of property." Page 157 Pub. Corr - Page 131 (Please refer to Schematic Site Section/West Wing, Master Plan Area 11, Memorial Terrace West Wing, plan page 11-D, of January 29, 2007, by J. Stuart Todd, Inc. - Specifically observe the erroneous "Outline of Existing Grade" therein depicted which is non-existent at the location where this mausoleum west wing was constructed. Further, please refer to the photographs in plan page 11-F, top right, bottom right, which demonstrate that no such "existing grade" actually exists in front of the Lomita Condominiums.) Section 8: (the grading, etc) "is consistent with the existing and continuous use of the property; the grading and related mausoleum building do not impair views;" In a related correspondence to the Planning Commission dated August 6, 204 from Green Hills Attorney Ellen Berkowitz, on page 6. Item 4: "there is no Allegation that Green Hills has Violated any Conditions of it's CUP to justify Revocation." (Note The legalese wording requiring affirmative allegations vs. actual knowledge of those violations - being hidden by Green Hills) Correspondingly, neither Green Hills or their Attorney were willing to disclose at that time that Green Hills was, in fact, in serious Violation with their CUP as validated by Staffs on-site verification described in the Staff Report for the August 26, 2014 P C hearing. Further, it seems apparent from the Attorney's construction of that assertion, that just such Violation would, in fact be reasonable grounds for Revocation. The record demonstrates that Green Hills had in fact previously requested setback reductions (from 16' to 8') for in ground interments in Area 1 as described in CUP Condition no. 6. Those requests were not approved in 1991 or in April 2007. Therefore, Attorney Berkowitz's assertion that these 44 violations lately validated by Staffs investigation of August 19, 2014, were "inadvertent" is baseless and unconvincing. I should also direct attention to the Pre-existing 80' building setback described in "Neighborhood Meetings" dated January 29, 2007 Prepared by J. Stuart Todd, Inc, item 7. "The original CUP indicated an 8 foot landscape buffer along this (north property line) and an eighty foot setback for structures." Moreover, the Staff Report and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of February 27, 2007, stated that this Original Master Plan had incorporated adequate setbacks; "With approval of original Master Plan, setbacks Mausoleum buildings and interments were established. These setbacks will not be modified or reduced with the additional Mausoleum buildings." "The additional buildings requested through this 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 the perimeter." "Thus, the setbacks and heights of all proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established by the prior Master Plan." Believe it, or Not! Jim Gordon Page 158 Pub. Corr - Page 132 Sent from. my Wad On Sep 12, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Diane Smith" <radlsrnitlr d)cox.net> wrote: Hello Carolynn, This morning I went to City hall again and asked specifically for the final plans referred to in the august 26, 2014 Staff Report, paragraph "f)" because the final plans were not with the Building Department and they were not with the file I asked for yesterday t�pu,mortedly lust been returned to the planning department. One of the planners was able to retrieve the final plans from either Joel or Eduardo's office. I saw that the plans were approved by Eduardo in the beginning of 2012 and the original architect, J. Stuart Todd had been replaced by McCleskey and Bolton with Green Hills as the owner/builder and their attorney Resieh as the contact. I went over every single drawing and, although I am not an architect nor engineer, those drawings do not look like the drawings approved by our planning commission. I know our planning commission would riot have approved that monstrosity. I realize you have an investigation going on but I feel the investigation should have started a long time ago when I first asked for the investigation — when the files were maybe more complete and in order. No sooner were the plans brought out to the counter when one of the attorneys fi•om Green Hills signed in to look at the Green Hills file. He had a camera which probably reduced his time spent in half from the time I spent, not to mention the cost of copying. The files are not complete Carolynn. I could not find one document, letter, writing, note indicating anything that referred to setbacks, discussions of setbacks - nothing. There were all sorts of notices on drawings to comply with municipal codes, government codes, etc. but obviously these codes were not enforced. Setbacks are HUGE with cemeteries. I therefore feel there must be many missing documents from the file. It was a very frustrating experience. I left at around 1:30 pin and the Green Hills attorney was still there. I hope you have a nice weekend. Page 159 Pub. Corr - Page 133 Sincerely, Diane Smith 9�= 6 Pub. Corr - Page 134 jt�k' RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON V01, ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, 4oth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.84N Facsimile 213.626.0078 RICHARD RICHARDS September 5, 2014 1' (1916-1988) conditions that were discussed by the Planning Commission so as to reduce the GLENN R,WATSON impacts of the interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and that (1917-2UY0) VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U. S. MARL HARRY L. GERSHON the northern -most row of plots that are on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (1927 ^? 04J) or bury anyone in those plots "at this time." The difficulty with this last statement is STEVEN L. DORSEY Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. WILLIAM ,TCH LLLESAtl 0n Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC G RE GO RY W. STEPANI(ICH QUINN M. BARROW �+ '} T� 333 South Hope Street, 35th Floor CAROL W. LYNCH GREGORY M, KUNERT (� ('� (}(}(��7 Los Angeles, CA 900 1 THOMAS M. )LIMBO / ROBERT C. CECCON STEVEN H. KAUFMANN KEVIN G. ENNIS RORIN D, HARRIS Re. Green Hills Memorial Park and its Violation of the Conditions of Approval of MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE S. WIENER /'� Use Permit Its Conditional B. TILDEN KIM lJ .s'e SASKIA T. ASMURA KAYSER O. SLIME PETER M. TH ORSON JAMES L. MARKMAN CRAIG A, STEELE T. PETER PIERCE {'� '� ,{ Berkowitz: DM Dear s. Berkowitz. TERENCE R. DO LISA BOND JANET E. CoLESON ROXANNE M, DIA7 This letter responds to recent letters from on August 29"' and September 2"' and JIM G. GRAYSON you Rovn. C ARKS MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA to express the City's ongoing concern about the interments that have occurred within REGINA N. DANNER PAULA GUTIERREZ BAEZA the sixteen foot required setback in the northwest coiner of Green Hills Memorial BRUCE W. GALLOWAY DIANA R. CHUANG Park ("tine Park" or "Green Hills"). PATRICK K. BODKO NORMAN A. OUPONT DAVID M. SNOW LOLLY A.ENRIQUEZ KIRSTEN RBOWMAN . The City appreciates tine fact that Gieein Hills has committed that it will not sell G INETTA L. CIOVINCO TRISHA ORTIZ additional plots or inter anyone else in the northwest corker and that it has CANDICE K. LEE JENNIFER PFTRUSIS commenced the of notifying individuals who in that corner STEVEN L, FLOWER process purchased plots TOU55AINT S. BAI LEYMY be GREYSON that they will need to relocated elsewhei e. DEBORAH R. HAKMAN D. CRAIG FOX MARICELA E. MARROQUiN KATHERINE L. WISINSKI /^r ('� 'I,, The City Council hereby requests written confirmation of these commitments by the SERITA R. YOUNG SIHRI KLIMA DIANA N. VARAT Green Hills Board of Directors in a resolution or letter signed by the Board. SEAN D. GIBBONS JULIE A. HAMILI "' Although this may seem duplicative of your letters of August 29 and September AARON C, O'DELL AMANDA L. STEIN 2nd, given the mistakes that have been made, the City wishes to have a document on STEPHANI F. (:AO SPENCER D. KALLICK file that memorializes the Board's concurrence with the that have stated PATRICK D. SKAHAN position you STEPHEN D.LEE behalf Green Hills, YOUSTINA N. AZIZ on of KYLE H. BROCHARD NICHOLAS R. GHIRELLI Page 161 Pub. Corr - Page 135 The City also appreciates that Green Hills will implement other operational RO('II E LLE R ROWN F SAYRE WEAVER TERESA HO�URANO conditions that were discussed by the Planning Commission so as to reduce the GENA M. STINNETT impacts of the interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and that TELEPHONE 411.421.$484 Green Hills has coimnitted that it will not sell any of the plots that are located within the northern -most row of plots that are on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum TELEPHONE 714,990.0901 or bury anyone in those plots "at this time." The difficulty with this last statement is TELEPHONE 951,695 2373 that it is not a binding commitment for a definite time period. To avoid having the City go to court to seek a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, Page 161 Pub. Corr - Page 135 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. September 5, 2014 Page 2 Green Hills must commit to adhering to this promise until or unless it first gives at least sixty days advance written notice to the City of Green Fli1W intent either to sell or inter anyone in the northern -most row of plots located on the roof of that Mausoleum. Please notify me immediately, if Green Hills is not willing to make this conunitinent to the City. As with the prior commitments, the City Council would like confirmation of these commitments by the Green Hills Board of Directors in a resolution or letter signed by the Board. Turning to the issue of the six individuals who already have been interred illegally in companion plots in the northwest corner of the Park, the City does not concur with your statements that the Health and Safety Code requires Green Hills to inter spouses in those plots in violation of the Green Hills Master Plan and the Conditions of approval that were imposed by the City. Health and Safety Code Section 9601 Is one of several sections of that Code that address ownership and rights of succession to burial plots and establishes a vested right of spouses to be interred with another spouse in a companion plot. Contrary to your statements, however, Section 8601 does not mandate Green Hills to further violate the provisions of its Master Plan and the conditions of approval that were adopted by the Planning Commission. The City Council still is evaluating and considering the options that are available to address this unfortunate situation. 'File City Council does not want to upset the families of the thirteen individuals who were interred illegally in the northwest comer of the Park. However, the City would like Green Hills to reach out to the families of these individuals to see if they would be willing to have their loved ones moved to a different location in the Park, in exchange for compensation offered to them by Green Hills. The City would like Green Hills to provide to the City copies of tile correspondence that it sends to these families and their responses. 'file City does not wish to invade the privacy of these families, so please redact the names and addresses of the affected individuals and families and leave only the reference to the plot number in the correspondence that you provide to the City. The City Council has determined that this information will enable the City to perform a more accurate analysis of the options that are available to the City and to Green Hills with respect to the illegal interment of the thirteen individuals in the northwest corner of the Park. Page 162 Pub. Corr - Page 136 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. September S, 2014 Page 3 Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention and cooperation regarding this hatter. Very truly yours, Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Mayor Duliovic and City Council Members Chairman Leon and Members of the Planning Commission Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Conununity Development 174(x175.1 Page 163 Pub. Corr - Page 137 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:29 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: Green Hills Memorial Park Attachments: Letter to Ellen Berkowitz re Green Hills Memorial Parks Violations of Conditions of Approval of its.PDF FYI From: Linda Javier [mailto:Uavier@rwglaw.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:16 PM To: 'Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com' Cc: CC; PC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park Ms. Berkowitz, On behalf of Carol Lynch, attached is her letter to you regarding Green Hills Memorial Park. The original letter will be sent to you via U.S. mail. Thank you. Linda Javier Assistant to Carol W. Lynch Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 626-8484 NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Page 164 Pub. Corr - Page 138 Eduardo Schonborn From: Carol W. Lynch <CLynch@rwglaw.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:31 AM To: 'Ellen Berkowitz'; Eduardo Schonborn Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Temporary Tenting at Green Hills Hello Ellen. I understand that there has been one recent complaint. Eduardo is going to forward it to you shortly. Carol From: Ellen Berkowitz [mailto:Ellen. Berkowitz@Gresham5avage.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:19 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn; Carol W. Lynch Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Temporary Tenting at Green Hills Thank you. In a similar vein, I understand there have been some complaints submitted to the City recently about activities on the Mausoleum roof. It would be helpful for us to be able to see those complaints and be in a position to respond to them and/or take appropriate action to address them, if necessary. Could you forward those to us? Carol, if you would prefer, I'm happy to submit a formal Public Records Act request for these. Ellen. From: Eduardo Schonborn [mailto:EduardoS0)rlv.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:15 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Ellen Berkowitz Cc: Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Temporary Tenting at Green Hills Fyi, I just forwarded the email on to the HOA and attorney before seeing this email. But Carol has a good point, it might also be good for GH/Ellen to send one to the HOA as well. -eduardo Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner 00ty of Wgncko (Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.r)alosverdes.com/rov/olanninR/Diann!nR-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f 1 Page 165 Pub. Corr - Page 139 eduardosta)rRv.com From: Carol W. Lynch [mailto:CLynch@rwelaw.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:01 AM To: 'Ellen Berkowitz' Cc: Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: RE: Temporary Tenting at Green Hills Hello Ellen, The City appreciates the notice that you provided to the City about the screening. Have you also contacted the attorney for the HOA so that the Association and its members can be advised? If Green Hills is seeking input from the neighbors about various options and which option(s), if any, most effectively mitigate the effects of the roof top burials, I think it is very important that they be provided with the opportunity to provide input to Green Hills and to the City. This also may assist the Planning Commission in evaluating which additional operating conditions should be imposed. In closing, I want to let you know that I will be following up with a letter to you in response to your prior letters. Thank you, Carol From: Ellen Berkowitz [mailto:Ellen. BerkowitzO)GreshamSavage.com] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:13 PM To: Carol W. Lynch Cc: Joel Rojas (JoelRCalrpv.com); EduardoSCcDrpv.com Subject: Temporary Tenting at Green Hills Carol — Green Hills is having a service tomorrow and would like to test out a new screening method. The screening involves the temporary erection of poles. Screening panels will be affixed to the poles one hour before the service, and will be taken down one hour after the service. Because this a temporary test, Green Hills will be using a tarp -like material for the screens. If this method is successful and will be used in the future, Green Hills will order a more aesthetic material that will harmonize with the colors and/or landscape of the Mausoleum roof. I wanted to give you a heads up in the event that you receive any complaints from Vista Verde residents about the screening. We understand there are some residents who do not want screens erected because they are concerned it will block their views. At the same time, we understand there are some residents who do not like the use of tents only, because it is still possible to see some of the services when the tents are used (particularly if the service has numerous attendees). Green Hills would like to try different approaches to see which, if any, would be most acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Ellen Page 166 Pub. Corr - Page 140 Ellen Berkowitz Sharrlhalrlrv. Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Nope Street 35th Floort.os Angeles, CA 90071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office main: (213) 213-7249 Fax: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSava_qe.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client pnvileca or altomey work product doctrine If you are not the intended recipient of this communication. you may not use. disclose. print. copy of disseminate the same 11 you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service. we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email. including any attachments. is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used. by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS. or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party 3. transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files. are believed to be free of any virus of other defect it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free. and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use 4. Security of Email. Electronic road is sent over the public internet and may not be secure. Thus we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Click here to report this email as Spain. NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Nope Street 35th Floorl-os Angeles, CA 90071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office main: (213) 213-7249 Fax: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavaue.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine If you are not the intended recipient of this communication you may not use. disclose, print. copy or disseminate the same if you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message Page 167 Pub. Corr - Page 141 2 IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service. we inform you that any tax advice contained in chis email, including any attachments. is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used. by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting. promoting. marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3, Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect. it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free. and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use 4. Security of Email electronic mail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure l hus, we cannot guarantee the privacy or confide. ntiafity of such information This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit htti)://www.mimecast.com 4 Page 168 Pub. Corr - Page 142 GRESI-IAM SAVAGE September 2, 2014 VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes 355 S. Grand Avenue, 4011, Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 F] len. Burlwwi tz(a Grusham`;a voge.t-om Los Angele� (213) 21:3 7249 , ja,i (213) 213-7391 Re: Response to August 28, 201.4 Letter to Green Hills Regarding Conditional Use Permit Dear Ms. Lynch: This letter responds to your August 28, 2014, letter to Green Hills Memorial Park. While most of the information responsive to your requests was contained in Green Hills' August 29, 2014, letter to the Planning Commission (attached for your convenience), we also wanted to respond directly to you. The August 2911, letter provides specific information and a map depicting the status of the plots within the 16 -foot setback area in the northwest corner, and provides the reference to California Health & Safety Code Section 8601 governing companion plots. As also noted in the August 2911, letter, Green Hills has already begun to notify purchasers of plots within the 16 -foot setback area in that northwest corner that they will have to be moved to another location within the park. No further plots within that 16 -foot setback area in the northwest corner will be sold. Finally, as stated in the August 2911, letter, although Green Hills does not believe the 16 -foot setback applicable to the northwest corner of the property was intended to apply to burials on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrance Mausoleum, Green Hills will nonetheless agree not to sell any plots or bury any individuals in plots located within that area at this time. We hope this letter, together with the August 2911, letter, responds to your inquiries. 55O 1 ast Hospilaii(Y I aliv, SwIQ 300 - San RCIIIII'dillo, ("'111folwa 92-10,'; 1750 t'nivctsnv Avenue, Suite 250 - Rnoside. California 92>01 55O West C stlitc 1""10 - "'all Diego. Callf(IIIIIII 92101 333 South 11o1w Stied, 351!` I loos - Los Angeles, California 90O11 Page 169 65S3.000 - 1421 W- I Pub. Corr - Page 143 The Planning Commission September 2, 2014 Page 2 As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions or comments. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF Enclosure cc: Planning Commission Carolynn Petru Joel Rojas Eduardo Schonborri (;583-0)(49P 170 Pub. Corr - Page 144 EduapdoSchonhoru Frorn: [aro|VV,Lynd/ ^[Lynch��eg|awcom� Sent Friday, SeptemberO5, J0l4 &01- AM To: 'EUen Berkowitz' {c Joel Rqias EduardnSchonbn/n Subject: R�Tempomryrenting a\Gwen Hills 1ic|11 '1>Uen. Tl�p [.,yupprecia(e�(henoVcciha\youurnvided ioV`p[.(yahoo| U1esceeninq, Ha^p yo'/a}socun|ac1ed �heaL�o/opy /o/ !he MOAsoUha\Ole iaOimnand`\,imembcoconbradvedr ![clre- enHhomthene�hbo/� ahoo� vavuos opUons nnd ehic|` up|ion(s)' if most p[h,dive|y x`i1i�-;a1e the p buria|s' i thiol, x s veryx:po/"ant Uu(they beprov\dedw>th/hcopPoruooh%mpro"/duinpoltoGrceo1 *n0!city, Thba|st-)rnoy asd-�/ 1heP1annin&Com1) 1ie10nincva|uaUnOvv11i f �hadd/(iona|o0cm(ingcondiii onsVmvNbe)mpused, hi c(osio�| wani lo |c(you know that | wiU he |oUb*ing vp wi/h a |ctharto you ill 1 io you, priorbKers ||�aokyou Caru! From: Ellen Berkowitz [maiho:Ellen, Berkowitz(�)GeshamSavage.com] Sent: Thuruday, September 04, 2014 5:13 PM To: Carol W. Lynch Cc: Joel Rojas (Joel R@Vrpv.com); EduandoS(c�rpv.com Subject: Temporary Tenting at Green Hills Carol - Green Hills is having a service tomorrow and would like to hast om1 g new screening method. The screening involves the temporary erection Ofpoles. Screening panels will beaffixed t0the poles one hour before the service, and will betaken down one hour after the service. Because this atemporary test, Green Hills will he using 8 tarp -like material for the screens. If this method is SuCC9SSfU| and will be used in the future, Green Hills will order more aesthetic material that will harmonize with the colors and/or landscape Dfthe Mausoleum roof. Iwanted t0give you a heads upiDthe event that you receive any complaints from Vista Verde residents about the screening. Weunderstand there are some residents who dOnot want screens erected because they are concerned it will b|0Ch their views- At the saOne dDle. we UDdenSt8Dd there are some residents who d0 not like the use of tents only, beC8US8 it is ah|| possible to SBR some of the SS[VicoS when the tents are used (particularly if the service has OUDleroUS attendees). Green Hills vvOUld like to by different approaches to see which, if any, vVoU1d he most acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank You. Ellen Pub. Corr - age 145 This email has been scanned for email relaters threats and delivered safety by Mimecast. For more Information please visit http_Itwww rnirnecast.corn Click h�2rc to report this email as spam. NO TI(T-1 I his COMM tinlCation mai contain or other confidential information. li, yon are not the intended rccipicnt ol'this conimimicatio11- M' an employee or agent respollsiblc lordclivering this eonunnnicsItiOn to the intCJ1ded recipient, please advise the sender by reply e111ail and Immediately delete the ttlessa,ge and any att".1chments without ct>1?yor disclosing the contents. Thank YOU. 2 Page 172 Pub. Corr - Page 146 Eduardo Schoriborn From: Ellen Beikovvitz Elfeii.(3eikowitz(tz)G!esi-i.--,.iiiS,ivlge.((,)Ill> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 PM To: Carol Lyndi Cc: Joel Rojas, Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Tempoiwy Tenting at Green 1--lills Carol -- Green Hills is having a service tomorrow and would like to test out a new screening method. The screening involves the temporary erection of poles. Screening panels will be affixed to the poles one hour before the service, and will be taken down one hour after the service. Because this a temporary test, Green Hills will be using a tarp -like material for the screens. If this method is Successful and will be used in the future, Green Hills will order a more aesthetic material that will harmonize with the colors and/or landscape of the Mausoleum roof. I wanted to give You a heads up in the event that you receive any complaints from Vista Verde residents about the screening. We understand there are some residents who do not want screens erected because they are concerned it will block their views. At the same tirne, we understand there are some residents who do not like the use of tents only, because it is still possible to see some of the services when the tents are used (particularly if the service has numerous attendees), Green Hills would like to try different approaches to see which, if any, would be most acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank YOU. Ellen i tkier], FIC 3-1313 SuiM� i 35th F iooi Loc� CA 'M0/ 1 OfN 'e (111 - Page 173 Pub. Corr - Page 147 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mi r ecast For more information please visit httpa/www om Page 174 Pub. Corr - Page 148 Eduardo Schonborn From: Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:07 PM To: PC; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: GH mausoleum operations Attachments: P1080243.JPG; P1080251.JPG; P1080255.JPG; P1080262.JPG Dear commissioners I'm owner of one (thanks God top floor) unit in Vista Verde complex, located at 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North in Lomita. I would like to write to express my feelings about the experience we have very often with the GH new mausoleum and rooftop burials. They had one on Saturday morning, August 30th. I was forced inside on Saturday morning by a GH lady which started taking pictures of me on my terrace?! It feels so bad, it's not enough we have the cameras pointing towards us; now taking pictures? It doesn't feel right... We brought a lot of issues before you on the aug. 12 meeting about GH violating CUP and they continue to violate the rules. The ceremony is taking place completely OUTSIDE of the tent which defeats the purpose of having it with curtains down. They store equipment overnight, and there are bushes which are growing tall when it is said "no other than ground cover vegetation shall be planted on the top"... Also, nothing is done to adjust the sprinklers and they still spill water all over, just they run about 10 PM then again 2 AM so nobody can see them... See attached pictures. Thank you for your time! Nadejda You have been sent 4 pictures. P1080243.JPG P1080251JPG P1080255.JPG P1080262.JPG These pictures were sent with Picasa, from Google. Try it out here: http://picasa.google.com/ Page 175 Pub. Corr - Page 149 Page 176 Pub. Corr - Page 150 Page 177 Pub. Corr - Page 151 r 'r p ` > - i .. -tr �♦ a r., t .• aM' • t From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:21 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Violations of CUP Condition no. 6 fyi -----Original Message--___ From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:34 PM To: CC Cc: PC; Carolynn Petru; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Joel Rojas Subject: Green Hills Violations of CUP Condition no. 6 Members of the City Council During a review today at City Hall, a letter from Green Hills attorney of August 6, 2014 to RPV, disclosed that (Section 4) Green Hills was not in violation of their CUP. That as and is a false statement contradicted by an independent investigation by Staff of August 19, 2014 in which (as contained in the related PC Staff Report for the 26th 2014 meeting), verified that Green Hills is in violation of Condition no. 6 of a 1.6' required setback for in -ground interments in Area 1 along the northern perimeter of that property. During the Meeting, another letter from Green Hills' attorney Berkowitz was revealed that acknowledged violations had occurred in that location, with further revelations that a total of 44 violating interment plots were sold illegally by Green Hills in violation of CUP Condition no. 6. Attorney Berkowitz later in that PC meeting alleged that such violations (44 in total) were "inadvertent" and presumably a mistake, That is also false given the history that Green Hills had twice requested a reduction to an 8' setback (from 16') for in -ground internments in 1990 and in 2007. Both requested were denied and not incorporated into the approved Conditions of approval both times. The illegal sales of these interment plots have financially benefited Green Hills to the detriment of many parties thereto, including, but not limited to Rancho Palos Verdes, the purchasers and others adjoining the property. If such sales and financial gains of these illegal and non-compliant sales were "innocent" mistakes, as later claimed by Attorney Berkowitz, why were they not previously disclosed as such by August 6, 2014 when Green Hills wrote that they were in compliance? A "mistake" is not selling out the entire area of such in -ground interments when Green Hills has twice been denied such closer setback distance. That is not a mistake. That is a calculated decision made for financial gain and public harm. This is a serious deliberate act that should be treated accordingly by the City Council in their forthcoming deliberations. Page 180 Pub. Corr - Page 154 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:21 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: EW: Green Hills Violations of their CUP fyi -----Original Message ----- From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1.10 PM To: CC Cc: PC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.corn>; Carolyn@rpv.com; Joel Rojas Subject: Green Hills Violations of their CUP Members of the City Council During your deliberations and review this evening of Green Hills' violations of their CUP, you should be aware that in a legal correspondence of August 6, 2014, Section 4, their attorney stated that Green Hills was in compliance with their RPV Conditions of Approval. That was and is a deliberate false statement. As documented by RPV's own and Staff Report for the PC Hearing of 26 August 26th, based upon a Condominium neighbor's complaint, on August 19th, 2014 Staff verified that Green Hills was in violation of their CUP, Condition no. 6, in -ground interment within the required 16' setback distance from the northern property line in Area 1. During the PC Hearing of 26th August, it was openly acknowledged by Green Hills attorney Ellen Berkowitz, that Green Hills had in fact sold all 44 of those questioned interment plots that were in violation of the existing CUP setback distance of 16'. Thirteen of those plots had actual burials in them , with an undisclosed number of those sold plots being of a "companion" nature allowing interment of a spouse or family member together. The sale an interments in those plots are all purposeful and knowing intentional violations by Green Hills of the existing CUP Condition no. 6. Twice before, both in 1990(&1991) and as recently as April 24, 2007, Green Hills had requested a setback reduction for in -ground interments from 16' to 8' that were not approved nor allowed or incorporated into their CUP Condition no., 6. Near the conclusion of the August 26, 2014 PC Hearing, Attorney Berkowitz "clarified" that these (lately -discovered) violations of the setback requirements in the Green Hills CUP were, "inadvertent". They were not. They were not a mistake. These interment plots were not lawfully sold or disclosed to buyers or to the City at the time as being of an "error" or mistake 1 Given the history that such violations of the known setback requirements (16') had twice been refused, and the most recent false legal statement that Green Hills was in compliance as of August 6, 2014, gives rise to legitimate questions of serious impropriety to a multitude of impacted parties. Your consideration of these facts and misrepresentations will be appreciated. Jim Gordon Pub. Corr - Page 155 From: bubbe32@coxoet Sent: Tuesday, September 02,20I4l94PM To: [[ Cc RC; [arukmn Pebv; Carol Lynch <cIyndh@nwg|ow.com`�Joe| Rojas Subject: Green Hills Violations o(CUP Condition no. 6 Members ofthe City Council During a review today at City Hall, a letter from Green Hills attorney of August 6, 2014 to RPV, disclosed that (Section 4) Green Hills was not in violation oftheir CUP. That as and is a false statement contradicted by an independent investigation by Staff of August 19, 2014 in which (as contained in the related PC Staff Report for the 26th 2014 meeting), verified that Green Hills is in violation of Condition no, 6 of a 16' required setback for in -ground interments in Area I along the northern perimeter of that property. During the Meeting, another letter from Green Hills' attorney Berkowitz was revealed that acknowledged violations had occurred in that location, with further revelations that a total of 44 violating interment plotswere sold illegally byGreen Hills in violation of CUP Condition no. 6. Attorney Berkowitz later in that PC meeting alleged that such violations (44 in total) were "inadvertent" and presumably a mistake. That is also false given the history that Green Hills had twice requested a reduction to an 8' setback (from 16) for in -ground internments in 1990 and in 2007. Both requested were denied and not incorporated into the approved Conditions ofapproval both times. Theillegal sales ofthese interment plots have financially benefited Green Hills to the detriment of many parties thereto, including, but not limited to Rancho Palos Verdes, the purchasers and others adjoining the property. If such sales and financial gains of these illegal and non-compliant sales were "innocent" mistakes,as later claimed hy Attorney Berkowitz, why were they not previously disclosed as such by August 6, 2014 when Green Hills wrote that they were in compliance? A "mistake" is not selling out the entire area of such in -ground interments when Green Hills has twice been denied such closer setback distance. That is not a mistake, That is a calculated decision made for financial gain and public harm. This is a serious deliberate act that should be treated accordingly by the City Council in their forthcoming deliberations. Jim Gordon Pub. Corr — age 156 From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:10 PM To: CC Cc: PC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolyn@rpv,com; Joel Rojas Subject: Green Hills Violations of their CUP Members of the City Council During your deliberations and review this evening of Green Hills' violations of their CUP, you should be aware that in a legal correspondence of August 6, 2014, Section 4, their attorney stated that Green Hills was in compliance with their RPV Conditions of Approval. That was and is a deliberate false statement. As documented by RPV's own and Staff Report for the PC Hearing of 26 August 26th, based upon a Condominium neighbor's complaint, on August 19th, 2014 Staff verified that Green Hills was in violation of their CUP, Condition no. 6, in -ground interment within the required 16' setback distance from the northern property line in Area 1. During the PC Hearing of 26th August, it was openly acknowledged by Green Hills attorney Ellen Berkowitz, that Green Hills had in fact sold all 44 of those questioned interment plots that were in violation of the existing CUP setback distance of 16'. Thirteen of those plots had actual burials in them , with an undisclosed number of those sold plots being of a "companion" nature allowing interment of a spouse or family member together. The sale an interments in those plots are all purposeful and knowing intentional violations by Green Hills of the existing CUP Condition no. 6. Twice before, both in 1990(&1991) and as recently as April 24, 2007, Green Hills had requested a setback reduction for in -ground interments from 16' to W that were not approved nor allowed or incorporated into their CUP Condition no., 6. Near the conclusion of the August 26, 2014 PC Hearing, Attorney Berkowitz "clarified" that these (lately -discovered) violations of the setback requirements in the Green Hills CUP were, "inadvertent". They were not. They were not a mistake. These interment plots were not lawfully sold or disclosed to buyers or to the City at the time as being of an "error" or mistake! Given the history that such violations of the known setback requirements (16') had twice been refused, and the most recent false legal statement that Green Hills was in compliance as of August 6, 2014, gives rise to legitimate questions of serious impropriety to a multitude of impacted parties. Your consideration of these facts and misrepresentations will be appreciated. Jim Gordon y r' age 185 Pub. Corr - Page 157 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 S:28 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Cease and desist article From: bubba32@cox.net <bubba32@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:34:04 AM To: Diane Smith; Matt Martin; Rich Martin Cc: PC; CC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw,com> Subject: Re: Cease and desist article Matt et al Hidden behind Green Hills bluster about non-compliant ("mistake") of selling 44 plots that violate a long-standing 16' setback Condition for in the in -ground burials in this Northwest Corner (identified as "Area 1) of the cemetery, Green Hills representatives - including both their attorney and a Director, are willfully engaging in fraudulent misrepresentations as to their own culpability in this matter. The "smoking gun" in this disastrous caper is the un -revealed fact that Green Hills had twice been turned down for a variance to allow in -ground interments in this area, initially in a Noticed Variance hearing of 26 June, 1990 and in their subsequent Master Plan of 1991. Green Hills made another application in April 2007 for that same setback reduction from 16'to 8' (Conditional #6 of the Conditional Use Permit) that similarly was rejected, Such chutzpah defies all ethical standards expected of this type of organization and operation. This is an example of a deliberate omission of a long-standing Condition that has been in place for nearly 24 years. It is a wonder that it has not been discovered before this, and that only by the diligent discovery by a neighboring resident, has this now come to light. Selling 44 non -complaint plots is no "mistake" or accident based on that long-standing prohibition - an admitted violation of the law that requires immediate and effective action top be taken. As described in some detail by City Attorney Lynch at the 26th August 26th, 2014 PC Hearing, Green Hills does not come to this issue with "Clean Hands" in their attempt to divert blame and attention away from their deliberate and purposeful violations. Thus, the inference by Green Hills Attorney and Management Director that the concerns with those violations now is contrary to law, is a stupendous transformation of their own original sin. That kind of outrageous PR attitude to shift blame to this City by deceptive public comment is unbecoming of a Professional and ethical Cemetery organization and should be judged as such. ---- Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com> wrote: > Green Hills Memorial Park told to stop condo -area burials > Matt Martin Pub. Corr - Page 158 > MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com > --------- This message and any attached documents contain information that may > be confidential and&#x2F;or privileged. The information herein may > also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 1.8 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. Page 183 Pub. Corr - Page 159 Frons: Carolynn Petru Sera: Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:51 AM To: CityClerk Subject: FW: Green Hill Closed Session Late correspondence for the Closed Session on September 2nd From: Matt Martin[mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.comj Sera: Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:40 AM To: Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; Carol lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Jerry Duhovic, Brian Campbell; Carolynn Petru Subject: Green Hill Closed Session Dear Members of City Council and City Attorney In regards to the up coming meeting regarding the cease and desist letter and Green Hills' threats to continue burials in violation of their CUP, I wanted to mention a couple of facts. 1. Based on extensive research - the whole row of approx 40 double depth lawn burials in the northwest corner of Green Hills (which are 8 feet from the property line of a residential area) were never approved by any governing body of the City including the Planning Department at any point. The -Green Hills CUP has clearly had a 16 foot setback in that area since City Council took final action and approved the original CUP in 1991. All of the burials that have already taken place in that area are direct violations of the Green Hills CUP. Is there any consequence to Green Hills for this blatant disregard of city law and neighboring residents? I understand the City of RPV is trying to prevent future burials in this area, but shouldn't there be consequences for all of burials already made? As you may be aware, an internal investigation is being conducted by RPV as to how the 80 foot setback for above ground structures was changed to 8 feet without a variance, without disclosure to the public, and without explicit discussion with the planning commission. Such a dramatic amendment to the CUP could only be approved by the City Council because RPV code states that as the case (City Council took final action on the original CUP). 2. The Mausoleum in Area 11 was NOT originally approved in the 1991 CUP and Variance due to negative impacts of neighboring residents. Proof of this should be evident by the fact that a setback change was required in 2007 when the Mausoleum was illegally approved with the CUP revision. 3. Green Hills made multiple misrepresentations in their Master Pian Revision Submittal in 2007 with regards to the Area 11 Mausoleum. If you'd like information on these I can provide it. 4. The long list of 'mistakes' and 'oversights' that were made with regards to the illegal approval of the Mausoleum all fall in favor of Green Hills. It's construction, the ignoring of complaints from Vista Verde residents, the discretionary judgement that such a monstrous structure with rooftop burials and no screen/buffering techniques "would adversely affect Lomita residents", and much more. It starts with the illegal setback change and continues to no silhouetting of the structure being done (despite the fact that sihouetting was done for a different Mausoleum years prior). 5. Prejudicial decisions are explicitly forbidden by RPV code and may leave such actions open to change. The act of distinguishing neighboring residential areas as "Lomita vs RPV" may be considered prejudice by some. I want to mention that I do have compassion for individuals who were sold illegal plots by Green Hills and sympathize with this situation. The right to be buried next to a loved one is something that Green Hills should have considered prior to selling the illegal spaces. The idea that the City of RPV can be liable for the Illegal actions of Green Hills is something that I don't understand and I doubt is correct. The City never approved plots to be sold in that area so the liability should on Green Hills. I've looked into state code and there seems to be plenty of situations in which disinterring people is allowed by either the city or the cemetery. There is also likely language in the Contract which Green Hills gives to customers which allows for disinterment in situations beyond their control. These types of actions are indicative of the manner in which Green Hills treats their neighbors and apparently their own City. They have threatened our quaint (mostly retirement age homeowners) with lawsuits, they've built a Mausoleum that they knew was going to adversely impact us, and they ignored all of our concerns prior to completion. Now they are defiant to even RPV about the situation. I hope that the City Council takes some of these facts into account when they meet for a closed session on Tuesday. Green Hills wanted to lump 5+ Mausoleums into a 100 year Master Plan and CUP and 1 think that is what the problem is here. These short Planning Commission City Council meetings aren't long enough to discuss and adequately analyze such a large plan (As shown by the illegal setback change without a variance). Green Hills shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. They want to treat the illegal Mausoleum, the illegal burials, and other construction activities as separate projects under separate permits when it comes to enforcement - but at the same time they want to get them all approved at once and agree to the terms of a Conditional Use Permit. n Page.74a lI" Pub. Corr - Page 160 I urge the City Council to consider revoking the Green Hills CUP due to multiple violations, inconsistent construction activities, and a 2007 revision that wasn't compliant with RPV Code: All of these projects should be individually applied for and analyzed by the City on a case by case basis rather than allow something like this happen again. Thank you Matthew Martin M.atthowNMartin@,y0oo.c om ------------ ------ This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and&#x2F;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, Pub. Corr - Page 161 GRESHAM SAVAGE (2 1,31) 273-7249 fin (213) 213-7.391 August 29, 2014 VIA EMAIL Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills/Case No. ZON2003-00086 Dear Commissioners: This letter follows tip on the discussion at the August 26, 2014, Planning Commission hearing relative to the in -ground burials in the northwest corner of Green Hills Memorial Park, located within the 16 -foot setback area in Pacific Gardens. (For ease of reference, the plots within the 16 -foot setback area will be referred to as the "Northwest Plots.") As a preliminary matter, please be assured that Green Hills takes its obligations and responsibilities to the City extremely seriously, including adherence to all of the conditions of approval associated with its Master Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). Following the August 12, 2014, Commission hearing, however, at which the placement of the Northwest Plots was discussed, Green Hills discovered that one row of plots had been placed within the 16 -foot setback area. To date, 41 plots in that row have been sold; 13 of them currently have interments. Of those 13, six are companion spaces with only one person interred so far, (See attached diagram.) Green Hills recognizes that the continued use of the Northwest Plots would result in interments closer to the property line than originally contemplated by the CUP. At the carne time, Green Hills is mindful of the potential hardship and distress that purchasers of Northwest Plots may suffer if they or their loved ones are displaced from their selected place of interment. To remedy this situation, Green Hills would have hoped to obtain an amendment to its CUP to allow continued burials within the Northwest Plots. Based on comments expressed at the August 26, 2014, hearing, we understand that the Commissioners value strict adherence to the setbacks specified in 550 Ft,t Ilospitulity 1-1111Q, suite Smj Bviwirdhio, Calilmnia 92408 7$0 Uni%-eiskv A\cjmt% St . il�, '50 o Riverside. Gilil'onlio 9?501 i5,O NVL,sI Sfiecl, Suitc INIO ® San Diego. Cuhl'oniia 91'101 333 Soulh Hopc Sti-ccl, 30' Floor - LoAiqxe4's. Cidjfoinia 900111 6 5 .3 Page, 188 Pub. Corr - Page 162 The Planning Commission August 29, 2014 Page 2 the CUP over the interests of the Northwest Plot owners. Accordingly, Green Hills has already begun the process of advising purchasers of the Northwest Plots that tile), will have to be relocated elsewhere within the park. A serious problem arises for those individuals who have spouses already interred in companion spaces within the Northwest Plot area. As noted, there are currently six (6) such plots. minder California State law, spouses have a vested right to be inlemed in a companion plot with their deceased spouse. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 8601. That means that if Green Hills refuses to allow a spouse to be interred with his/her deceased spouse who is already buried in a companion plot, Green Hills would be in violation of State law. In that situation, Green Hills would be placed in an untenable position, by either: (1) complying with the CUP's condition relative to setbacks; or (2) violating State law and ignoring the wishes of those individuals who planned to spend eternity with their spouses in the Northwest Plots. Green Hills did not mean to suggest that it would disregard the CUP conditions out of arrogance, defiance, or disrespect for the City. Green Hills is not, as one Commissioner suggested, similar to a drug dealer brazenly defying the law without regard to the consequences of its behavior. Rather, Green Hills is struggling to balance a number of competing obligations to comply with City -imposed conditions, to abide by Federal and State law, and to honor the families and community it serves, Perhaps given the emotions at the hearing, we did a poor job describing this dilemma to you, and I personally apologize if I did not adequately explain Green Hills' position. Of course, we understand that some Commissioners may simply not care about Green Hills' dilemma, particularly given the view that the problem is of Green Hills' making. For those Commissioners, the only relevant issue is compliance with the setback; and if Green Hills should choose to prioritize its legal and ethical obligations to the families and spouses over the setback, then these Commissioners believe the appropriate remedy Should be revocation of Green Hills' CUP for the entire Memorial Park. The result Would be that Green Hills could no longer inter anyone anywhere within the park; it would, for all practical purposes, be Out of business. We hope the Commission does not decide to shut down the cemetery and harm the thousands of people Currently interred at the park, and the many who expect to be interred there in the future, because of a setback issue. For Green Hills' part, it certainly does not wish to inflame its current relationship with the City. For that reason, even though Green Hills does not believe the 16 -foot setback within the northwest corner of the property was intended to apply to burials on the Mausoleum rooftop, Green Hills will agree not to sell any plots or bury any (,sk_page 189 Pub. Corr - Page 163 The Planning Commission August 29, 2014 Page 3 individuals in plots located within that area at this time. Additionally, in response to a Commissioner's hope that Green Hills will chose to implement the additional conditions of approval recommended in the August 26, 2014, proposed resolution, we wish to point out that Green Hills itself volunteered to implement-- and in fact already has implemented -- the majority, of those conditions. Finally, we wish to remind the Commission that Green Hills corrected the drainage and exhaust fan issues when these matters were brought to its attention, and volunteered to abandon its plans for [tie Phase 11 Pacific Teri -ace Mausoleum, We highlight the above simply to remind the Commission that Green Hills has worked, and continues to work, to be a good community member and neighbor. The issues involving continued burials in the Northwest Plots represent a matter of extreme sensitivity, both under the law and with respect to the people Green Hills serves, Green Hills is making every effort to resolve the matter in a way that accounts for the need to protect City setback requirements with the other competing obligations to which Green Hills is also bound. On a final note, because Green Hills does not wish to delay the resolution of these issues further, we request that the next Planning Commission hearing date, currently scheduled for October 28, 2014, be scheduled earlier, any time after October 6, 2014. Thank you for your continued consideration. Very truly yours, ' 7 - Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF Enclosure cc: Joel Rojas Eduardo Schonborn Carol Lynch Ray Frew John Resich ,:,5.,Ra.g,,e, 190 Pub. Corr - Page 164 LLJ 1.� F-- z L w ¢ w z z z o � Lli U) w p � N � z 0 N N N H D C.7 4 LL O 4 N rAO) 19 Pub. Corr - Page 165 jjb,4& RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON !W 0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW -- A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, Both Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8t184 Facsimile 213.626,0078 RICHARD RICHARDS August _28, 2014 (1916--1988) b GLENN R. WATSON `19�7--2010) VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U. S. MAIL HARRY L. GERSHON (1922-2007) STEVEN L. DORSEY T [7 E11en Berkowitz, Esq. WILLIAM. L- STRAUSZ MITCHELL E. ABBOTT Gresha'�7 j' (" m N & Savage Nolan Tilden, PC GREGORYW. STEPANICICH QUINN M. BARROW (�'� ^} H7 South opi', Street, 35th Floor CAROI.W. LYNCH _)3 GREGORY M.KLJNERT � 7 r L,os Angeles, Teles `' A 90071 I?. JVVI 1 THOMAS M. LIMBO . LIMBO t i � , ROBERT C. CECCON STEVEN H. KAUFMANN KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS Re: Green Hills Memorial Palk and its Violation of the Conditions of Approval of MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE S. WIENER {r T Its Conditional Use Permit B. TILDEN KIM SASKIA T. ASAMURA KAYSER O. SUME PETER M. THORSON JAMES L. MARKMAN CRAIG A. STEELE T. PETER PIERCE T� D Dear Ms. Berkowitz: TERENCE R. BOG LISA BOND JANET E. COLESON RO%ANNE M. DIAZ As know, I am the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"), HM G. GRAYSON you ROY A. CIARKE MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA and I am writing to you regarding your client Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green REGINA N. DANNER PAULA GUTIERREZ BAEZA 7 Hills" of "the Park"). BRUCE W. GALLOWAY DIANA K. CHUANG PATRICK K. BOBKO NORMAN A,. ORKO Through the hearing that is being conducted by the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning DAVID M. SNOW LOLLY EZ Commission on the Green Hills' with Its Master Plan R B KIR5TEN R. BOWMAN annual review of compliance GINETT IRISH'A 'RNCO OTZ and the conditions of approval that were Imposed previously by the Carty, it has com e CAN DICE K. LEI. IENNIFFR PETRUS15 to the City's attention that Green Hills has interred people within the north west STEVEN L. FLOWER 7ODSSAI S. BAILEY corner of the Park within the required sixteen foot setback from the line. AMYY GREYSON property DEBORAH R.H D. CRAIGIG FOX FO This is In direct violation of the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit MARICE(A E. MARROQUiN KATHERINE L. WLSIN5KI that was Issued by the City in connection with the GreenHills Master Plan and the Master SERITA R. YOUNG SHIRI KLIMA City's subsequent approval of the grading and development of that corner. As you DIANA H. VARAT SEAN B. GIBBONS A. know, the point of the setback was to have an area within which no below ground JULIE HAMILL AARON C. OBDELL . AMANDA L. STEIN interments could occur, in order to protect the rights of the owners of the properties STEPHANIE CAO SPENCER B. KALLICK next to Green Hills. PATRICK D. SKAHAN STEPHEN D. LEE YOUS71NA N. AZIZ KYLE N. BROCHARD In that to to the City Tuesday August 26th NICHOLAS R. GHIRELLI an email you sent me and on > > you stated. ROGSAYRE WE VER BROWNE "Section (page 6 Of 24, QI page 10 of the Staff report) pIOVideS that "[no] further TERF.SA H041RANO GENA M. STINNETT sales and/or interments shall occur" within the 16 -foot setback area in the northwest corner of the cemetery, between the western property line and maintenance yard, until TELEPHONE �,15.G21.s4a�' Green Hills' Conditional Use Permit is modified. Please be advised that, should any TELEPHONE 714.990,0901 person who has purchased a plot within that area pass away before the Conditional TELEPHONE 951.695.2373 Use Permit is modified, Green Hills will honor that individual's contract for interment." (Emphasis added.) Page 192 Pub. Corr - Page 166 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. August 28, 2014 Page 2 As you know, the above response from Green Hills to the City's notification of Green 1 -Tills' violation of the conditions of approval is completely unacceptable to the City. Green Hills cannot continue to inter people in the setback area in violation of the conditions of approval of its Master Plan, Accordingly, the City hereby demands that Green Hills immediately cease and desist fi•om any additional interments within the sixteen foot setback and cease and desist from the sale of any unsold plots with the setback, This includes plots that are located both within the setback in the north west corner of the Park as well as all other areas of the Park that are governed by the sixteen foot setback requirement, including the first row of plots that are closest to the north property line on the top of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (which is referred to in the Master Plan as the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum). Based on statements that you made at the Planning Commission meeting, the City understands that no plots on top of the Pacific 1'errace Mausoleum within the last row adjacent to the northern property line, which is the area within the sixteen foot setback, have been sold. .Accordingly, Green Hills should have no problem complying with this directive as to those plots. As to the plots that are within the sixteen foot setback in the north west corner (you have advised us that there are forty-four plots in that area), we understand that eleven people have been interred in those plots, and that some of those individuals may be interred in companion plots. At the Planning Commission meeting Tuesday evening, you stated that you would immediately provide information to the City as to the exact number of plots where interments have occurred in that corner; their location, and whether any of the individuals have been interred in "companion plots." 1--Iowever, we have not yet received that information from you or from Green Hills. Today, you advised me that there are special State regulations governing companion plots, and that Green Hills cannot prevent individuals from being interred in a plot when their companion already has been laid to rest. Please provide me with that information immediately, so we can review the statutes and verify your conclusions. Obviously, such laws will inform the City's forthcoming determinations about this issue. In the meantime, the City further demands confirmation in writing from both you and your client that you intend to abide by the conditions of approval, as to the unsold Page 193 Pub. Corr - Page 167 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW --A PROF E5SIONAL CORPORATION Ellen Berkowitz, Esq. August 28, 2014 Page 3 plots within the last row of the Pacific "terrace Mausoleum and as to the thirty-three plots in the northwest corner of the Park where no interments have occurred. Your failure to confirm that Green Hills will abide by this directive and refi-ain fi-orn profiting by its flagrant violation of the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit will leave the City with little choice but to pursue injunctive relief so that this unfortunate situation will not be further exacerbated by Green Hills. I appreciate your anticipated prompt attention and response to this letter. Very truly yours, Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney City of Rancho Palos Verdes cc: Mayor Duliovic and City Council Members Members of the Planning Commission Carolyn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development 1744531.1 Page 194 Pub. Corr - Page 168 Eduardo Schonborn From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:52 PM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: RE: Comments on Green Hills Proposed Conditions of Approval Sorry — make that four additional comments. 0M From: Ellen Berkowitz Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:29 PM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwgiaw.com> (clynch@rwgiaw.com) Cc: Joel Rojas (JoelR@rpv.com); EduardoS@rpv.com Subject: Comments on Green Hills Proposed Conditions of Approval Hi Carol — I spoke with my client, and we have two additional comments on the conditions: One of the conditions (3rd bullet, page 4 of 24, or page 8 of the staff report) provides that no vegetation may be planted in Area 11 except for ground cover and vines on one wall. Green Hills anticipates additional plantings of shrubs and flowering plants on the Phase II site and requests an exception for that area. Another condition (3rd bullet from the bottom of page 5 of 24, or page 9 of the staff report) requires Green Hills to plant flags on any burial site located on the Mausoleum scheduled for an interment within 7 days. On a previous proposal of that condition, we had included the words "if feasible." I recall those words were stricken at the last Planning Commission meeting. The phase "if feasible" was intended to convey that Green Hills would place a flag on a burial site once it became known that an interment would be taking place sometime within the next 7 days, although the scheduling of the service may not become known until less than 7 days in advance (some faiths require burials within 24 hours of death; some people want to bury their deceased relatives within 2 or 3 days). I believe the current wording should be sufficient to account for that occurrence, but we don't want there to be any ambiguity that might engender complaints that (for example), a flag was placed on Wednesday for a service that occurred the following day (Le., on Thursday). As I mentioned to you, in order to have tents or a sound wall/screen in place "no earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service," Green Hills would have to be permitted to erect the tent and sound wall/screen before 10:00 a.m. for services scheduled between 10:00 a.m. and noon. This would require a change in the condition limiting "[b]urials and all associated services...." to between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (the 2nd bullet from the bottom on page 4 of 24, or page 8 of the staff report). Section 5 (page 6 of 24, or page 10 of the staff report) provides that "[n] further sales and/or interments shall occur" within the 16 -foot setback area in the northwest corner of the of the cemetery, between the western property line and maintenance yard, until Green Hills' Conditional Use Permit is modified. Please be advised that, should any person who has purchased a plot within that area pass Page 195 Pub. Corr - Page 169 away before the Conditional Use Permit is modified, Green Hills will honor that individual's contract for interment. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Otherwise, we look forward to seeing you this evening at the Planning Commission hearing. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder 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 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavage.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not use, disclose, print. copy or disseminate the same If you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message. 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any allachmen(s, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting. marketing or recommending any transaction or matter to any third pasty. 3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files. are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free. and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising In any way from its use 4 Security of Email. Electronic mail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure Thus. we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 2 Page 196 Pub. Corr - Page 170 From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Bet-kowitz@GreshamSavage.cot-n> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:29 PIVI To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: Joel Rojas; Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Comments on Green Hills Proposed Conditions of Approval Hi Carol — I spoke with my client, and we have two additional comments on the conditions: One of the conditions (3rd bullet, page 4 of 24, or page 8 of the staff report) provides that no vegetation may be planted in Area 11 except for ground cover and vines on one wall. Green Hills anticipates additional plantings of shrubs and flowering plants on the Phase 11 site and requests an exception for that area. Another condition (31d bullet from the bottom of page 5 of 24, or page 9 of the staff report) requires Green Hills to plant flags on any burial site located on the Mausoleum scheduled for an interment within 7 days, On a previous proposal of that condition, we had included the words "if feasible." I recall those words were stricken at the last Planning Commission meeting. The phase "if feasible" was intended to convey that Green Hills would place a flag on a burial site once it became known that an interment would be taking place sometime within the next 7 days, although the scheduling of the service may not become known until less than 7 days in advance (some faiths require burials within 24 hours of death; some people want to bury their deceased relatives within 2 or 3 days). I believe the current wording should be sufficient to account for that occurrence, but we don't want there to be any ambiguity that might engender complaints that (for example), a flag was placed on Wednesday for a service that occurred the following day (i.e., on Thursday). As I mentioned to you, in order to have tents or a sound wall/screen in place "no earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service," Green Hills would have to be permitted to erect the tent and sound wall/screen before 10:00 a.m. for services scheduled between 10:00 a.m. and noon. This would require a change in the condition limiting "[b]urials and all associated services...." to between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (the 2n' bullet from the bottom on page 4 of 24, or page 8 of the staff report). Section 5 (page 6 of 24, or page 10 of the staff report) provides that "[n] further sales and/or interments shall occur" within the 16 -foot setback area in the northwest corner of the of the cemetery, between the western property line and maintenance yard, until Green Hills' Conditional Use Permit is modified. Please be advised that, should any person who has purchased a plot within that area pass away before the Conditional Use Permit is modified, Green Hills will honor that individual's contract for interment. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Otherwise, we look forward to seeing you this evening at the Planning Commission hearing. Thank you. Ellen Page 197 Pub. Corr - Page 171 Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Office direct: (213) 873-8395 Office main: (213) 213-7219 Fax: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.QrgshamSavage.com 1 Privileged and Confidential Communication The rnformahon contauied in this email and any attachments may be confidenhaI or subject to the attornev client privilege or attorney work product doctrine If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you pray not use. disclose, print, copy or disseminate the same if you have received this in error please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 2.30 of the Internal Revenue Service. we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (s) avoidino penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS. or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3. Transmission of viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect. it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free. and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use 4 Security of Finail Electronic mail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure. Thus. we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Pub. Corr - Page 172 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:17 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.netj Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:16 PM To: 'James' Cc: Carolynn Petru; CC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer Jim, I disagree with any new considerations Jim. Our City Attorney made it very clear - in case of conflicting provisions, the application of the most restrictive of those conflicting provisions shall apply. We residents fought long and hard and were on the eve of litigation — the Complaint and other papers had already been prepared — when the city settled by imposing a cap on enrollment. WE HAD AN AGREEMENT—the enrollment cap. Richards Watson Gershon were the attorneys then and they are the attorneys now and they know that this is true. Someone fiddled with the wording to allow more Marymount student attendance without telling residents —just like someone in the city allowed Green Hills to cheat Lomita residents — we were cheated. Our City Attorney was paid for her advice in these matters and she made it very clear and her opinion was ignored. How can staff change the wording and then enforce it? How can this be? Who is running this city? In my mind there are no choices Jim — we have to enforce the original CUP that came about to settle litigation. Diane From: James [mailto:bubba32@cox.netj Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 12:42 PM To: Diane Smith Cc: Carol Lynch; CC; Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian; Carolynn Petru Subject: Re: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer Diane The FYI information that this enrollment condition realignment will continue to be deferred until a theoretical date in late October 2014, cannot be corrected, as stated in the referenced communication, by an amendment to the CUP! That will also require a new EIR if the experienced much higher reported enrollments are intended to be accommodated. Pub. Corr - Page 173 Further, that enrollment limitation condition realignment has nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances of Marymount's multiple campuses as stated. There is only one campus that is under the jurisdiction of RPV's EIR and CUP. The correct and only resolution is the application of CUP Condition no. 11 which requires, in this case of conflicting provisions, the application of the most restrictive of those conflicting provisions which is 793 weekday students as provided in the Mitigation Measures. The correct definition of enrollment limits is contained in the EIR, because the CUP effectively redefined away any such limits by redefining and adding new categories never included or studied in the EIR thereby allowing "compliance" with higher enrollments than studied in the EIR! The only way to solve this conflict, other than going back to the correct limit condition in the EIR, is to conduct a new EIR with those much higher actual student numbers reported at the RPV campus site. The CUP definitions allow upwards of 943 or more students when only 793 were actually studied for Traffic, Parking Management and Parking Management. The CUP and EIR are inconsistently based resulting in an obvious violation of the basic CEQA process whereby significant impacts are studied and Mitigated, including the implementing Conditions which are supposedly developed using those studied assumptions - and this Staff knows that! There are two choices, neither happy candidates. 1.) Revert back to the actual enrollment limit specified and studied in the EIR ("which are 793 students") or 2.) conduct a new EIR with the higher, actual numbers of students with new Mitigations and new Conditions that match what was studied in the real situation. You don't need to study the other campuses except for the added traffic pattern routes involved. Jim Sent from my Wad On Aug 23, 2014, at 11:29 AM, "Diane Smith" <radlsmithC&,cox.net> wrote: fyi From: Carolynn Petru [maiho: Carol np ( v.coni] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:37 AM To: radlsmith 4cox.net Cc: CC; PC Subject: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer Dear Diane Page 200 Pub. Corr - Page 174 Both City Attorney Lynch and I are providing oversight of the Green Hills Master Plan currently before the Planning Commission. As neither one of us was involved with the matter in 2007, we are providing; independent review of the Stall's actions and recommendations. We plan to attend the meeting next Tuesday night, as we did on August 12th. Regarding the Marymount University enrollment cap issue, there is an acknowledged discrepancy between the Council -adopted Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. This discrepancy was discussed at the City Council meeting on April 1, 2014 and it was determined that the enrollment conditions will be reassessed and amended to reflect the current operation of Marymount's multiple campuses as part of the C`UP Revision requested by Marymount for the reconfigured athletic field. The CUP Revision is tentatively scheduled for the October 21" City Council meeting. Sincerely, Carolynn From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith(a),cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:13 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: CC, PC Subject: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer Dear Carolyn, Joel Rojas' position as Director of Community Development, approving city development projects, as well as enforcer of codes on those projects, is a conflict of interest ._ especially when the enforcer was the one who approved the very violations of City Codes that he is supposed to protect. Two examples of conflict are Mr. Rojas's failure to enforce Marymount College CUP on enrollment, and Mr. Rojas's failure to hold Green Hills Cemetery in violation of Cemetery Codes on burial plots and in violation of its Pacific Terrace Mausoleum setbacks. Someone else needs to be appointed to the position of code enforcer as soon as possible. Page 201 Pub. Corr - Page 175 Sincerely, Diane Sinith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (3 10) 547-3856 Pub. Corr - Page 176 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 201411:55 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills - Reconsideration From: Jeffrey Lewis [mailto:jell@broedlowlewis.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:10 AM To: PC Subject: Green Hills - Reconsideration Chairman Leon and Members of the Planning Commission, In speaking with community members about the Green Hills fiasco, many have expressed frustration about the failure of the Planning Commission to consider or discuss simply revoking the CUP at the last meeting on the grounds of "mistake" or "fraud." Tonight the only option that Staff has presented for you to vote on is whether the written resolution conforms to the prior oral motion at the August 12 meeting. If any of you are regretting not having a fuller discussion on this issue or regret taking further or different action on this matter, I might suggest that you ask Joel Rojas or the City Attorney the following question: Does the PC have the power to vote to reconsider the August 12 vote under the PC's Rules and Procedure, Rule 3.6 and, thereafter, discuss the merits of simply revoking the CUP under a finding of fraud or mistake? If you receive advice from the City Attorney on this topic, I would encourage you to keep it confidential. Due to the constraints of the Brown Act, I would encourage you not to reply to this e-mail. I will see you tonight. Respectfully, Jeffrey Lewis BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP 734 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 190274 Tel. (310) 935-40011 Direct (310) 935-4002 1 Fax. (310) 872-5389 Email: Jeff(a�BroedlowLewis. com I Web: www.BroedlowLewis.com Certified Specialisl in Appellate Lav The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this c -mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient ofthis c -mail, please contact the sender immediately. Page 203 Pub. Corr - Page 177 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 201411:52 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Cemetery Status From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 201411:17 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: PC; CC Subject: Green Hills Cemetery Status Dear Carolynn, I ask, again, that Green Hills Cemetery be removed from the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda until a full investigation into the circumstances of the erection of the Area 11 mausoleum, aka Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and Pacific Terrace Mausoleum is concluded, The Area 11 museum obtained permits based on false information given to our Planning Commission by our Planning Department. We residents need to know how this happened — how such a monstrosity was erected in violation of our city codes (setbacks), without consideration of rooftop burials EIGHT FEET from resident properties, in violation of our view ordinances and other violations, so that the Planning Department never does anything like this again. Also to be considered is that Green Hills Cemetery may be in violation of its application for license by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs and Funeral Bureau. Again, I am not an attorney but I am very concerned about our Planning Commissioners also being drawn into any formal investigation of Green Hills Cemetery by any decision to Suspend Certificate of Authority for Green Hills Cemetery to conduct burials. I do not know what the penalties are but it seems to me that our City Attorney and/or outside special counsel might look into it as a part of the investigation so that our City Council is fully aware of liability issues. Your oversight, without knowing what went wrong, in my opinion, shows bad judgment. How can you oversee (believe) representations by the planners that allowed the violations? You are going to the fox and asking him how to fix the henhouse? You cannot oversee a troubled project until you understand the trouble came about. In the spirit of openness of the city, we residents need to know how and why our planning department misled our Planning Commission to allow Green Hills Cemetery to build the Area 11 mausoleum. A full independent investigation that considers the how and why this illegal mausoleum was constructed, the effects of the existing illegal Area 1.1 mausoleum and our City's relationship with Green Hills Cemetery and involvement in developing this project is necessary before any further mistakes are made on Green Hills and other current projects in our city. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 Page 204 Pub. Corr - Page 178 From: Diane Smith [mailto:radismith@cox.netI Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 12:27 PM To:'Carolynn Petru' Cc: 'pc@rpv.com'; 'CC@rpv.com' Subject: RE: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer With regard to Green Hills: Until you, as acting City Manager, and our City Attorney: 1) provide the results of the independent review; and 2) appoint a new code enforcer to replace Joe Rojas Green Hills should come off the agenda entirely. If you go forward with any action on Green Hills now, when you are aware of the violations and problems that presently exist and may not be aware of other violations that you failed to consider when you had the opportunity to do so, you may be exposing our city, including City Planning Commissioners, to problems you may not have foreseen — because you haven't looked at the whole series of events and peripheral effects. For instance: I am not an attorney but I am very concerned about our Planning Commissioners and our City being personally drawn into any litigation involving Green Hills Cemetery clients, including past purchasers of burial plots on top of the Pacific Terrace (Area 11) Mausoleum. Green Hills Cemetery video advertising for its Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (http:/Igreenhilismemorial.com/properties/mausoleums.php ) does not show to prospective buyers, the Lomita homeowners balconies — the video just shows what appears to be a big white wall. I would assume Green Hills Cemetery would be honest and honorable enough to have notified their clients of the status of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum — it seems that right from the start they would have disclosed to their prospective buyers that there are pending reviews that may result in a prohibition on rooftop internments on the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (Area 11 mausoleum) building and possibly other reviews as it is Green Hills' business to do so. Can our City require a business what to advise the clients of that business? Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:Carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:37 AM To: radlsmith@cox.net Cc: CC; PC Subject: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer Page 205 Pub. Corr - Page 179 Dear Diane — Both City Attorney Lynch and I are providing oversight of the Green Hills Master Plan currently before the Planning Commission. As neither one of us was involved with the matter in 2007, we are providing independent review of the Staff's actions and recommendations. We plan to attend the meeting next Tuesday night, as we did on August 12th. Regarding the Marymount University enrollment cap issue, there is an acknowledged discrepancy between the Council - adopted Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures. This discrepancy was discussed at the City Council meeting on April 1, 2014 and it was determined that the enrollment conditions will be reassessed and amended to reflect the current operation of Marymount's multiple campuses as part of the CUP Revision requested by Marymount for the reconfigured athletic field. The CUP Revision is tentatively scheduled for the October 211t City Council meeting. Sincerely, Carolynn From: Diane Smith (mailto:radlsmith@cox.net] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:13 AM To: Carolynn Petru Cc: CC; PC Subject: Conflict of Joel Rojas - appointment of new code enforcer Dear Carolyn, Joel Rojas' position as Director of Community Development, approving city development projects, as well as enforcer of codes on those projects, is a conflict of interest — especially when the enforcer was the one who approved the very violations of City Codes that he is supposed to protect. Two examples of conflict are Mr. Rojas's failure to enforce Marymount College CUP on enrollment, and Mr. Rojas's failure to hold Green Hills Cemetery in violation of Cemetery Codes on burial plots and in violation of its Pacific Terrace Mausoleum setbacks. Someone else needs to be appointed to the position of code enforcer as soon as possible. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 Page 206 Pub. Corr - Page 180 t t August 20, 2014 16 To: RPV Pl,uaning Commission RC: `HIC f\Iausoleum it) area 1 1 Thera are certain questions that maks us very uneasy, but they need to be raised. 1, Wlaera nothing Was discusses) with the Planning Commissioners in 2007 Aout the setbacks it) area 1 1, this an oversight"? 2. When nothing was discussed about roof top burials, was Chat an oversight? 3. When the public notice that was sent out had wrong information about where the mausoleum to be built was located was that an oversight? 4, When no setbacks were mentioned in that notice, was it an oversight? 5. When we asked in the very beginning whether they could build in front of our building and we were not told about the 40' setback or the municipal code, was that an oversight? G, At that time, when we were tole] that we had no rights and that Green Hills could build there, was that an oversight? 7. When they said they wouldn't block our views, was that. an oversight"? Or were all these things done deliberately to achieve the results we now have? When I had a young child, one of the most important things another mother told me was that you don't reward bad behavior. What wonderful advice. l never forgot it. If you don't stop the internments and pull Green Hills CUP, that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying that what Green Hills and the staff did to the commissioners in 2007 was all riglit. And what about us"? Do you know what they did after the last meeting when you didn't have a moratorium? Many of the Green Hills people were in the TV room with one of Out- speakers. urspeakers. When the announcement was made that you were not going to do anything, they started to clap and to berate our speaker for being a"dumnly". There seems to be absolutely no sorrow or concern for the brief they have caused us. if they had to do it over again, I believe that they would do it tomorrow if there were no consequences. They say that we should have stopped it before the mausoleum was built. We had no way of doing that. We tried and we were stopped every step of the waywith misinformation and "oversights". Even if we had gone to the meetings in 2007 it would have changed nothing, because nothing was ever discussed. It was slipped into the CUP afterthe meetings were over. Was this another oversight? They are Green Hills. They can do what ever they want to. They have the money, the power and they pay big taxes. A sense of entitlement is a funny thing. It takes away any sense of humanity. Pub. Corr - Page 181 It's their cemetery. Whether it was done dcliherately, or whether it was "oversights", thev still should have known better. The question is whether you are going to rewm,d lmd behavior, or whether you think that what they clid was acceptable because they are Green Hills. They are out of compliance with their CUP. It is justifiable to revolve it They need to be held accountable to some very serious questions. Or are they above the Liw? Thank you, Julie Keye Vista Vercle HOA Pub. Corr - Page 182 Eduardo Schonaorn .rom: Joel Rojas Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:52 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Staff Recommendation for August 26 2014 P.C.Hearing - Review of Green Hills Violations incomplete, still pending Attachments: GH Violations Assessment incomplete 001 (2)jpg; GH1990_1.pdf From: bubba32@cox.net <bubba32@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:02:12 PM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: PC; CC; Ara Mihranian; Joel Rojas Subject: Staff Recommendation for August 26 2014 P.C.Hearing - Review of Green Hills Violations incomplete, still pending To Whom it may concern; As a further response to the forthcoming P C Hearing Agenda previously sent to you August 23rd, I am providing additional information that no action should be taken to approve any proposed Resolution until the completion of the ongoing investigation (attachment) has been completed as requested by the Planning Commission. -he correct action that should be taken is a immediate Notification that Green Hills is in non-compliance with their Conditions of Approval per RPVMC 17.86.050. Such violations may have been of long standing, even prior to 2007. I believe that these violations of Condition No. 6 of Green Hills Conditions of Approval are potentially more numerous, possibly dating back to 1990 with the original Master Plan (attachment 2) when this same setback reduction had been requested but not approved, as was also the case in April 2007. Therefore, it would be premature to further proceed with any proposed Resolution until proper non-compliance Noticed is given to Green Hills and until the requested information as to the dates and full disclosure of those violations is made known to the Planning Commission. The action that is appropriate and required at this time is for the Director of Code Enforcement to promptly notify Green Hills of the known violations he has already discovered and verified, as provided by the RPVMC 17.86.050. Those required non-compliance Notification conditions have been fully met by the Director's initialing this Report and as verified in the Staff Report. Any other action to incorporate lesser penalties, incorporate lesser or further new Conditions in any proposed Resolution or delay taking action to notify Green Hills of these violations per RPVMC at this time would be both premature as well as being inconsistent with the RPVMC and the verified facts as presented in the Agenda Staff Report. Jim Gordon Pub. Corr - Page 183 Pub. Corr - Page 184 � � } . � . . � .. . . . «. t � i � t Owl\' � d� « � � ■ > Pub. Corr - Page 184 �� ,�lo►uy d ` �1`✓�� LiRANCHO PALOS \ RDES June 7, 1990 R E V I S E D N 0 T I C$ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduc a-publi-c--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 Hall, 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 90274-5391 / M3) MOM Pub. Corr - Page 185 .•rom: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Joel Rojas Saturday, August 23, 2014 11:28 AM Eduardo Schonborn FW: Staff Report for Agenda August 26th 2014 has Verified Violations of Condition No.6 - Deferred Notice Why? GH Code Violation Chapter provisions 001 (2) jpg; GH Changed Conditions Before and After 001 (2) jpg From: bubba32@cox.net <bubba32@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 11:07:17 AM To: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Cc: PC; CC; Ara Mihranian; Joel Rojas; Carolynn Petru Subject: Staff Report for Agenda August 26th 2014 has Verified Violations of Condition No.6 - Deferred Notice Why? To whom it may concern; The Staff Report proposes to put the Cart before the Horse! The proposed action on page 3 of this Staff report is in direct violation with RPVMC 17.86.050 Disqualification for violation, (A.) (1.) (attached). Because of the previously undiscovered and extensive violation history that may date back prior to 2007, an immediate investigation of those verified violations is warranted prior to any further processing of the proposed Resolutions for approval at the PC Hearing, until such investigation has been completed. Accordingly, "The City shall not accept for processing or grant: any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists." (That is the case here!) The Staff Report for the Planning Commission's August 26th, 2014 Hearing has a conflicting set of statements that require immediate Notification of Green Hills's Violation of its Condition of Approval No. 6 without hiding those violations inside a TBD Resolution. On page 2, "The Planning Commission directed Staff to review Green Hills existing Conditions of Approval to make sure they are in compliance with all their conditions of approval." (They are not in compliance!) (continues, page 2) "If any violations are discovered as a result of this review, the matter will be pursued by the City's Code Enforcement Staff." (They have been discovered and verified, read further) (Page 3) "Staff conducted a site visit on August 19, 2014, in response to a comment submitted by Matthew Martin, a resident of the abutting Vista Verde Condominiums, regarding the non-compliant ground interments." "Staff has reviewed CUP Condition No. 6 with the City Attorney, and agrees that it applies to both the ground interments in the northwest corner of the cemetery (west of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum)..." "Based on measurements taken by Staff on August 19th, Staff has verified that there are below ground interments located 8 -feet from the northern property line in the northwest corner of the cemetery, which are within the required 16 -ft setback. As this is a violation of the Green Hills CUP, Staff has included a condition of approval in the Resolution that requires Green Hills to submit a plan to the City within 15 days of the adoption of the Resolution showing how many burial plots are located within the 16 -foot setback area." (Staff has verified that this is a violation") Pub. Corr - Page 186 Such proposed action (of hiding it inside a TBD Resolution) itself is non-compliant with provisions of RPVMC 17.86.050, that prohibits ("..the granting of the use or other entitlement..") as noted above, such that all proposed Resolutions nust be tabled or terminated before any further action is taken by the City. The Notice of violation takes immediate precedence over a future action because;. There are no extenuating circumstances in this Code under these circumstances. The violations of in -ground interment setbacks are potentially of years' -long-standing and the recent "discovery" of these violations not by Staff demonstrates a serious failure to enforce these Conditions for years without imposing any consequences on the applicant. That is another open-ended question that requires answers as to just why those conditions have not been properly and timely enforced. The entirety of these circumstances must take precedence over any granting of any entitlements as provided by Code, contrary to the proposed approval actions as now recommended in the Staff Report. Green Hills should immediately, instead, be notified by the City of these serious violations - independently of any further approvals. Any recommended Resolution(s) now pending action before the Planning Commission, should await the results of a thorough investigation as to the extent and times that these previously undiscovered violations have taken place, not before. To give some perspective on the history of Condition No. 6, 1 have attached a "Before and After" Changed Conditions summary page of the (unapproved) change that was requested by Green Hills in April, 2007. These violations may have been ongoing, although undiscovered, for well over 7 years! Note that Green Hills had requested that reduction of in around interment setback distance from 16 -feet to 8 -feet, a change to the prior Condition No. 6 that was no approved an April 24, 2007, and should not be condoned now. Jim Gordon Pub. Corr - Page 187 (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 75 (part), 1975) 17.86.050 Disqualification for violation. A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant: 1 Any application for a development, use or other permit or entitlement on any lot or parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists; or 2. A view restoration or a view preservation application or an application for a city tree review permit submitted by the owner of a lot or parcel on which the director has verified that a violation of this Code exists. An application may be accepted or granted by the city if the subject lot or parcel is brought into compliance with this Municipal Code, either by removing the violation or by submitting an application to legalize the violation and a permit or approval is granted pursuant to Section 17.86.050(B) of this chapter. B. Notwithstanding an existing violation of this Code, the planning commission may authorize a permit or approval under this Code if it finds: 1 The permit or approval must be granted by virtue of applicable law or in order to permit the applicant a reasonable economic use of the property, in which case the permit or approval shall be conditioned upon elimination of the existing code violations; or 2. The use or activity for which the permit or approval is sought will substantially contribute to the reduction or elimination of the existing code violations and immediate, total elimination of those violations is infeasible or would constitute an unreasonable burden upon the applicant. C. A determination of violation pursuant to subsection A of this section and a permit or approval granted pursuant to subsection B of this Section 17.86.050 may be appealed by any interested person pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title. (Ord. 356 § 7, 2000: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997) 17.86.060 Suspension or revocation of permits. The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if: A. The permit was issued erroneously; or B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the applicant; or C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code; or D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such permit. No permit shall be revoked prior to providing a ten calendar day written notice to the holder of the permit and an opportunity to be heard before the officer or body considering revocation or suspension of the permit. Any decision to revoke or not to revoke a permit, other than a decision by the city council, may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Pro�,edures) of this title. https:lllibrary.municode.com/HTML/16571/level3/TITl7Z0 ARTVIIIAD_CH17.86EN.ht...' 8/23/2014 Pub. Corr - Page 188 6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shall be as follows: North and South: 8'-0" (except the northwest corner between the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16-0") East and West: 0'-0" 7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North: 80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater South: 40'-0" East: 25'-0" West: 5'-0" 8. Setbacks for the Pacifica Mausoleum are as follows: West: 15'-0" (existing) / 5'-0" for the northwestern addition North: 40'-0" (expansion northerly along the eastern edge of the existing building shall be offset 8'-0" to the west from the existing eastern edge of the building) ---____-- GH REMISED CONDITIONS ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF 6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shall be as follows: North and South: 8'-0" 7 " East and West: 0'-0" 7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Mausoleum shown in Area f 9 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 W-0" for the western -most portion of the Mausoleum shown in Area If). South: 40'-0" East: 25'-0" West: 5'-0" 8. Setbacks for the Pacifica Mausoleum are as follows: West: 15'-0" (existing) / 5'-0" for the northwestern addition North: 40'-0" (expansion northerly along the eastern edge of the existing building shall be offset 8'-0" to the west from the existing eastern edge of the building) _ _ "Staff is amenable to accepting the requested modifications, which provide clarification or further the intent of the conditions." Agenda: April 24, 2007 "Specifically, Staff finds acceptable as proposed by the applicant are to conditions c -f , 3, - 4 5 A-1, 5 AQ -1, 5 AQ -10, 5 AQ -13, 7, 14, 19, 21, 23, 28, 35 and 36.." Pub. Corr - Page 189 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rajas int: Friday, August 22, 2014 315 PM o: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Cemetery matter on August 26, 2014 Agenda - Green Hills Advertising From: Diane Smith <radlsmithPgcox.net> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2.014 J 1:38:33 AM To: PC Cc: CC Subject: Green Hills Cemetery matter on August 26, 2014 Agenda - Green Hills Advertising Gentlemen, I have read the August 26, 2014 Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting regarding Green Hills Cemetery and the Staff Report prepared by Eduardo Schonborn and Joel Rojas. Eduardo Schonborn and Joel Rojas represented to our former Planning Commission that the project did riot affect views, etc. in the Area 11 mausoleum and based on their representations the project was approved. I am not an attorney but I am very concerned about your further participation in the matter based on Eduardo Schonborn and Joel Rojas further representations to you without full consideration of your position by our City Attorney or possibly outside special counsel. Joel Rojas appears to be in a position of conflict. While the City Attorney or outside special counsel considers the overall situation, this matter should be taken off the agenda until you are all fully advised of your participation in the process Ding forward. It seems to me that Green Hills Cemetery must be immediately put on notice of the violations of its conditional use permit that you are now aware of. Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 547-3856 Pub. Corr - Page 190 Eduardo Schonborn From: Joel Rojas gilt: Friday, August 22, 2014 9,46 AM a: Matt Martin, Eduardo Schonborn, Michael N Cc: Carol Lynch <cIvnchk0w.,glaw.com> Subject: RE: green hills staff report From: Matt Martin(n}aiIto: matthewhrnartin@yahoo.comI Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 2,52 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn; Michael N, Friedman; 'Matthew Geier'; Joel Rojas,- PC Subject: Re: green hills staff report Eduardo and Joel, Friedman. Matthew Geier'; PC The Staff Report for the upcoming meeting didn't address a couple issues that were brought up at the last meeting Could you possibly address these questions as well? 1 The interments which are located inside the Mausoleum along the back wall may also violate the 16' setback (condition 6) Being that the new grade is defined as the grass area on top of the Mausole!Im - those internments within the Mausoleum along the rear wall would also be 'below ground' and may be in violation of condition 6 as well - Staff (with the Cite s u:>ncurrence bell ve, .16 -foot (round eiha(.k required fey CUP ondition No. 6 iapp'k��s t(,) }he ground Itilerments" or the r= of of the mausoleum sim, r,� ti o,,e interments are tett if ally Below the ground and I"tater the capacity to create imp 0c, `similar to rnor-e_ tradllion i �' )und interi-nent.s (i.e_. vlsibihi-y Cif f;raves, sounds froi) ir1ou le; <). Stuff (with the City Art one.y's concurrence) does not Believe the 16 -foot setback alltr>1i s to the interrni�rit�; �,) side the matrsoleuni along ,, tni, rear wall of the fitrrjclur� -�, tirei: c ir}terrnerrts are technically Crle j�tt)uf 1 ,)C 0 it _;df_: t; 3i"1; 7r >�3i � h'_, �CrUi.t!Ai �rb��t c �S7ilt ill the .:ami iii JC1, , ,i,,i i iv of graves ? td sound,, h rm-i itlourners) as the i}t int_ernientS on the i:1;..iSr)I¢itlr}1 m th , 2 Based upon the multiple statements in the 2/27107 staff report that the setbacks 'weren't being modified' with the CUP revision. Did the CUP revision, in fact, comply with RPV municipal code for granting a CUP? Can you please ask the City Altorney about this directly? The February 2007 Staff Ruport includes statements that the setbacks weren't being rnodified because at that time Staff did not catch that Greeny Flills' submitted master play; shown ,d the proposed Memorial Terrace Mausoleum only 8 feet from the property line whereas the 1991 CUP conditions required that it be setback at least 80 feet. However, as we now all know, subsequent to the February 2007 PC n}eeting, allowance for the 8 -foot sethack was written into the conditions of approvit wvhich were presented to the PC and ultimately approved as ani an-lendnient to the 1991 CUP. As Staff explained at the lest PC meeting, Staff believes that this action was not in compliance with the Municipal Code as a Variance was not approved in conjunction with the CUP Annendment to allow the mattSoieum to encroach 32 feet into the Municipal Code required 40 -foot setback. For this reason, Staff believes that Green Hills must apply for, and receive approval of, a Varjaince apl:}Iication to allow the mausoieun) to remain in its current location. I have copied the City Attorney in case she has more to add on this. ind lastly, are there penalties in the RPV code for operating or existing in violation of the CUP? If so what are those? Pub. Corr - Page 191 «then a (IM" violation has been { of4irriled, there is no autoniMic fine or penalty othe.:r than i1he properly owner is barred or reeeivint; appro A t,f any other apt-. licatiow. until the viol,!tfon is address d. The proper-ly owner �1joiation is f� :l)) 7!-twltl t,7 "on ect tt-mE �,7�-3r,•. i i4 .-If-t.'i" i£.;p.'o1eC.i '..1U,",! k�f!Ill ,:I_'is("11:1� i`i ,.;c3 c., i WO . _i3,,. �( i, 0 101"Ition rt.'tf to HI .ai.=i - "ilE 1� i ;_tfh(c. for 1tt1(,riC,'{�0 Thanks Mall Martin �Ji �l ltl .HtVj a,rtin C �OtI L'J,__r7rti This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and&#x2.F,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 reagent. you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information If you have received th!s transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to Include any attachments. Cin Thursday, August 21, )2014 0 31 PM, Eduardo Schonbom n .a, �icLti _eot7r- wrote Hello all, The following is the link to the August 26th staff report. -eduardo httID://www.lDalosverdes.coiii/rlDv/r)lanniiiq/AGENDAS -- Curren Current Agendas%Planr�it Cornmission/2014/2©14_08_26 PlanningCommissionAgenda/Agenda %201tern%201 RPV SR 2014 08 26_Green F -lilts Resolution.pdf Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner e>, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 902-75 www.palos_verdes.corn/lRyLpianniny/planning-zoning/ind x.cfm (310) 544-5228 -- (310) 544-5293 f — eduardos((- mv.com Pub. Corr - Page 192 Joel Rojas From: shaiorn yarher <nrornofyago@gmad com> Friday, August 22, 2014 12:15 AM i'o: PC Cc: CC; Carla Morreale; Carol Lynch <ciyn(_h@w-wglaw.com>; Carolynr) Petro Subject: Just Say No Dear 1, oinnlisstOners, I know l ou have all seen the noNv almost virile Youtube video of ,loci -vvhisperMg) to Eduardo to ".]List say no" to Jim l"l-'niglit's inquiry about whether there would be any adverse impact on views of neighboring properties. Dis�racelul. I believe you notiv also probably- know that an independent, City Manager prompted, investigation is underway delving into this debacle. which debacle will likely result in litigation from one side or the other. May I strongly suggest that at this point you disregard the advice of the City Attorney and othcr staff members, whose advice or lack thereof. and misrepresentations, have gotten us into this nightmare situation in the first place, and do nothing further until the Council causes its own independent investigation to be done (which I am going to request)`.' There is certainly the distinct. possibility that the City Manager prompted, or• a Council prompted investigation, or both, may disclose improper conduct on the part ofGrecn Bills and complicity with staff to move forward with a p•oiect that clearly seems to violate our codes. Who was asleep at the wheel and who may have been an active participant in wrongdoing? Who knows but time will hopefully tell. _r the meantime, please do NOT proceed with this variance application, as it may well turn out that Green Hills does not have clean hands and may be required to remove the nnausoleuun and re -bury the remains of those already interred there (and if it is proved that there was wrongdoing on its part, the City would be in a better position from a litigation standpoint defending an action brought by Green Hills than an action brought by the HOA ofthe condo development). Moving forward (and, not surprisingly, staff wants you to move at breakneck speed to retroactively bless their failures) only exascerbates the problem. SLOW DOWN, do nothing and let the investigations guide you, not staffs inappropriate (per usual) recommendation. Sincerely. Sharon Yarber Pub. Corr - Page 193 GRESHAM I SAVAGE August 19, 2014 VIA EMAIL Joel Rojas Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills Annual Review Case No. ZON2003-00086 Dear Joel: Elletl.Berkr�wit CGresh�mSav��ge.rom - LosAngeles (213) 213-7219 fn.r (213) 213-7391 At the August 12, 2014, Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing, the Commission directed Planning Staff to return in two weeks with two draft resolutions. One of those resolutions would impose additional operational conditions relative to the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum ("Mausoleum"). The Commission stated that it did not intend for the conditions to impact services for veterans or police officers. Accordingly, we suggest that the condition related to amplified sound contain an exclusion for services for "military personnel and first responders." That should be sufficient to allow the use of recorded or other music at services honoring veterans, police officers and .fire fighters. The second resolution the Commission proposed would direct Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") to apply for an "after -the -fact variance" relative to the setbacks approved in the Master Plan Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). A variance, however, is neither warranted nor appropriate under the circumstances; in fact, it is directly contrary to the City's Municipal Code. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 17.60.50.A.6.a provides the Commission with the authority to impose, among other conditions of approval, setback requirements via the CUP process. Section 17.60.50.0 further provides that: "Such conditions shall take precedence over development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning of the subject site." I�1 h a)l\i] 550 East liospitaliIy [_ane. Suitc 300 • San Bernardino, CaIik)rnibt 92408 CilA"(;R<;i?i[ 3750 University A\cnuc. Suite 250 0 Rivctside- California 92501 '. tO 550 West C Street. Suite 1510 m San Diego, California 92101 c 1 l 333 Sou lit Hopc Street. 35'x' Floor o Los Anpelcs. California 00071 Page 29 G583-000 --1415245 Pub. Corr - Page 194 Joel Rojas August 19, 2014 Page 2 Some of the setbacks approved by the CUP were greater, and some were less than, those required by the underlying zoning. Nevertheless, all setbacks and other conditions granted or imposed by the CUP take precedence over the "development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning." For that reason, an additional variance is not appropriate. We note that Municipal Code Section 17.64.040 allows for variances to 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." Here, Green Hills does not believe any error was made in connection with its approvals. If, however, the City is of the opinion that it made an error, it would be free to adopt whatever post hoc documentation it deems necessary. As always, we are happy to discuss this matter further with you. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF cc: Members of the Planning Commission Eduardo Schonborn Carol Lynch Page 30 CMMOO-• 1415245 I Pub. Corr - Page 195 Eduardo Schonborn Frorn: Joel Rojas Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:15 AM To: Eduardo Schonhorn Subject: FW: Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum - Planning Corni-nission Meeting Agenda Item 1 on August 12, 2014 From: Diane Smith (mailto:radismith@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:58 PM To: PC Cc: Carolynn Petru Subject: Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum - Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 1 on August 12, 2014 Gentlemen, How can you ask Joel Rojas and Eduardo Schonborn to advise you on anything to do with Green Hills Cemetery (or anything else) after both of them knowingly misled prior Commissioners about the effects of the Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum monstrosity? How can you expect them to honestly advise you now when they duped the prior Planning Commissioners? Look and listen to this: hit a K.S Listen carefully to the whisper in the background to Joel "just say no." Sincerely, Diane Smith 2704 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1 Page 31 Pub. Corr - Page 196 From: Matthew H. Martin 2110 Palos Verdes DR N #208 Lomita CA, 90717 To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Subject: Green Hills CUP Review Hearing on 8/12/14 Dear Planning Commission, I'm writing in regards to the Green Hills operational review hearing that's being held on 8/12/14. I'm an owner at the Vista Verde condominium complex and I wanted to share some of the information that I've gathered. 1. According to Green Hills Master Plan 7/22/14 item number 6 there exists a 16'-0" setback in the northwest corner of the property between the western property line and the maintenance yard. 6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garde�urialsites ndroads shall be as follows: North and South: 8'-0° (except the northwest corner betwe` the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16'-0") East and West: 0'-0" If you refer to the map revised Green Hills Master Development plan below, you will see the northwest area as well as the western property line. The maintenance yard is the gray area to the right of the number 11. Page 132 Pub. Corr - Page 197 oTtAwriexxi Trac rawirm tx3YKk}Ns16wr uN WASTER PON . �b:n r.# �EEN"UNMEW)AXP" ti/A cft tEAP1G4iiPIdt�86 0E6_Gd11F 4Iti a+wWA The photo below shows the location of approx.77 double depth below ground internments (according to estimates based on the master plan revision) that are approximately 8' from the property line in the northwest corner between the western property line and the maintenance yard. The tape measure in the photo above is extended 16'-0" from the property line and the below ground internments are shown well within the required setbacks set forth in the Green Hills CUP No. 155. The photo below shows another view of the below ground internments which appear to exist in violation of the setback rule. Page 133 Pub. Corr - Page 198 Further confirmation that this row of double depth internments appears to violate their conditions of approval is shown by looking at page 1-B of the Green Hills Approved Master Plan Amendment Submittal from 2007. J. I1, MIII'AK'1'Tt1UU AA(.III1Fl T!Illi 1\77'JII(J►S I.NIlcT:11'1; MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA I GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK PACIFICA MAUSOLEUM RANCHO PALOS VE.RDES. CALIFORNIA _"X., 1-B Page 134 Pub. Corr - Page 199 The first row of double depth below ground internments are shown as being 16'-0" from the property line. I've reviewed all of the recently approved constructions plans for this area of Green Hills and none of them appear to show approval of below ground internments within the required 16'-0" setback. This 16' setback for below ground internments also appears to be violated on top of the Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11 of the Master Plan. The planning department approved construction plans which include a row of approximately 57 single depth below ground internments within the 16'-0" setback restriction. The photo of construction below shows where those internments are located within the Mausoleum in Area 11. Please review the enclosed document for inclusion in the staff report. Thank You and Kindest Regards, Matthew H. Martin Page 135 Pub. Corr - Page 200 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 412TFI TEST WING (AFMC) EDV1/ARDS AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA 04 A m-, mst 2()14 1v�11�:MC�fZ:hlvll)t.)I�?I Dolt GttI;L�!EfII.,I-S IMI::NK)RIAL PAItI4 FROM: OM: 412 I SS11 Ci SUBJEC'"f'; 1\4r. Gerald I�, Racht Funeral Scrvice Disruption I . on J«nc .?Cl, 2014 art ttpproximatc[y 1 Crl 7 hours otrr I-I{�rtorGuard team I7c:rfi�r�ned nzilitarY honors at Green Hilts Memorial Pvj-k in Rancho Palos Verdes, CSA. The service was in -bonor of Mr_ Gerald E. Racht. The location of the detail was ata Mausolet m towards the enol of the cemetery, which was adjacent to an apartrnerrt or condominittnt coniplcx located on the other side of the fence. It vva� at this, time and location that the disruption took place. 2. The military horrors afforded included flag, 3 rifle volleys, and the playing of -Yaps. After the first title valley I heard a female screani followed by expletive language., which continued during the next two volleys and "laps. The profane Ianguage was clearly aimed towards our funeral and military personnel, There was also anotlier temale voice trying to calm down the individual but she continued to yell inappropriate comments during, Laps and the presentation of the flag. The funeral director seemed to he disappointed that this situation had taken place, as these actions were obviously very disrespectful to the family and veteran being honored. - } l USAN Ceremonial Guardsnraan Page 136 Pub. Corr - Page 201 August 2014 To the RPV Planning Commission: 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. Years ago, when we first 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 or the municipal code. 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 40' setback. Since our conversation she has informed me that she is not allowed to talk to me about this anymore. You asked to see the videos of the 2/27/2007 & 4/24/2007 meetings to see how it was possible that the 8' setback got approved. You saw for yourselves that there was no discussion of the setbacks or anything of the mausoleum at all. In the first draft after the Feb. 27t1, 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 with the commissioners, 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 17.2 8.40 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 abutting the cemetery in RPV, too. Isn't that what this is all about? 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. 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. .........-_..................,...........,............:._... n•r:-,..nnrn.y..r,..v�,...-,. ._...........,-.._.. ,.,....,.2 p -....n— +rr.•�,.�A., .... .-,..,.-. Pub.- Corr -Page 202 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 and Green Hills 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 bought here because of the panoramic ocean views. The staff said on several occasions that no views would be impacted. It is actually 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, our property values and they built graves under our windows. Even if you ban roof top burials we will have a constant stream of people coming and mourning over loved ones. They suffer and we suffer. 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, without any discussion with the Planning Commissioners. And they knew ahead of time the mausoleum would block views. 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 in RPV and they will win. They said so in 1990. Do you see what was done? Do you see why this is so important? Unless they actually move the mausoleum, they will still have the 8' setback! How are all these homeowners going to feel in 10 yrs? Please revoke their Conditional Use Permit. Thank you. Julie Keye Pub. Corr - Page 203 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission When I appeared in front of this commission in May I thought the information I shared regarding the April, 2007 meeting was about a mausoleum involved in (areal 1). Mr. Knight described the silhouette as "shows the ridge line below anything that will block a view". I kept wondering what silhouette he was referring to. It seems that the silhouettes were used in (area 2), years before it was law. They were up for 6 years, and just weathered away. When they built the mausoleum in ( areal 1), there were no silhouettes. If they did silhouettes in one area before it was the law, and not the other, the question is why? So that brings me to my next problem . We were curious to know why the 1990 meeting had such an outcry, and the Feb 27, 2007 meeting no one seemed to be concerned. In the Public Notice Proposed, February 6, 2007 . Section 6 states " allowing an addition to the previously approved mausoleum building located SOUTHEAST of the existing maintenance yard". Where is the "previously approved mausoleum? How does one put an addition on a mausoleum that was never built? Last time I looked, we are WEST of the maintenance yard? Every morning I wake up wondering where this PREVIOUSLY approved mausoleum is. SOMEONE PLEASE HELPI In 1990 The Revised Public Notice states that a variance is required for " 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". They wanted to do that in 1990 and now with our mausoleum they have the precedent to build 8 ft. setbacks for All property lines adjacent to the cemetery. That includes RPV. Will they admit it now or will they deny doing it in the future and will you believe them? 1. Didn't they say they would never build on the 40 foot setback? 2. Didn't they say they would never build north of the Northern Perimeter road? 3. Years later, didn't they say they would only use the 40 foot setback for underground burials? 4. Didn't the staff recommend the commissioners to change that to allow for above the ground structures? 5. Didn't the staff reduce the setback to 8 feet without discussing it with the Planning Commissioners ? 6. Didn't they say that no views would be impaired? We believe that you never would have approved this if you had not relied on misinformation. You now realize the truth, but you are under pressure of a lawsuit from Green Hills. Please revoke their conditional use permits even if it's just to show that you are here to protect the little guys, not only big corporations. All the homes around the cemetery will thank you. Thank You, Sharon Loveys Pub. Corr - Page 204 vr- Presentation to RPV Planning Commission 6D VC Re- Review of CUP for Green Hills Cemetery >��� G- Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, Area 11 8/12/14 `` 611 4k � Hello, my name is Debbie Landes and Vista Verde has been my home since 1986. My partner, Linda and I live at the East end of our building. We have a view that encompasses the entire length of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum rooftop. When it was built, we did not loose an ocean view but rather our view of an expansive and beautiful green park, the wonderful breezes and most importantly we lost part of our personal space. Now it seems like an "addition" has been added to our condo due to the proximity of the building, eight feet from our property. We are now watching preparation of graves, funeral services and visitation of gravesites in our backyard. These visits can be quiet or have a party -like atmosphere�as we all grieve differently. Let me say emphatically, we are not judging nor blaming the mourners and we do not object to military funerals and all they entail as well. We feel as if we are intruding on a very private part of their lives, just by being in our own home. We were used to cemetery life, after all it was here when we bought our condos, but now that life is much, much closer. As you are aware, on July 30, Green Hills presented us with a "Cease and Desist" order for "Harassment of Mourners and Cemetery Visitors". Recently cameras and microphones have been installed to monitor our behavior.€-rs-wasSlWpjng-withher.-naDthenin_Romania.,_ n���e�p�iu�-to-h-er-b�-lryo-i���-h�-7w-h-er-�e-Hewer7s�-sh7�-haQd_�g�rYow}7a+a7�pn�7d_.__. t'i't'a:"iT"i'C':Y9T"�C�.�. jy�.P � roc• n�n rl n'! P tY'�T'{-h1.,.2...Y_1L_�b-bt7i-t Jl.Z' U1. U'�� Green-Hff s a arassment if it happens to occ+� neral er--- -he- Is vfsi mg rav fftalf we are having a barbeque by -- " our pool and a funeraX happens to appear or someone visits a grave, will this be seen as (and I quote) "oration audible to participants in a funeral Pub. Corr - Page 205 that cause emotional disturbance and distress to grieving families who participate in funerals"? What about our guests who were invited for a barbeque and now are witnessing a funeral? It is difficult and anxiety producing to be threatened like this and live with the possibility of a suit being filed against you. And most importantly, this takes away every shred of privacy and freedom we have to move about freely in our condos and the patio's. I'm sure to some this may sound dramatic. It is difficult to understand as a Green Hills Administrator or as an RPV Commissioner/Staff the extent to which the rooftop has affected our lives. After all, you do not live here and therefore how can you really understand what the day-to- day experience is like. We ask you to keep this in mind as you listen and genuinely hear, respect and believe us. In closing, there is a remedy and a way to make this right; both for the families who are affected by having their loved ones buried on the roof of the mausoleum, as well as the Vista Verde Condominium Owners. That remedy is to remove the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. I believe it is the best solution in the long run for the families' peace of mind when attending funerals and through years of visitation to their gravesites. And it is the best solution to restore our quality of life. I thank you for your time and attention. Pub. Corr - Page 206 August 1 2, 20 1 -1 V9A �.MAII- Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: 5upplennental Corres aR ndence Re Cardin Green Hills Annual Review Case No, ZON2003-00086 Dear Commissioners: Please accept this letter as a supplement to the August 6, 2014 letter Green Hills prey iousiy submitted in connection with the upcoming August '12; 2014, Planning Commission ("Commission") hearing. This letter: ;P Provides our comments to the Staff Report issued in connection with tonight's Commission hearing ("Staff Report"), and requests modifications and additions to the proposed conditions (Attachment A); Responds to certain statements contained in the letter frorn counsel for the Vista Verde Homeowners' Association to this Commission dated August 8, 2014 ("HOA Letter"), and ® Provides a brief surnmary of the Noise Study prepared by First Carbon Solutions, attached to Green Hills' August 611' letter (Attachment B). A. THE STAFF REPORT. The Staff Report contains several proposed conditions for inclusion in Green Hills' Master Plan Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") relative to the Pacific Terrance .t I!"'I�itr l o. Pub. Corr - Page 207 Hie Planning Con mit ,ion August 12, 2014 Mausuleurrt (" Mausoleum'")'. �,Vhile Green {fills Niue not object to thu majority of the }troposals; it does the tdimination of omc proposed condition .uid Some revisions to �•�irioos other., ��; folloi�s. 1. Amplified Sound. I his proposod condition would prohibit all annplificd sound on the Mausoleum hoof. In the interests of being a good neighbor, Green Hills is amenable to restricting amplified sound. lloWA'er-, there must be an exception to any such restriction for funerals of military veterans entitled to military honors. Specifically, the Strom Thurinond [stational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, II.Rept. 105-736, Section 567 provides that: "It is our national obligation to demonstrate the country's gratitude to those who, in times of tear and peace, have faithfully defended our country." Part of demonstrating the country's gratitude includes a Federal guarantee to eligible veterans to receive military boncirs. Military honors includes the playing of Taps either by an in-person bugler player or, if no such person is available to perform, by a "recorded version of Taps using audio equipment." Ser 10 U.S,C.A. § 1491.' As drafted, the proposed condition would improperly interfere with the rights guaranteed to military veterans under Federal law. Therefore, Green }{ills requests the condition be modified as follows: The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building, except as_perniitted_.by Federal law for rnili_tary honors.' While the Staff Report refers to the Mausoleum as the "Memorial Terrace Mausoleum", which was the name of the facility when originally proposed and as contained in the Master Plan CUP, please note that Green Hills changed the name for internal purposes to "pacific Terrance Mausoleum." ' A funeral honors detail shall, at a minimum, perform at the funeral a ceremony that includes the folding of a United States flag and presentation of the flag to the veteran's family and the plavitig of Taps. Unless a bugler is a member of the detail, the funeral honors detail shall play a recorded version of Taps using audio equipment which the detail shall provide if adequate audio equipment is not otherwise available for use at the funeral, Id. hurSUatlt to standard practice, Green Hills' sug,f ested additions to the conditions will be shown in underline/bold text, while requested deletions will be shown in Pub. Corr - Page 208 I irt� i'I,1ntiins C(Inlmi��!iori A 12, 2014 2. landscaping/Maintenance Hours. Mth tivo reservations, Green hills is amenable to stotf'ti r-c(tmin)endation to limit "l,rnd�tt�f�ing maintenancc m -id f;round5 keeping" on the 1Lur,,olc°um roof to once pej w t,A, between the hours of 1(1:00 a.m. and 3:00 p_rrr., Mondav through Friday. First, Green Hills requests clarification that "landscaping maintenance and grounds keeping; is restricted to such acti\ ities that require the usc° of mechanized equipment. this clarification is needed because Green dills employs maintenance staff to regularly pick up flowers left on graves after a certain period, as well as trash and other debris that might be left behind by mourners. A limitation on these activities to once per week may could degrade the pristine condition of the rooftop and cause Other unforeseeable issues. Second, this condition prohibits all use of leaf blowers. Although Green Hills has not made extensive use of leaf blowers, it may be necessary from them to do so in the future to clean walk -ways, stairs and other areas for safety purposes, given that California's drought has made the use of water for such purposes environmentally unsound and potentially illegal. Further, the use of leaf blowers is expressly authorized pursuant to Section 8.16.010 of the Municipal Code between 8 a.m. and S p.m. in residential areas.' Given this Code section and the possible restrictions on the use of water resulting from the drought, Green Hills requests that the sentence restricting the use of leaf blowers be deleted. Finally, we also suggest a minor tweak to clarify that the use of one mower refers to use "ot any given time," as different mowers may be used on the roof at different times pis per availability of equipment. Therefore, Green Hilts requests the condition be modified as follows: Landscape maintenance and grounds keeping that require the use of mechanized,... equipment of the ground interments located on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed once per week, between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Friday only and shall be limited to the use of one rno�ver at any iverl time. rtscz�e 1�3�s1t�3111xyC:d- 8.16.010 Times and manner of prohibited use, it is Lmlawful tor any person to use or operate 11 mcldi,nrical blower before eight a.rm or after five p.m. Monday through Friday, or before nine a.m c,r atter four p.m. on Saturday or at anis time on Sundays, or national holidays... Pub. Corr - Page 209 1-11c 11,11wirrxi, t. rrnu-nissir�n ,liigu,t t2, 'D 14 1'iig , 4 3. Sales Visitation Hours. t=ritEc,alle, ( Fret'n I Ills is unable to agrre, to the proposed coradititut limiting the hours during v�hich personnel rmiv ;hkmMausoleum a-oot'htp burial plots on weekends. Rt,stricting potential purcham,rs' ability to select llir'ir fuhrre plot or the Blot of a loved one to only two hours each weekend day does not �iccount for the reality that death is often unplanned, that purchasers come to the cemetery to discuss arrangemcnts as needs arise. In fact, for manv customers, Saturday and Sunday are the only da%/s individuals are able to make such arrangements. This is particularly true for certain religious groups, who may have immediate needs to view a burial plot given the religious restriction on burying a person within 24 hoerr"S of death (e.g., Tewish and Islamic Faiths). Moreover, this restriction is unreasonable given that these visits typically involve one Green Hills representative and one or two other persons who stay on the roof for approximately five (5) minutes per visit, and who typically speak in very low, hushed tones while on the roof. According to the Noise Study prepared by First Carbon Solutions, and attached to Green Hills' August 611' letter, two people engaged in conversation would generate a sound level -- as heard by residents sitting omiside oft the neatest Vista Verde balcony of only 38.7 dBAs.5 To put this into context, both the Rancho Palos Verdes Code and the City of Lomita Code permit sound in residential areas up to 65 dBAs. A sound of 38.7 dBAs is clearly far below that number; in fact, that level is somewhere between the sound of a soft whisper and the sound made by rainfall. Moreover, that is what someone would hear if situated outside, on the nearest balcony; if that person is inside their home, the sound is only about 24.4 dBA which is equivalent to the sound level of a whisper. And of course, the sound dissipates as one gets farther away, so that people sitting outside on balconies or inside units located further away would experience sound less than 38.7 or 24.4 dBAs, respectively. Put another way, the sound that Green I Tills staff makes on these visits is far less than a resident would hear if their neighbor were sitting on their balcony conversing, or playing music with the windows open, or visiting with a friend in or around the pool. In fact, it is significantly less than the sounds generated by the HOA's own pool equipment. While Green Bills is open to reasonable restrictions on hours for activities to occur on the Mausoleum roof, these restrictions should not be arbitrary, unduly burdensome or SFr Ntrn�e Study at Mage 15, included in the Statf Report as page 70 A summary of the Noise Stud' i,; attached is Attachment B. Pub. Corr - Page 210 i ht, Plimning C onvill'sloll 1u,,ust 12, 201.1 unreasonable. e o� er, tht,v should not [w �,o rt-trichve as to render Gre t'ii l lids tim1blt, to e1tect1\,0 1�per,ite its business ton the benefit of tilt' com3ni.u1itr ruid peg plk' of all faith. Therefore, Green Bills requests the condition be modified pis follotivs: Sales persomwl shall be allowed to shots- the roof -top ground interments on the N4r. - 4 Pacific Terrace Mausoleum building only between the hours of 3-0-f-:00am and � 5:00pn) Monday through Friday, ,and betiveen the hours of �9:00parn and 2 5:00pm on Saturday and Sunday. 4. Additional Notice. Green hills currently places a yellow flag beside a plot at which a service is scheduled within the coming week as notice to Vista Verde residents of upcoming services. Additionally, Green Hills posts on its website additional information about these scheduled services, including the location and time. The Staff Report contains a proposed condition that would require Green Hills to provide yet another layer of notice — in addition to the flags and the website posting — and provide email or regular mail notice to the 110A as well. Not only would this be overly burdensome, unnecessary, and costly, but it also adds the potential for additional disruption and imposition on both parties. Most services occur quickly and quietly, with the mourners in and out before a neighboring resident may even notice the event occurred — particularly if the resident is napping or shopping or making lunch. Those who wish to have notice have ample means to obtain it, without receiving continual reminders of upcoming services. Therefore, Green Frills requests that this condition be stricken in its entirety. 5. Temporary Wall System. The issue of a feasible temporary wall system or portable framed screen with sound absorbing materials, included as a proposed condition in the Staff Report, has proven especially vexing to Green Hills. Despite its diligent investigation — which includes consulting With sound experts, speaking with other businesses that require souand reduction strategies and discussing potential solutions with manufacturers — Green Hills has been unable to identify a viable single wall, screen or fence currently on the market or capable of being custom designed that can be easily erected and taken down oo a temporary basis (i.e., a few hours before and after services). All have advised that the weight of the sound absorption materials requires: (i) heavy equipment to erect Pub. Corr - Page 211 I he 11,11111ing C'nmmission (11Iu,t 12, )t114 ,and dI!,m title the fence r)r �:(wt,•n; (ii) safety czinWIT)s unleSS the Mnnd )IBing material is attached tit ,I fence or screenaphrupriately affixed into tht gromid, the fence or screen t6k over; or (iii) ,i per1lMuentj1V installed clGstuin dt-igned frame oat tiwhirh tht gum d obsorphora materi,al,� �Nmuld bang." Biased on the Noise Study conducted by f=irst Carbon Solutions, the noise produced during the services itself is not significant. The study evaluated the sound that would be heard by a Vista Verde resident if sitting outside, on the nearest balcony, as well as pit other locations throughout the complex where the noise lvould be less (i.c., outside at the farthest balcony, inside the nearest unit, inside the farthest unit). The analysis determined that in a worst case scenario, if there were 64 people iit a service: and all WCI-E` speaking at once, the noise that could be heard at the nearest balcony is only 56.7 dBAs - well below the 65 d3A acceptable limit within residential neighborhoods. As noted, the noise is reduced for a person sitting outdoors on the farthest balcony (51.3 dBAs), at the closest unit with the vvindows open (44.7 dBAs), and at the closest unit with the windows closed (36.7 dBAs).' Again, to put this in context, most of these measurements are perceived as less than the sound of a refrigerator running (which is about 50 dBAs). As noted previously, if a neighbor is out on his or her balcony ~peaking loudly on the phone, the noise impact to the neighboring resident ~would likely be greater (i.e., about 60 dBAs) than what a neighbor would hear if 64 people at a burial service were all speaking at once. Given that there are rarely 64 people speaking simultaneously at a service, and given that most services last a very short time, we do not believe "noise" is the neighbors' chief concern. As indicated from comments made at previous hearings and in interviews with the press, their primary issues are view impacts and privacy concerns. View issues were addressed in Green }-fills' August 6"' letter." As for privacy during the services, Green Mills currently uses tents to screen the mourners and burial site from the neighbors' view, and proposes to use two tents in the future to ensure enhanced privacy as necessary. Additionally, Green f fills will continue to investigate other potential solutions that could provide enhanced privacy screening during services and further reduce sound as perceived by the neighbors. Green Hills suggests SCC discussion of options in Noi`,C Study at pages 19-24, included in the Staff Report as pages i4-79 See Noise Study at pages 15 and 17, included in the Staff Report as pages 70 and 72. "As a general rule, a lando\%,n(,r has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the hyv is reluctant to imply stIch <a i q, lit " See Pacifica Homco7cflea, r1>r11. 1). vvestett Palms £Zt't C mhy. (1986) 178 Cal. App, 3d 1147, 1 1 S2. Pub. Corr - Page 212 The PI'miainp; Ciunmissiull AUgu'�t 12, 2014 i tII It it �v (Irk k, I I) se Iv Lida re pi escnt,itiN e-, of the Planning t7ep,irtment and «then relevmlt Cih departments (i,,, Publi( kVk,rks and/or Building and Safety) to identit, potvntially te,i!sible taddition,31 pxiVOCY Mid sOund reduction alteinatirrs. I -herefore, Careen Hills requests tln° i Onditiora be modified as follows: Green Hills shall continueto investivat , in coordination withCrit Staff,_jpotential solutions or systems foruickly and _efficiency -erecting a A--rninantxn--{i f}t toll—temporary wall system or portable framed screen with sound absorption material 1-J+,+4 to be placed adjacent to the northern side of the temporary tenting during all services on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. Shoulda. reasonably viable system be identified and, with the apvroval of the Director of P]annirig,,ahe Systelnshall,,.be utilized for all_rc c7ftop 1�-ttrials, weather �rinitti11 and , -it> 4-a+3ied -scvPe,.n shall be erected no earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within 2 hours after the burial service. 6. Hours for Burials and Associated Activities. The Staff Report proposes a condition that requires "all burials and associated services on the rooftop" to be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. This raises two concerns. First, no matter what type of screening system is used — whether the tents Green Hills currently uses or a new privacy and/or sound absorbing rnechanisin — it would not be possible to erect the tent or fencing two hours before a 10:00 a.m. service as the prior condition requires unless the system may be erected before 10:00 a.m. Therefore, the 10:00 a.m. start tirne for "associated services" needs to be modified to recognize an exception for the erection of privacy tenting or fencing. Alternatively, the system could be erected the day before, weather permitting, in which case the condition discussed in the immediately prior section v"ould need to be modified so as not to require the erection "no earlier than two hours prior to the burial service." Further, Green Hills cannot practically adhere to an absolute 3:00 p.m. service cut-off time. As discussed at previous hearings and briefly explained again in its August 611' letter, Green ]fills advises funeral processions to be in the park by 3:00 p.m. and that a fee may be charged to processions that arrive past that time. 'lhe system works very well: as documented in the chart attached to the Staff Report as page 130, in the year that Green Hills has been conducting burials on the Marisoleuin roof, only one such service occurred at 3:00 p.m, and one at 3:30 p.m. Nevertheless, if a procession is date Pub. Corr - Page 213 111e Nanning (-()111111iti�io ll \ i i, �Llst 12, 2014 I'iigc 8 ,rrri\ inn; at the p,1rk — ht,c,ulse of traffic, ,r rhurcll service that went loll-cth,111 , Inticlpcited, or "(1111e caller unforeseen and if tho de (,;),ed I} dt c0111panied bY a BILI ial I'cf-Illit specifviog th,rt tht' irldIVidtlal 111Lrst be interred r,n tient specific day — Grecii I ]ills r iimot refuse to )i1m\ the prnccssion entrance to the pork. Tc, do so would require the deceased to be rethuned to the mortuary, the iiiournerti to return the following dav, rind the issuance of a net%' Burial Permit. Of course, if a procession seeks entrance well -past business hours or after dark, they would be asked to retul-n the following day, but asking mourners tci do so in the middle of the day would be unreasonable. Moreover, if a service, ]las corllmenced before 3:00 p.in. but is still ongoing past that time, Green Hills would find it unconscionable to shoo away the entire procession for the purposes of strictly adhering to the CUP. Therefore, Green I ]ills requests the condition be modified as follows: Burials and all associated services, e_xcgR for erection of temporary, tenti or other privy screening, on the roof top ground interments of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall not be allowed betweef tlne� l�o{+r4 f before 10:00 am a 340 --per Monday through Sunday. Funeral—j2tLocessions shall be requested to arrive at the Bark no later than 3:00 pm, Mondathrough Sunday, and shall be notified that a fee may be i � osed for arrivals past 3:00 pm. B. RESPONSE TO HOA LETTER. The following is a brief response to some of the issues raised in the HOA Letter. 1. Use of the "Term "Graveyard." As a preliminary matter, we must comment on the HOA Letter's no -so -Subtle attempt to denigrate Green Hills by improperly referring to the Mausoieurn rooftop as a "graveyard." Indeed, we note that the HOA Letter uses the teen no fewer than 17 tirnes. We respectfully request that the HOA's counsel show sorne restraint, candor, and due consideration for Green Hills' contribution to the community of Rancho Palos Verdes, and for the families who have deceased loved -ones laid to rest at Green Hills. Some very basic research reveals that the term "graveyard" refers to "a burial ground, often associated with smaller rural churches, as distinct from a larger- urban or public cemetery." In fact, historically, "graveyards" are associated with places of rest for �et` 41'FV'�1�.ClrCtli�tl �l !` '.Ct.�lll. Pub. Corr - Page 214 i lit, l,t,)Illling COn1I1 i""i011 .�1}L;lltit ,'), _)014 indit idli lls who could slot Mft,rd to he buried inside or L)OMV I church, and vVtkre thu(, buried iIII medi�)tely outside tht, church or in ,l towil "Elklt'Ov,ltd " Because of comcrll dhmi( IlYgiclio and t)thel Iti Ut' "various coo- itiom, In the late 1811' century Incl thlotl h(ltit thr' 19", CCM Irv' led tl) ill(' btlliiil tet tht' dyad in graveyards helm d1set,ntinued.`1' N'owadays, people are buried in cemeteries such as Green Hills, midw- strict legal, health and srifety, and other goveriun,,; requirements.'' As one of the largest and most respected cemeteries ill Souther ii ( alifornia, Green Bills is certainly not a "graveyt)rd," a fact we suspect the HOA l.etier's author chose to neglect ill a misguided effort to be provocative. 2. Request for Moratorium. As discussed in detail in our August 611, letter, there is no legal basis to support a moratorium. As such, any efforts by the City to impose a moratorium at this point would be subject to legal challenge. This is true for both sold anti unsold plots - I Request for Revocation of Green Hills' CUP. As also discussed in detail in our August 61" letter, Green Hills has a vested right to continue to use the Mausoleum rooftop for burials. A "vested right" means that any attempt by the City to revoke or otherwise significantly interfere v`,ith that right would constitute the unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. Additionally, we note that Green Hills has filed with the County Recorder's office all neaps officially designating the Mausoleum rooftop for burial sites. Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, once such maps have been filed consistent with the Code, the burial plots have been "dedicated" and `shall be held [] and used exclusively for a cemetery or- for cemetery purposes."''- As described by the State legislature, such a dedication to cemetery purposes "shall he deemed to be in respect for the dead, a provision for the interment of human remains, and a duty to, and for wwtivxeference.com. " See also )��wtiw.tNil ,e�di�t,i��ll� which notes that: "Staihiig it) the earls19th centtu-Y, the hill ial of the dead in bu. 4an to he discowhimed, duc' it, rapid population 1;,m\ th it, the carly sta.;es of the hidu5hi,ll RCV0111tiotl, continuccj uuthw.lks or infectious dise,kise ncm ir,;tc'varcts anti thele incrca.ingh lirrlitcd SpaCC in FNiyr\,mk tui ncvv interment... lnstt�,id e! ��la�tc<n�is, ccunpk�telt Iltw platr-; of burial wcru cktabli,htd a,�rly hom hvarilk! popul.licd ,irc,i11 al)d mitside of red towns and cit(�i)wi ,, M aTIN, nec�, willool ic; hci;nnt° nn.micipa.)1;y Ing ru d t,r we`rc rtrll tw ?1161, ow iI mid thats i),dependt'nl k Ole' churrhe" and their churchvlyds„ ' See Ilealth & Safety Code Swctimi 8553, Pub. Corr - Page 215 Plomlirn;, ( m>mtmi';sion Al�a>ust I?, :101-1 P,7 }Ie I t t the ht'llefit (,I flu c�n��t���l public ���c�,r��iin, l}', ("'reen dills h,t" ou,ir<ai)tccd rights to us<' the 1\111.r.t>It"um rooftop for burial:, ,uld such ri;hts c01111ut t'10W hk." lawfully rt°vokcd, Notwithstanding these clear constitutikmal and statutory protections, the HOA Letter suggests thtit it h,)s uncovered somr '"smoking gun" warranting rcNoca(ion basad on alleged negligent and/or nefarious doit-igs by City Staff and/or Green [fills relative to the height of the lvlausoleum. In support of this allegation; the HOA Letter includes a conceptual drawing of a mausoleum structure, erroneously labeling this drawing the "approved Master Plan" and suggesting that the building depicted in the drawing has a 25 foot allowable height limit. It is our understanding that this is not the approved height of the lvlausoleum, which has an express height limitation estahlished by Condition Number 38 of the CUP, which states that "With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 30 -feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure." The Mausoleum fully complied with this height limit, as evidenced by the plans stamped, signed and approved by the City's Planning and Building Departments. Moreover, contrary to the HOA Letter's suggestion, the building was also constructed in compliance with the allowable setback, which was also set forth in the Master Plan CUP presented to and approved by the Planning Commission. And, if the HOA is now claiming it relied on pictures and elevations to obtain its understanding of the height of the proposed structures, then it would have clearly seen that the Mausoleum was always proposed to be located very close to the property line. In any event, if any party, including the HOA, was worried that something untoward was occurring in connection ,with the City's approval of the Master Plan CUP and/or the building permits, it should have raised any such issues at the appropriate time, when the Master Plan was undergoing its initial review. Not only did Green Hills hold several community meetings back in 2007 when the Master Plan was originally proposed — at which not a single Vista Verde resident attended — but the Planning Commission also held two noticed hearings to discuss the Master Plan. Not a single Vista Verde resident attended those hearings, either. A review of the mailing labels indicates that notifications were provided to all Vista Verde residents for both the Pub. Corr - Page 216 Cht, Pkmnin" COmw'li—. 1n ?NLIfrust '12, 201-1 1'agc 1 I community �intl the I'I,uinung Commission ntectinys. thus, the IiC);� h id 'Imple opportunities to ,p,,,ik tip, ask questions, Wv iCW the plans anti thC prnposCd conditions and V01W <)M concerns they m,IY havc had, yet they' ch "t, not to get involved; .l,he mai mil now, seven Mears Liter, cl,iim [lit, process was unhiir. The Mausoleum v%a�, constructed in exact con;pliance with the approved plans, as further evidenced by the Building Height Certification, as certified by the City's Building and Saf(,ty 1)(11ortment. Rather than the "smoking gun" the HOA intended, these allegations havt-:, disappeared into nothing more than a whisper of stiloke. The Mausoleum was built as approved by the (Tanning Commission. 4. Request for Prohibition on Use of Motorized Equipment on Sundays. The HCFA Letter suggests that motorized equipment is unnecessary on Sundays, because "adequate man -powered alternatives are available." This is simply incorrect. Even if the dirt were removed using "old fashioned shovels" as was suggested in prior correspondence to this Commission (and perhaps consistent with historical practices used in the days that "graveyards" were the norm) Green Hills' crypts weigh about 1500 pounds. Thus, no amount of reasonable "man -power„ could perform the functions of electronic equipment." 5. Request that No Funerals be Held on Weekend Afternoons. Green Hills has indicated its willingness to reduce the hours of activities occurring on the Mausoleum roof_ However, banning funerals on weekend afternoons would cause several religious groups and those with immediate burial needs to be excluded from this area. While only a handful of services have been conducted on weekend afternoons in the past year, there may be occasions in which a weekend afternoon is the only time that (iut-of-town or working relatives are able to gather to say good-bye to a loved one. Moreover, if the tents or other privacy panels are in place, Vista Verde residents should have only a limited view of the services. Therefore, the disruption to the neighbors, when compared to the distress relatives may experience if they are not able to conduct a burial as dictated by religious beliefs or other circumstances, is minimal. ',; As suggested Ili ,Mi M. Martin's undated corrc-pondetice provided to tho Planning Commission in advm)k-c of the Nlay 13, 2014 hearing and �ittached to that Staff Import as page 76� "Green Hills.,hould hr, required to use old fad-nmied shovels and equipment th,lt does not pro�,ide the obno-�iu'lis noise and vibrations to my home that it currently does.` Pub. Corr - Page 217 l'ht' i'l,uuning C III 6. Request that "Bodies be Relocated". r)v suggesfimg that revocation or modification of the CUP is appropriate, the HOA I elter is - to }gut it bluntly asking; that those indi\iclu,ils laid to rest oil the, Mausoleum roof be removed and relocated elsewhere. This is a wholly untenable suggestion. For one, neither the Cita nor Green Hills has the authority to order or take such actions_ For another, vve need only remind the 110A about the multi-million dollar lawsuit against Eden Memorial Park in Mission Hills for the emotional distress and trau na experienced by the families of individuals disinterred at that cemetery. We doubt that the families of those who put their faith in Green Hills would be comforted by knowing that moving their loved ones vias necessary so that neighbors could have a better view. 7. Restrictions on Hours for Mourners. The HOA Letter requests that mourners be restricted to visiting the Mausoleum roof between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., allegedly because the mourners will be able to "see" inside Vista Verde residents' condominiums. Most mourners, coming to spend some quiet moments visiting the grave of a deceased friend or relative, have no interest in anything that is happening inside the homes of nearby neighbors. They have come to grieve, or to sit quietly, or to remember the deceased; they are involved and concerned with their own private thoughts, not the lives of the neighbors. Additionally, even if a mourner glanced in the neighbors' direction, it is barely }possible to "see" inside their units given the glare of the glass doors on the neighbors' balconies. It is difficult to understated how this issue would be reduced by asking a mourner to sit in their car waiting at the Green Hills gate, or to go home and come back the next day, to a time the neighbors deemed were suitable for visiting. We also note that many people live in homes that face streets where neighbors regularly stroll to walk dogs or take children to school, where mail or other items are delivered by workers walking past the homes, or where gardeners work in front of the homes, among many others passers-by. We do not live in isolation,- we live in a world with neighbors, with other people, where human interaction is the norm. The fact that the Vista Verde residents have become accustomed to near -absolute silence and nothing but green grass in front of them does not mean that they will live in a relatively uninhabited environment forever. As we noted in our August 6", letter_ "A reasonable person must realize that complete emotional tranquility is seldom attainable, and some degree of transitory emotional distress is the natural consequence of living among other people in an urban ear Pub. Corr - Page 218 t he uiliin(,«imitiwior) August 12, _'U II Paw, 1:I wIIN, 11f),ln e!lvironnlc''nt. . . i1 F�'"1`.011"11�1t' perSon niUst t'\p('O to SI -1110i �md titlbmlt Io iorie inconvenience, rind iiml evinces from th(' tine rtt' by neif,hbors, li<,,rti( alto k in the soruetimc�; close living of a suhurh�ui rCsidenhid Rid)iar, ( 1991) 2')2 Cal_ -app. 3d 755, 703 (internal citatioris omitted). S. Security Cameras. Althous;h not mentioned in this HOA Letter, previous correspondence from the HOA has expressed their "ongoing resentment about the security camc"ras that Green Hills has directed" at the Vista Verde property, find asked that Green Hills stop invading the resident:' privacy from Greed Hills' "snooping eyes." Greeti Hills: is not, and has no interest in, "snooping" into anyone's property. Tie referenced cameras are security cameras placed throughout Green Hills to protect against trespassers and to watch for inappropriate behavior on Green Hills' property, and Green hills' property alone. They were installed at the MatIsoleum after Vista Verde residents complained that Green Hills allowed "parties" to occur on the Mausoleum roof. Indeed, there was one incident of trespassers jumping the fence near the MaUsoleurn; these sound activated cameras were installed in specific response to that incident and to ensure the neighbors' concerns were addressed_ The cameras are not directed toward Vista Verde and do not "snoop" into anyone's property; they are directed to pick up possible trespassers on Green Hills' property. Thank you again for your continued consideration on this matter. We will be available at tonight's hearing to address any questions you may have. Vel --V t W vours, Ellen Rhrkoi�-Itz. of---) GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF Enclosure cc: Eduardo Schonborn Joel Rojcls Pub. Corr - Page 219 Pub. Corr - Page 220 I f if"R1 I O(:I 1111 PLANNING C O,XIMISSK)N 01 1111- C 111' OI PANCI U PALOS Vi.I\'l)P5 DC)F.' III 1y'H3Y l'INU 1W 11 h�IINI, AND IZi!SO4 VI- AS F01 1 C)W". ection 1: ('mr,mml to (_onditirrns of Approv,)) Noy.. AQ -14 nd N-� conhmicd in P.C. Resolution Ncr. 2007-T'), r\-hich state th' "illy project shall he revieawrd by thr Planning Cmnmi��,ion. .to rvvicw Ilio, ippiic,mt', compliance with all ((mclihons of approval )"�Sociafcd with the R9aster ('km rind Master Plan Revlgion. At that time, the Planning Conwnission rnav- add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, eil i,: increase the time bctween reviewperiods. Notice c>f said review herrin shall be published and pr()ti idCd to owners of property within a 500' radios, to parsons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners thereby affording the Planning Cornmitision thr, ,rbility to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary mid appropriate. Section 2. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions, this project approval includes incorporating additional conditions of approval to the 2007 Green f fills Master flan to address the visual, privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building (Arta l I) upon the adjacent Vista Verde condorniniurn complex located in the City of Lomita. Section 3: As a result of the potential for visual, privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building (Area 1I), the following conditions of approval are added to the Green Hills Master flan, which is included in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference: • The entire length of the tractor ramp shall be left clear at all times. No vehicles, landscaping equipment, construction ecluiprnent, storage containers, etc. are allowed to he parked, stored and allowed to be left on the tractor ramp for more than 12 hours. • 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 wallonly to the satisfaction of the Director prior to building permit final. ® With the exception of ground cover, no vegetation shall be planted in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007. • 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. • No new mausoleum or addition to the existing mausoleum shall be constructed within Area Il. Prior to submittal of grading plans and/or building plans for any improvements in the area east of the existing Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building into plan check with the Building and Safety Division, the applicant shall submit the proposed improvement plans to the Director of Cornmunity 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 Associ�rtion located in the City of Lomita), and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho I'Acis Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. • Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleurn building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:01am and 3:00pm, Mondav through Sunday. Any mechanical machinery used for plot preparation and post - Pub. Corr - Page 221 servicc plot b,itktillim, that is defective or ni iku nt honing in a manner th,it 1" abnormal nc)ist-, (,r noise levcl" '11,111 ht• r(�hiaced immediatel, �v ith properly functioning mochiiwrv. AZV4en- �]t at d- • Burials and all imed services, exce_t__for -_erection of teinorary tenting_ or other_Frivacv screenz_n , on the n)ot top ground interments of the Memorial Terrace Mau<olt,um building shall not be allowed before 10:00 �iiri Monday thr<nfgh Sunday. Funeral processions shall be requested to arrive at the jjrtrk no later than 3:00 Pm, Monda�� through Sunday, and shall be notif-ieathat a fee may be imp sed for_arrivals hast 3:00 pin. • Limit the use of the mini -haul vehicle (which is illustrated in Green Hills' pmverpoint presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014) to preservice burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the roottop ground interments to the ]lours of 10:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday. • The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building, except as permitted by Federal law for military honors. • All services on the rooftop of the 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' powerpoint presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014- One of the two 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. • Green Hills shall continue to investigate, in coordination with City Staff,potential solutions or systems for_quicki_ and efficiency erecting a ,,1 ., m 6 foot -temporary wall system or portable framed screen with sound absorption material -4�a4 to be placed adjacent to the northern side of the temporary tenting during all services on the rooftop of the ;'gin- l=er-tee Mausoleum Building. Should a reasonably viable system be identified and with the approval of the Director of Planning, the system shall be utilized for all rooftop burials, weather permitting, and T4ie wA­Yy-smPer-ta franted sereen shall be erected no earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within 2 hours after the burial service. * Landscape maintenance and grounds keeping activities that require the use of mechanized equipment for o€ the ground interments located on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed once per week, between the hours of 10:00am and 3:OOpm, Monday through Friday only and shall be limited to the Use of one mower at any given time. T4 --use ef a jt+a-f blewe€ shall be prc-}hibiled. Sales personnel shAl be allowed to show the roof -top ground interments on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building only between the hours of 1-f?-8:OOam and 3-5:OOpm Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 44-9:00pam and 2-5:00pm on Saturday and Sunday. ®, r,._ a }-2 liou-;E prior to-,-+sclleduled;-imei-"r;-i=c.c'�i-t--�-Ft'f-'t�l-r-''.'�--,-�-,z-:Tsliali--Provide "^ `�— d�{#E�t� a�i41img��rltri, ,a,is1�t wj11 be eei'efl tl3e �tt#ie Pub. Corr - Page 222 1 mof4,41--4-(� -ac 4\1-� t rk t+Fit-4�t+iir i+ig. I he Itst -lint slr+ 11 -lam �xrt i # r( Eci-t1tY 'i tz}.. tle-1 ICDA p61 -tit -s-1-1 V -i;+ ;++if -M-R4 0Y--V-H4 4} + - - ;ii ori l-{ a t t l � E� t 1 �r ++ k 1 the HG) Ao s +itl -w 1 1�= 1i -t- being 1�)-R4—Vi k d tH Every. reek and wherefeasible -_small flags shall _-be_placed on any burial site located on the Memorial_ Terrace Mausoleum that is scheduled -to_ be utilized for an interment within- 7 dAys, thereby_ providinn6 hboringproperty owners with advanced notice of scheduled interments and burial services. Green -_-_Hillsshall_ also -___.post____on its publicly accessible „ website rvw�a-eenhillsmernorial.comZ_additional details . concernin the anticipated time and date of scheduled burial services. • At least one en1 lo,v ee of Green Hills shall attend and monitor every service occurring on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum -__for _the entirety of all burial services to ensure that the services are orderly, proper and comply ith these conditions of approval. Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, August 2014. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on August _, 2014. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, and pursuant to Condition of Approval Nos. AQ -14 and N-3 ontained in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33 that grant the Planning Commission the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adds the conditions listed above to the 2007 Green Hills Cernetery Master Plan, as illustrated in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Pub. Corr - Page 223 Pub. Corr - Page 224 ATTACHMENT B (l-lifIs, CLIP restricts suuncl�, �',(rn llted from live and/err amplified sound, tt) W-) dt,cibel 30dba Soft W"ISO er ("dBA'l) pit the property lint'. Add Itiun�iIIy, 50 dba Ratnfall,Refrigerator Runnng Section 17.25.040(1) of the W'V ;Muniiipol Code 60 dba Normal Conversation restricts �ouncis generated from mechanical 70 dba Shower: Dishwasher running egUi)MIent �lnd machinery to 6-5 d13A. 75 dba Vacuum Cleaner; Toilet Flushing Exterior Noise Levels Estimated Interior Noise Levels (in Vista Verde Residents) Condition Activity Description . rr •i�tyt wa!ies¢r t?efe: tel,-•-...� i iit;.l . jAac��ntiag t®1'Si:r- Windows Mowing (1 mower) open' 52.0 at Conversation - 2 people 21.3 t>alated fdui�ty 39.3 Plot excavation and preparation 33.8 Plot backfill W Inflows t.�psrrati�n "r Closed' 18.7 , arthest it--ctiy Pool. Area 31.3 Reie r.ffc,ted) (at DmanceM !aveE(doiTit i.3t PcnneclY (.ins Nearest Bako- ita;cdm; },aruni) 135 feel) (GS feat) (20 feet) Plot excavation and areparation 56A 61.0 59.2 S3 8 57 2 Flet bacrfil h1 9 66.8 65.0 S9 6 62.3 Mov/ g t 1 ,-)ov✓er) 609 65.8 64.0 Sq -6 61 3 Corversat on - 2 people 30.6 40.4 39.7 3 3 36.0 Corversation-64 people 48.6 S8.4 56.7 S13 54.0 Estimated Interior Noise Levels (in Vista Verde Residents) Condition Activity Description Farthest (directly affected) Plot excavation and preparation Balcony (65 feet) Plot backfill Windows Mowing (1 mower) open' 52.0 46.6 Conversation - 2 people 21.3 Conversation - 64 people 39.3 Plot excavation and preparation 33.8 Plot backfill W Inflows Mowing (1 mower) Closed' 18.7 13.3 Conversation - 2 people 31.3 Conversation - 64 people Isolated Activity Noise revel (dBA try) at" Nearest Balcony Farthest (directly affected) (35 feet) Balcony (65 feet) 47.2 41.8 53.0 47.6 52.0 46.6 26.7 21.3 44.7 39.3 39.2 33.8 45.0 39.6 44.0 38.6 18.7 13.3 36.7 31.3 Results: As detailed in the above tables, not one measurable use or operation Commonly occurring on the Mausoleum exceeds the applicable 65 dBA noise limitation set forth in the CUP. Pub. Corr - Page 225 tleb Below is RPV City Code for issuing a CUP: 17.60.050 Findings and conditions. A. 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 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 1. 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. 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. C. For multiple use developments under a conditional use permit, where the uses permitted in the development are specified in the conditional use permit resolution, the uses permitted in the zoning district shall not apply unless such uses are among those permitted by the conditional use permit. D. When deemed desirable, the planning commission may add conditions requiring future review or updating of maintenance, development plans and activities, E. Any change which substantially intensifies occupancy or land coverage on the site shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit pursuant to the amendment procedures set forth in Chapter 17.78(Miscellaneous) of this title. When required, the findings, recommendations and notices thereof shall be filed in conformity with the provisions set forth in Section 17.60.050 of this chapter. (Ord 320 § 7 ;part). 1997. Ord 259 § 2, 9990 Ord 76 (pad), 9975) The following statements were made in the 2/27/07 Staff Report in regard to the Master Plan Revision's Compliance with this code: Section (A)1: "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." "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. 99-7 (attached), and the Pub. Corr - Page 226 conditions contained therein will remain in full force and effect unless specifically modified by this Master Plan Revision." "Thus, this Revision provides clarification in regards to the areas dedicated to ground burials, while ensuring that these areas continue maintaining the 8 -foot setback requirement for ground burials from the north and south property lines." "With regards to existing conditions, however, the applicant is of a different opinion regarding condition no. 2b, which states "Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North — 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road..." The applicant believes that 30 -inch garden walls are not structures, and has proposed a series of family estates with 30 -inch high decorative garden walls that would be located in the area between the northern perimeter road to the 8 -foot setback from the north property line (Area 4 of the proposed Master Plat) Revision). When the City Council considered the Master Plan on appeal (excerpt Minutes of the October 16, 1990 and the February 19, 1991 meeting are attached), the applicant objected to a 40 -foot setback for structures and ground interments since it resulted in a large area of the cemetery that could not be utilized for the burials. As a result, the City Council allowed ground interments up to 8 - feet from the north and south property lines, and included condition no. 2b to ensure no above ground structures were to be located in this area. Although the applicant believes that the garden walls do not constitute a structure, Staff believes that such walls constitute a structure. According to Development Code section 97.96.2040, a structure is defined as "—anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which is located on or on top of the ground". As such, Staff believes that the condition should remain and that no structures, including garden walls, should continue to be prohibited within the area specified in the condition. " Section(A)3: "the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the perimeter of the cemetery site." "As indicated in the attached Initial Study, it was identified that the project may create potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. However, an environmental assessment of the proposal found that the proposed project would not create significant adverse affects with appropriate mitigation measures- As such, for these reasons, there will be no significant effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, and this finding can be made and adopted," Section(A)6,. "With regards to the items listed within this finding, Staff believes that the proposed project has been designed and conditioned through appropriate mitigation measures incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (see attached Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program), and through appropriate conditions incorporated in conditions of approval (see attached Draft Conditions of Approval). Said mitigation measures and conditions have been based upon the requirements listed above so that the proposed project will not cause an impact to the health, safety and general welfare of the site nor surrounding residents. For these reasons, Staff believes that this finding can be made and adopted." Pub. Corr - Page 227 4 of 9 tkrdes PlanningComission http //www.palosverdes.corWrpv/pl"ngtAGENDAS_-_Ctwrent—ASC did not quality for a CEQA exemption and since a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the the original Master Plan As a rests of the In" Study, Staff determined that the proposed project would riot have a significant effect on the a vironmiend If appropriate mitigation measures were incorporated resut iag in the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to all applicable public agencies on February 6, 2007. As indicated above, the document was forwarded to the County Recorder on February ie, 2007, for a posting and comment period of at least twenty days prior to action on the MPD (as required by CEQA). Since Staff is recomrardIng adoption of a formal Resolution at a future date, the rnnsnan posting pariod wit have been met- Nonetheless, a public notice was also mailed to the 330 property owners within a 500 -foot radius from the subject property, and a notice was published In the Peninsula News on February 8, 2007 Furlhan. Staff sent an electronic mal to all parties registered on the Cty's'letserver' for the Green Hills Master Plan Revision project, which contains 71 registered recipierds, informing them of the proposed Master Plan Revision and the pending pubic, hearing In response to the Mtgaled Negative Doclerdtbn and Notice, on February 12, 2007 Staff met with several residents from the Peninsula Verde neighborhood commurvly, which is located In the north of the cemetery site As shown in the attached Initial Study, the project wit not rests t in or create any significant inpscts, or have less than significant impacts to Agriculture[ Resources, Biological and Cultural Resources, Land the and Plamwq, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Pubic Services, Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utildles end Service Systems. However, it was iderllfied that the project my create potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology and Sols, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, and Water Quality, and Noise, bless mitigated with appropriate measures. These potential wrpads and the associated rnligabon measures are discussed below. Aesthetics: It was Identified that this project may result in an aesthetic impact with regards to creating a new source of fight or glare. The potential aesthetic impacts have led Staff to incorporate mitigation measures that prohibit lighting of the roadways within to cemetery, and require that building -courted lighting be arranged and shielded as to prevent direct llumination of the surrounding property and preveri vistlM1ly of the lightsource Incorporation of these mitigation measures will result in a less than slgrftatnt impact upon aesthetics. Air Quality. It was Identified that to project may result in an air quality impact with regards to exposing sensitive receptors to potxrards. Residences are idertifed as a sensitive receptor, and *Vow" to durst and exhaust emissions from consbuction activities was identified as an impact Howwolar, this potential impact hes led Staff to incorporate mtgatlon treasures tat require regular watering of consincton areas, discorlimlrg certain activities during high winds to prevent dust clouds, and confining rs9 to certain areas of the cemetery. As such, by incorporating these mitigation measures, there will be no signlficent adverse wrpecls upon air quality. Geology and Sots: It was identified that the project may result in an impact with regards to soil liquefaction sireea expensive soul is common on the peninsula. Athough mausoleum buildings are riot habitable structures, there wins be visitors to these btidings. Such potential impact has led Staff to "orate mtgatnn measures that require submittal of a geolectncal report that must be reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to issuance of a budding pemit, miss% the City Geologist deans it not necessary Further, any recommendations or oondaors resulting from the geaactrical and sats reports mat be Incorporated into the building design of the structure. Incorporation of these milgatlon measures win resut in a less than significant Impact to geology and soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials: It was identified that the project may result it a potentially significant impact with regards to the release of hazardous materials into the environment, specifically in regards to the southern portion of the site due to is previous contaminated sol. However, a remediation effort was completed in 1999 that resultant in the site being removed from the Calfforrla Department of Toxic Substances Controls Cortese list NonotNiess, to ensure that the proposed memolemn buildings in Area 6 do not disturb the previously remedisted area, a nftation maesure hes been Included requiring review and approval by to State of Calitania's Department of Toxic Substances Control, prior to obtai irg a building permit. Incorporation of the mbgaten measure will result in a less than significant impact. Hydrology and Water Gustily. It was identified that the project may result In an impact with regards to wastewater discharge and drainage patterns The potential Impact has led Staff to Incorporate a mitigation measure that requires preparation and approval of a Standard Urban Slormwater Mtgation Plan (SUSMP) prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit for arty mausoleum Incorporation of the mitlgation measure will result in a less Than significant impact upon hydrology and water quality. Noise It was identified that the project may rerun in impacts With increased noise levels as a result of construction activity, The potential has led Stat to incorporate mitigation measures that I" hours of construction and the queunig of construction vehicles incorporation of these rnitigation treasures will result in a bas than sigNfkart impact upon nomse As such Staff has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be approved for this project since mitigation rneasures terve been incorporated to result in a project with Was than Significant rmpsas CONDMONAL USE PERMIT Z /Z 1/6-? fikTTrrL P(,'— The (,GThe purpose of the Cemetery Zoning district is to provide for the permanent intemtent of human remail. AN new uses within the district are subject to approval through a conditional use permit. Since the original Master Plan was approved through a conditional use permit (CLIP No, 155), a revision is nocessary since modifications are being proposed to the master plan that includes additional mausofeun 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 oder consideration The Code also stows the Planning Commission the discretion to grant a conditions[ use permit (or revision) with coMtbns and [irdatons as necessary to protect the heaflh, safety and general welfare (Deveopmant Cate findings are, shorn in bold text, followed by Staffs analysis in normal lead ) 1. The site Is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all of the yards, setbacks, wets or farces, landscaping and other features required by this title [Title 17'Zonkeg') or by conditions imposed underWm sedan (Section I1.60.0W)to adjust said use to those on abutting lard and within the neighborhood. The subject property measures approximately 121 -acres in area and currently operates as a cemetery. The cemetery was established prior to annexation of the area to the City, and has been in oortnual operation since then Sure societal, cultural and environ mental charges naturally occur over time, and with land being scarce, the efficient use of existing land and demand has steered the cemetery industry in the direction to provide mausoleums as an alternative to ground burials. Although there were mausolaun buildings constructed at Green Hits prier to annexation, Green Hubs had plats to ultimately construct additional mausoleum butdigs throughout the cemetery ste To ensue an orderly development of the cemetery $he over time, Staff requested that Green Hills, develop a master pian for at development throughout the cemetery site for consideration through a conditional use permit, which led to the approval of a Master Plan in 1091 to regulate development of the site over the red 100 years. to tt approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for metsoleum blidkOs abd Wound Flemarta were established These satacks vW fp be modified or rodnsed with the additbnsl mtallselalm buboW The arl4kfef bindings requested though Its revision Include W dtiota to tla atNrfy d prMd 816/2014 3:38 PM Pub. Corr - Page 228 of 9 Wrdes Planning Corti ssion http,Hwww.palosverdes.wMrpv/plaoninWAGENDAS_-_Ctrrera_Age, buliduge, Ot reby makkp them Nr9erbuildings. Hw"var, they will contmw to be Na loc",vft stlliole t setback wttlin the com eMy.ala. rather!nein p as pamnaWlgh . F rdw, the trb of the bbl dings w0 not be trigger The Mausoleum buildings In the southern portion of the ata (in Aras 6) wil have a !letter design than the original Master Plan since there will be 5 buildings distributed Woughout the area that wid be ono -story aawu and oro -story below grade. Further, sear the Improvements vol be conducted over a period of 30- to 50 -years, the impacts will be mirdmaed, acW sed hatpin of all proposed krprovenrMa wll be aasMtart with the requilfeffarts estabaehed by me prix Meager Pen as approved No. 01.7 (atteGrtl), and the cordtbru contained therein will rsxrWn in hi force and Med unless spealtlo lily modified by this Master Pen RavWors With regards to the ground eterments (ground buals), this Revision clarifies the areas and acreages by specifying the areas for ground inlumants Although the original Master Pion (attached) illustrated general areas and acreages, the acreage areas devoted to ground burials was not clear or property cdcileted. Thus, this Revision provides clarification In regards to the areas dedicated to ground burials, while ensuing that these areas continue maintaltng the &food setback requirement for ground burials from the north and south property lines Through this revision, Stell has incorporated a number of new milpelion measures and conditions as a result of the Initial Study to mitigate potential impaete. The cresting conditions contained in Resolution No. 91.7 (MNched)1vf remain M egad and have been added to fife Revision for ease in implrmantabon With regards to existing conditions, However, this eppinr/ It of a differed opklon fol" dip oatlRbn no. 2b. w" aMes'Getbadn for above proud stnrctues. inckudrny but not limited to mauroMurs (except the Paomla Mtaaoferan) and oWU sW be at follows: Noe — 60' or no clover ttan the northern perimeter road..' The applicant bolieves that 34inch garden wage are not smtdtaae, and hies proposed a sense of family estates with 34eldt ilii decorative garden wags that would be bcodod in rho area between the northorn perimeter road to the 6 -foot setback from the north property line !Area 4 of the proposed Master Pun Revision). When the City CouiN coradared the Maser Plan on appeal (excerpt Mlrttes of the October 10, 1000 and the February 10, 1081 meeting are attached), the applicant objected to a 40 -foot setback for stmchrrss and ground iRernrerts alta t resulted M a ergo area of the cemetery that could rot be u Ilbod for the bores. As a sant, the City Councs allowed ground rtemierta up to S-fW from the north and south property sim and Included condition no. 2b to enure no above ground stribtues were to be boded lin this area. Although the applicant telews that the garden wage do not constitute a structure, Staff begeves that such wale aorstftlr e a structure. According to Developer Code section 17.90.2040. a structure Is leaned as '...anything caabucbd or bolt, any educe or D WuV of any lad, or any piece of work artifielalry buds up or compared of pub jolned toZadser to some de to manner. which is boded on or on top of the growl. As such, Stall believes that the condition should farran and that no structures, including garden wags, should continue to be prohibited within the area spe dW In the cordtbn Therefore, Stag finds that the site is adequate in size and configuration to support and accommodate trio proposed project- For these reasons, Sluff behaves this I'Ming can be made and adopted. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and hlg1tways sufficient to carry the type and quantity o1 traffic generated by the subject use. Access to the site is provided directly via Western Avenue (Slate Highway 213), where there are two points of ingresslegfess, one that is a controlled traffic signal. The Csys Public Works Department: has reviewed the puns for the proposed project and concluded that the proposed project itid not necessitate a traffic impact study, since Western Avenue is a State highway and the project is a beg -term venture Staff also lawerded the information to the Caifoma Department of Transportation (CalTrens) and subsequently forwarded the Initial study to them for comments. Both requests for kput resulted In no response from CalTrans. Lusty, according to the 1093 International Traffic Engineers (ITE) data, Cemetery land use produces a madman 4.73 weekday average daily trips (ADT) and a nummu n 7 62 weekend ADT per acre. The Master Pun Revision does not include a urger physical cemetery site; however, It calls for 2 17 -saes of additional mausoleum area, whch could be considered additional acres per the calculation of traffic irtpacts per the ITE Based upon the ADT figures from ITE, Staff estimates that upon bu6dod, the additional 2.17 -acres of mausoleum will result In up to 10.26 additional trips per weekday and up to 16 54 additional trips per weekend. The resulting increase in trip generation Is less than significant since buildout of the ceneterywould occur over the ned 30- to 50 -years As sudv it is concluded that the trips generated by the project will hove negligible impacts to roadways wgttn the City, and the pinged site relates to the streets and highways sufficient to carry the type of traffic generated by the proposed project Thorofore, this finding lin be made and adopted. 3. In approving Ihe subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. The proposed project does not Include new uses to the cemetery site or changes to the existing cemetery operations, Staff believes that the uses and operations are consistent with the land use designation and Zoning, and continuos to be a compatible land use. Further, the edtAlanal rnlsrdaun buildings will continue to be located wain the Interior of Be cemetery age and will not reduce established setbacks or be bated aknV the per' nater of tte cemetery sea. As indicated in the attached Initial Study, a was identified that the project may create potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics. Air Quality, Geology and Sob, Hazards nit I-Wardous Materials. Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. However, an environmental assessment of the proposal food that the proposed project would not create significant adverse affects with appropriate instigation measures. As such, for these reasons, there wN be ne significert effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, and this finding can be made and adopted. 4 The proposed use is not contrary to the General Pen The proposed Revision includes additions to the approved mausoleum buildings in the Master Pun and additional grading and import to acconrrodats es uses on the site, which are consistent with the General Pans Commercial Retail and use designation of the site, and with the types of land uses permitted wtrn the Development Code Cemetery Zoning District. According to the General Pan, cornrrercial zones are designated to accommodate services while preserving the character of the Peninsula. The General Plan states that commercial activities comprise apprmdmatey 1.7% of the total land area within the City. Although the subject property is not a traditional commercial acthtty, the cemetery will continue to operate with no apparent rent activity. The elle wig also continue to have an open space ambience due to the size of the skis and the location prmdnity, architectural design. color, and other anprovements associated with the m ausoxeum buildings and the Master Plan Revision Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project Is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, and this finding can be made and adopted 5 Ir tha age of the proposed use is worn any of the overlay control distndReatabaehed by Chapter 17.40 ((Nerdy Cartrol fllstricts) of this title (Title 17 'Zoning'], the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter The subject property is not within an overlay control district. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the project. 6 Conditions regarding any of the raquremarts listed in this paragraph, which the Panning Commission fads to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been Imposed [including but not itmaed to]: setbacks and buffers, fences or wags; lighting; vehicular ingress and egress; noiso, vtxraton, odors and similar emssions; landscaping, maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads or slays; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the City In an orderly and effictont manner and in confomity, with the dont and purposes set forth In this title )TAIe 17 .Zoning.] 8/6/2014 3:38 PM Pub. Corr - Page 229 6 00 ,s Wrdes Planning Cornjssion hftp //www.palosverdes cottdrpv/planning/AGENDASa _Cturem_Age... With regards to the items listed within this finding, Staff believes that the proposed project has been designed and conditioned through appropriate mitigation measures Incorporated in the Mitigation Monte" Program (see attached Drag Mitigation Monitoring Program), and through appropriate conditions Incorporated in conditions of approval (see attached Draft Conditions of Approval). Said maigation measures and conditions have been based upon the retkrrements listed above so that the proposed project veil not cause an Impact to the health, safety and general welfare of the site nor surrounding residents, For these reasons, Staff believes that this finding can be made and adopted. Therefore, Staff believes that all relevant conditional use permit findings can be made in a positive manner to warrant approval for the proposed Master Plan Revision. GRADING PERMIT The purpose of a grading permit is to promote the public health, safety and generalwedare white preserving the natural character of an area consistent with reasonable economic development. A grading permit is to ensure that development occurs in a manner that is harmonious with adjacent land so as to mnimae problems of flooding, drainage, erosion, earth movement and simiier hazards, whine maintaining the visual continuity of the Nits and va" of the Cry, Pursuant to Section 17.78.040 of the Devebpinert Code, the City requires a major grading perm3 for grading activity that will invoke the following: excavation, fill, or both, in excess of 50 cubic yards in a two year period, or cut or fit more than 5 in depth or height; or " excavation or tie eroroachrng in or atwirg a natural drainage course•, or ' ercavatron or M on an erdrema slope (35% at m7re)• Wtwthstandirg exemptions in Section 17.76 040.0 The proposed Master Plan Revision clarifies the grading quantity necessary for development of the cemetery site, and proposes import fill for oorsuluction of the mausoleum buildings. A major Grading Permit Is required sicca the Master Plan Revision inclAes 643,259 cubic yards of grading. This quantity includes 97,964 cubic yards of import for the proposed mausoleum buildings, and all cul and fie associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery sae for the We of the Master Pion, which is projected out to use at year 2057. The imported fill material wit be conducted in phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over an extended period of time over the next 30- to 50 -years. Since the total grading quartity Is over 1,000 orbic yards and part of a Master Plan Revision, this proposal is subject to review by the Planning Commission. Section 17 76.040 E of the Development Code establishes criteria that the Planning Commission is to use to evaluate, review and act an major grading permll appacetiom. The following Development Code criteria aro discussed below (Developmert Code criteria are Indicated I bold tend, followed by Staffs analysis in normal text) E 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Thu subject property is located in an area designated by the City's Zoning Map as a CEM (Cemetery) zoning district According to the City's General Plan and the Development Code, the purpose of the cemetery district provides for the permanent kteemert of human remail. Further, the Development Code coMaionaly pamrt5, as a primary use of the property, interments and rn®usoleuna. The original Master Plan proposed to balance all on,0e grading, so no Irport or export was required. However, 4 was realized that the amount of backfill necessary for the m ismoleum buildings could not be obtained within a reasonable this frame from only ground spoils, and that import is necessary for ultimate build -out of the site with ground intermerts and mousoisum buildlmgs. As indicated above, construction of Nae mausoleum buildings will be conducted in phases, and the related grading and any necessary import will be conducted at the time each mausoleum is constructed, which would be conducted over the course of lip to 54yeais. Further, the daily cemetery operations include ground burials (a Ica, lawn crypts), however, these areas nit fast be graded and prepared for such uses. Vvh ile some grouts burial areas will be created by the backfill adjacent to the mausoleum buildings, some areas col the Master plan Revision call -out for ground burials only. The ground burials may Include family estates that are evident by ow garden walls around their perimeters to enclose these burial estates, or more elaborate tombstones that are butt above-grorsd it is approximated that 137,000 cubic yards o1 fit will be necessary for these areas to raise the grade by lip to 35 -feet in some area to accommodate mausoleum buildings and ground bufak, and provide for appropriate drainage to the roadways. This quantity Includes ground spoils from throughout the cemetery silo, excess cut material from mausoleum project, and import ofadditional fat material. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed grading quartay is necessary for the permitted primary use of the tit, and is necessary for the ultimate development of the rmusoktan buildings throughout the cemetery site and site preparation for ground i temnerts over tto need 30- to 50 -years, on a ownetery site that encompasses over 120 -acres in area. As such, the proposed Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion E.2 The proposed grading andlor related constmetion does not signficandy adversely affect the *us[ relationships with, nor the views from the'v+ewlg area* of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a now residence or an addition to an existing residence, ttis finding shat be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower Misted grade oder the Mr7ding footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to 17 02.040(8) of this title. is lower than the structure that could have been buil I the sante location on the let d measured from precorotniction (existing) grade. In regards to sigtaf caA impacts to views from neighboring properties. Staff believes that the grading will not adversafyr impact nrty views from nef4{atdllg properties since the regt"ad earth movement will pMW* the CRs for mausoleum bu ldYpe arta ground intain errs. The loC/NGe of the lfalMWanrrt blrliInge and the associated backM Confirm to be wth in Na Itefinel porfdas of the camatary age, and no maliOleum, buildings aro proposed afatlg Na pwinnoters of hip cemetery that abut the residences to the rtonftt and south The m al"Itutn btli tis are proposed on sloped area of dia rnmataxy age fist an trkitiae btlhdl:lgs by exa veli g wto the skpe, rather than maasoleirne; being; oonisbu clad on keep or hops within the cometery skis. FUCim, with ala maatptbn of the Inspbation Supe mausoleum bulft uta edsth9 Master Wen torted the heights of buildings, and this Revision does net modify rw requests to modify. the previously approved heights. he residences to the south of the cemetery are at the same grade elevation as, or slightly ower than, the cemetery and do not contain views over the cemetery as The residences to the north, in the Pennsuis Verde area, are at higher elevations that allow for views of the harbor over the cesretary site. Although the original Master Plan proposed mausoleum buildings at Inebriation Slope (Area 2 on the Master Plan Revision), the exact configuration and height were rot known, thereby resulting in a condition (condition no. 34, in Resolution W. 91.7) to not impair views from Peninsula Verde. Modification to on condition is not part of this RovisioR and Staff wig Continue to work with Green Fills to ensure that the mausoleum on Inspiration Slope does not Impair views from Persiuula Verde With regards 10 the grading being conducted or ground Irterment5, the proposal calls to retain the existing topography. The exception's I Areas 5 and 8, 8/6/2014 3:38 PM Pub. Corr - Page 230 7 of 9 s 'Verdes PlamtingComission http:/lwww.palosverdes corWrpv/planrd4AGENDAS_-_Ctttrent_Age. which must be liked due to the existing concaved topography of these areas Norietheless, these are areas along the southem portion of the cemetery site where there are no views over or through this portion of the cemetery from nearby residences. Therefore, Staff balem ittat the gradYp will not signillomtty adversely effect Ihe visusl reationship nor the views from nenghtxenrg proprrties, and Ina Master Plan Revision oomples with this crleflon. E 3 The nature of grading minis ices dsturbance to the natural caMours and finished contours are reasonably natural As previously mentioned, the grading Is to prepare the subject property for the conslnxilon of mausoleum buildings and ground inlemxmts throughout the cemetery site This graft allows for excavations into slopes and beddYl to extend the slopes to the nwtnobtan structures, thereby blendtg the shwure into the natural contours of the property Further, the preparation am subsequent grading for ground irtennords will retain the existing topography and will not raise these areas. with the exception of Areas 6 and B, wtwhwtl be filed to raise the grade to be simksr to the adjacent grade. However, these areas upon compilation will retain a naturally sloping topography common to the other areas of the cemetery ate Thin. Staff believes that the Molter Plan Revision has boat designed to account for the necessary gradng, miNrtizae disttrtiarlw to the natural contours of the property, and ensures that finished contours we reasonably natural- As such Staff behowa that the Master Plan complies wrdx this cru -orbit EA The grading takes into account the preservation of natural lopogtaphic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-mada a manufactured slope Into natural topography. As toted in the previous finding, the majority of the grading is proposed to blend the mausoleum buildings Into the natural slopes that exist throughout the cemetery site. Furthermore, the Master Plan Revision uses land -sculpting leeMques to Mord the proposed slopes and grading into the existing topography Thus, the project has been designed to respect the natural contours of the site to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, Staff believes that the Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion. E.S. For new single -limy residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed project does not involve a now residence: thus, this criterion does not apply. E6. In new resdential tracts, the grading Includes provisions for the preservation and Introduction of plan materials so as to proted slopes from soil erosion and slippage and nirirnize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas The proposed project does not Involve a new, (rad; thin, this criterion does not appy. E 7, The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to mturnom grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside The proposed project does not involve street construction, thus, this criterion does not apply E 8 The grading would not cause excessive and umacessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildkfe habiat through removal of vogelabon No wildlife habitats have been Identified on the subjed property: thus, this criterion does not apply. E.9. The grading conforms to the following standards for grading on slopes. height of cutffit end robinkg walls. According to the City's Developnent Code, grading and construction on slopes over thirty-five (35%) percent is rat permitted it the lot was recorded and legally subdivided atter Mvrxntxer 25, 1875- Further, no finish slopes greater than 35% shall be created, no till or nit shall occur on a slope exceeding fifty (50%) percent, she that exposed upslope and downabpe retaining wage cannot exceed C -O' and V4r NgR respectNdy, Lasty except for the excavation for a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shag riot exceed a depth of 5 -feet at any point except where the Planning CommLssion determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make suit grading reasonable and necessary Staff has reviewed the proposed Master Plan Revision and has found h lu be consistent with the aforementioned criteria, with the exception that the depth of cut and height of fill will exceed 5 -feat for construction of the mausoleurn buildings However, these are issues that were reviewed during the original Master Plan and the Revision Includes making some of these buildings larger Staff believes there continues to be circumstances that make such grading reasonable ark necessary. Devolopment Code section 17 76.040 states, 'the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development o1 land, ensue the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensue that the development of properties occurs in a marrer harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plein' Due to the operations and 121 ave size of the cemetery, the amour of grading and related cut and fig Is necessary to accommodate the proposed but.-0ut of the cemetery rite, which Staff believes is not an excessive amount or grading; is consistent with the mdsttlg and cattirirols um of the properly: 00 grid M and ralatsd mausoleum building do not tm"Ir vkwr, mud the excavation does not sgrgdowtR ~ the r4rres1l apparrarna of ftta able firm tfe pd* ngl/e-of4my or from other residences. Lastly, the proposed grading activity wa not be deur arhlto the public safely or to an swoLvimtg properties, since appropriate measures and conditions are proposed to rMigate, pttertlnt impacts to less than significant For those reasons, Staff believes that the Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion As noted in the preceding discussion, staff believes that the Master Plan Revision complies with all Grading Permit criteria. As such, g Is staffs opinion that the Grading Permit can be approved for the Master Plan Revision ADDITIONAL INFORMATION During December 2006, the applicant conducted two neighborhood outreach meetings at Green Figs to present the proposed Master Plan Revision and to solicit Input from adjacent neighborhoods. Invitations were sent to the homes located within a 500' radius, and the meetings were conducted at 7:00pm on the evenings of December 11 and 10, 2006 Staff attended one of the meetings to hear the presentation and hear the Issues raised by the pubic. Following these meatigs, the applicant provided Staff with a list of items and Issued raised by the neighbors, and a response to each. The Issues are as follows (issues are ntalic¢od, fol -owed by Green Kis' response in normal type: 1. The dM movement throughout the cemetery was questioned with regards to the locations of the fN, the finish grades of the fill, and the dust that is created by the dirt movement The digging of graves and the subsequent surplus of dirt is inherent to the nature of cemetery operations, and so while the applicant acknowledges that there will continue to be dirt moyement within is borders, Green Hips has formulated a plan to mitigate some of the adverse effects of the excavation and 8/6/2014 3 38 PM Pub. Corr - Page 231 Below is the Map from the Original Master Plan from Resolution 91-7 Approved by City Council in 1991. RED Areas: Above Ground Structures, GREEN Areas: Below Ground Internments No above Ground Structure Approved in Front of Vista Verde In 1991. Vista Verde Property Line Se�paGK ce Not` 40'-80' Setback *'InNs a. ..r-•flIV. ,. 0 y Y F i t : BPlew Ground Internments Above Ground Structure 91-7 (Original Plan) Setbacks: b. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums {except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: North - 8o' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater. South - 401 East - 25' West - 5' "- Setbacks after Revision (80' to 8') 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: 6-0" Pub. Corr - Page 232 From: Ellen Qekowitz <Elle!i,BerkowitzC�Gresha n5avage.c.om ent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:04 AM o: Eouardo Schonbom, Joel Rolas p, Cc: PC Subject: Attached Draft Resoluti011 Attachments: GH Letter Exhibit RESO REDLINED r (;),pd' E duardo — Attached please find a proposed draft resolution, suggested by Green Hills as a possible compromise relative to the issues for discussion tonight. We used the draft resolution prepared by Staff (attached to the materials sent to the Planning Commission for tonight's hearing) as the base and redlined it to show our proposed revisions. As you will see, some of the draft conditions have been modified, some have been unchanged, and some have been added as new proposals. We will be submitting another letter explaining in detail the reasons for our proposed changes and responding to some of the allegations set forth in the HOA's August B'h letter. Given length of our new letter (sorry to do that again, but we feel it is important to have the information in the City's record), we wanted to share this with you immediately. Of course, we will also be present tonight to discuss any of the issues or answer any questions the ommission or Staff may have Thanks. Ellen C11rn B��rko�, itz Gteshati-- Savage Nolan & Tilde,-, i)C South Nope Streol Angeles, Cn 90071 �:��r,. �reshamSavage.cc;m Pub. Corr - Page 233 NOW, IHH\11UP] , Hil PLANNING COMMISSION CSF 1-111 CIIY Ot l: ANC110 PA1-05 VI RIA t)Of,, 1I1"'RLBY FIN1), I)1 11.161 IN1:_�, AND JZI (1LA'E fV`.-) 1-01 LOVl S: ection 1: Pur-,u,mt to Conditions of Appio v,d Nos. AQ -14 and N ') conlained in 11.C. Resolution `Uo. 2007-T31 kv'hich slaic° th,11 " I Ili, project s11a11 br rc� lvvccl by the Plannin;; rc\'iekc the applicant's compliance cv ith Al ct,nditions of approval associoted with the Mater Phn and Master Plan Revi,ion_ At that time, the Planning C�.Fi7�misbior� rmry acid, ticlet(', or modify the conditions or ipproval as deemed necessar� died appropilme, .3�, tv-ell )s increase the time behveen review periods_ Notice of said revlecv hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations... thereby affording the Planning Commission the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Section 2: Con,;istent with the aforementioned conditions, this project approval includes incorporating additional conditions of approval to the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan to address the visual, privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials on the Memorial terrace M,rusoleun-i building (Area 11) upon the adjacent Vista Verde condominium complex located in the City of Lomita. Section 3: As a result of the potential for visual, privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop burials on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building (Area 11), the following conditions of approval are added to the Green Hills Master Plan, which is included in the attached Exhibit A, tivhich is incorporated herein by this reference: • The entire length of the tractor ramp shall be left clear at all times. No vehicles, landscaping equipment, construction equipment, storage containers, etc. are allowed to be parked, stored and allowed to be left on the tractor ramp for more than 12 hours. ® 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 prior to building permit final. ® With the exception of ground cover, no vegetation shall be planted in .Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007. ® 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. ® 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 for any improvements in the area east of the existing Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building into plan check with the Building and Safety Division, 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. • Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday. Any mechanical machinery used for plot preparation and post - Pub. Corr - Page 234 service plo[ backtillin, tIi,it is defective or mtiIInnction ing in a manlier thm i•. Lxi� ing abnormal noises nr noise levels shill he it,placed immediately N� ith properly functioning n achinery fc s at e n e>f Etrt..,tan-11+11i iiieilio-4 , shall be • Burials and .-ill &,4()c1,lted services, except for erection of tenj�pora tenti.n� or other��_ivucy screenin on the roof top ground interments of [lie Memorial Terrace IvIatisoletim building shall not be allowed t tri -14e of before 10:00 am Monday through Sunday. Funeral processions shall be retested to arrive at the park no later than 3:00 pm, Monday. through Sunday, and shall_be notified that a fee ma be -imposed for arrivals_j2ast 3:OOm. • Limit the use of the mini -haul vehicle (which is illustrated in Green Hills' powerpoint presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014) to preservice burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments to the hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm, Monday through Sunday. • The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building e, xceUt as permitted by Federal law for military honors. • All services on the rooftop of the 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' powerpoint presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014. One of the two sides shall be the north side facing the Vista Verde condominium complex. Said temporary tenting shall be erected no earlier than 2 ho>_n's prior to the burial service and shall be removed within 2 hours after the burial service. • Green Hills shall continue to investigate, in coordination with City Staff, potential solutions or systems for quickly and efficiency erecting_a A—min4i�4-)-��temporary wall system or portable framed screen with sound absorption material shall to be placed adjacent to the northern side of the temporary tenting during all services on the rooftop of the Mausoleum building. Should a reasonably viable system be identified, and with the approval of the Director of Planning, the system shall be utilized for all rooftop burials, weather permitting, and The ,fie 4-.-aFttea y-eeshall be erected no earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within 2 hours after the burial service. Landscape maintenance and grounds keeping activities that require the use of mechanized equipment for e,4 the ground interments located on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed once per week, between the hours of 10:00arm and 3:OOpm, Monday through Friday only and shall be limited to the use of one mower at any given time. The use,4-a4eaf blewer shall be pFohibbited. • Sales personnel shall be allowed to shoe the roof -top ground interments on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building only between the hours of 44-8:00am and -3-5:OOpm Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 4-?9:00pam and 2-5:00pm on Saturday and Sunday. '--t --weelE#y-latii ;-l-ti-t- E}�E's�,+-rht,n-z2h0HFSf44-E+i-a-sehed l iiii;ter-B ff ooB H21 - . 1 . _ t-le`-�'--i,p ie 4 A a list of tiled bufial,_; reeftep ef tizie L Pub. Corr - Page 235 d-tom-4he-Vi4-e4e.,44i7)-A' vY44—acopy trk ++tl-t f'Itly-1isF l i+c� }�+rr�id #k4-tlR---l:-a++C+f.4-I'T+kYr .L'e+f1E r is-cc#er Of C.0- illAFRie-Pelv+40i_44 t. :verweek�and where, feasible small flags shall be placed on ani burial site located on the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum that is scheduled to be utilized for an interment within 7 days, tlrereb_providixnllboa_'qg_proPert_y_owners_ with advanced notice of scheduled interments and burial services.Green Hills shall �_als--o-poston____its______ publicly____accessible website (w�w.gr•eenhillsmemorial.cUnl) additional details concerninR___the_ ankzcipafed time -and date of scheduled burial services. • At least one__employee of Green Hills s,hall_attend and _monitor every service occurrinp- on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum for the entirety of all burial services to ensure that the services are orderly, proper and co n_p with these conditions of approval. Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, August — 2014. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on August _, 2014. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, and pursuant to Condition of Approval Nos. AQ -14 and N-3 contained in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33 that grant the Planning Commission the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adds the conditions listed above to the 2007 Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan, as illustrated in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference. W Pub. Corr - Page 236 IRSCHBERG & Ii RIED AN, LLP 5023 N. PARKWAY CALABASAS CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 9;302-1423 LESLIE D. HIRSCHBERG EMAIL ldhesq@hFlip.com TELEPHONE (818) 225-9593 MICHAEL N. FRIEDMAN EMAIL mnfesq@h0lp.cmm FACSIMILE (818) 225-8593 August 12, 2014 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment 27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CASE NO. ZON2003-00086 Hearing Date: August 12, 2014, Agenda Item: No. I Dear Commissioners: I only received Green Hills' 19 -page letter and attachments an hour ago and regret that I must respond to claims made by Green Hills in this letter which, if left unaddressed, might appear as the only information on the subject in a future administrative record. It is my hope that you have a few moments in advance of tonight's meeting to review my comments. In response to complaints by residents of the Vista Verde condominiums, staff proposed a review process to determine whether any of the significant unintended impacts of the Green Hills' Memorial Terrace Mausoleum could be mitigated. Staff suggested operational changes which have drawn a good deal of support and criticism from the community. Green Hills, of course, is willing to accept only modest, inconsequential operational changes. It is not likely that these operational changes will provide meaningfill mitigation to the Vista Verde residents who were promised, both by Green Hills in its CUP and variance applications, and by Planning Commission staff at the 2007 hearing at which time the revised Master Plan was approved, that there would be no adverse impacts to adjoining landowners. Green Hills has drawn a line in the sand and will not contemplate or discuss any structural modifications. The mere mention of structural modifications cause it to threaten to sue no matter what modifications are brought up. Green Hills claims to have a vested right to maintain the rooftop graveyard as it was constructed and has glossed over the grounds for revocation of Green Hills' entitlements raised by Vista Verde. [By the way, according to the Wikipedia article on "Cemetery," it states that graveyard is often used interchangeably with cemetery. I used it to refer to that discrete portion of the cemetery which is on the rooftop hiwed- R,cyOW Pape,. Pub. Corr - Page 237 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment August 8, 2014 Page 2 of the mausoleum. I do not believe that any of the land use professionals involved in this matter intend to denigrate each other or their clients and it is my hope that we can remain above that type of conduct.] The main purpose of this letter is to reflate Green Hills' claim that it has a vested right to retain its non-compliant rooftop graveyard in non-compliance with Rancho Palos Verdes' Municipal Code and conditions of approval. In Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) the California Supreme Court established the rule in California that a vested right can only arise "if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government." Id. at 791. However, the vested right is limited. "Once a landowner has secured a vested right the government may not, by virtue of a change in the zoning laws, prohibit construction authorized by the permit upon which he relied." Ibid, Here, we are dealing with a conditional use permit that expressly authorized review and modification of the conditions of approval. The construction permit that was issued by the building department was subject to the Planning Commission's conditional use permit. Green Hills has always known that its conditions of approval could be changed in the future based upon adverse impact which might result from its construction of the mausoleum and it operations conducted there. There is no unfairness to Green Hills that, despite its promises not to create adverse impacts fbr adjoining landowners, it created very significant adverse view, visual, noise and privacy impacts. Moreover, as stated in McAllister v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 169 Cal.AppAth 912, "when a developer starts a project without any permit or under an invalid permit—i.e., one that was issued in violation of existing zoning or environmental laws—the developer does not gain a vested right to complete the project; and, in the latter situation, the government is not estopped from challenging the validity ofthe permit even ifthe developers expended resources in reliance on it." Id. at 948. Vista Verde is urging the Commission to investigate the grounds fbr revocation raised by Vista Verde and to determine whether it will initiate revocation proceedings or require Vista Verde to do so. Where Green Hills' applications all promise no adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the adverse impacts it has created pursuant to its applications are very significant and burdensome, Green Hills cannot claim a vested right as if it were a blanket of immunity. The law does not so hold and Green Hills does not have the rights it Printed on Recycled Pnyer.. Pub. Corr - Page 238 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment August 8, 2014 Page 3 claims. To the contrary, it is the duty of the City to permit only lawful development that is consistent with a property owner's applications and development which proceeds contrary to an applicant's representations to the City denotes a flagrant disrespect f'or the City and its laws. It is clear from the tenor of Green Hills' letter that it believes it is sitting in the driver's seat and can dictate to the City the terms by which it will operate, Its threats to the City reveal its arrogant and bullying nature. Vista Verde is depending on this Commission to stand up to Green Hills and do the right thing to correct this horrible situation. cc: Mr. Matthew Geier ® Primed m Recycled Paper, Very truly yours, HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP By: " MICI AE N. 1 FDI AN Pub. Corr - Page 239 STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 4061 SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 TEL i916)651 4028 FAX , 9 1 61 323.6056 DISTRICT OFFICE ARTESIA BLVD. SUITF 320 DONDO BEACH. CA 90278 TEL 1310) 3186994 FAX 1310)318.6733 WWW SEN CA COV/LIEU SENATOR LIEUFSENATE CA GOV August 11, 2014 OT QLalifornin k$ --,tate �5enate SENATOR TED W_ LIEU TWENTY-EIGHTH SENATE DISTRICT City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Attn: Eduardo Schonborn 30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Planning Commissioners: CHAIR BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMBER AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION INSURANCE VETERANS AFFAIRS I am writing regarding the Green Hills Memorial Park Annual Review and related possible Resolutions on the Planning Commission's August 121h agenda. 1 understand that the Commission may consider imposing an up to 90 -day moratorium on burials and memorial services in the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum as well as significant operational restrictions. Since the construction and activities associated with the mausoleum were previously approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I respectfully oppose any actions to curtail or limit operations in the mausoleum. Under the leadership of President Ray Frew, Green Hills Memorial Park has been a great community partner for many years. In response to concerns raised by neighbors, Green Hills has implemented meaningful mitigation measures and has proposed additional measures. As such, I believe the City should encourage continued dialogue between Green Hills and the neighbors rather than impose unfair restrictions. I was the author of Senate Bill 661 which was signed into law in 2012 and establishes a misdemeanor crime for anyone to protest within 300 feet of a funeral, beginning one hour prior to the funeral and ending one hour after the conclusion. I am particularly concerned about information I have received about disrespectful funeral disruptions that have occurred near the mausoleum in apparent violation of California law. I believe imposing a moratorium would now reward those who likely violated the law. It is my sincere hope that a final resolution to these issues can be reached which respects all parties involved. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions regarding this letter or if 1 can be helpful in this matter, please contact me at (310) 318-6994. Sincerely, TED W. LIEU Senator, 28`' District Pub. Corr - Page 240 From: toe( Rojas ,nt: Monday Auq,jSt IL 2014 S 12 PM o: Lduardo 5chonbo,n Subject: i=W Green Hills Memorial Park vs Vista Verde horyieowners / Tues debate before the Piannin Con-milssion From: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 44718 PM To: PC Cc: CC; Ken QeLong; chateau4us@att.net Lacombe Subject. Green Hills Memorial Park vs Vista Verde homeowners / Tues. debate before the Planning Commission Bear Commissioners, Re: the "subject" I just now read in city public records that the City approved the Green Hills general plan in or around Feb. 2007 . At that time there was no mention within the proposed plans any intent to conduct military funerals atop the multi- million dollar mausoleum. Yet, some 14 years later residents hire legal experts to take .neir complaints before the commissioners in order that they protect and preserve their property value as well as their right to quiet enjoyment of their property?? To say the very least, something appears out of line in the city's regular process of doing things . I would urge the commissioners that a 90 moratorium is the quick fix allowing the opportunity for Green Hills to purchase the Vista Verdes complainers property. A win/win? Thanks of the opportunity to submit this correspondence. Respectfully. April I_.. Sandell Pub. Corr - Page 241 August 11, 2014 Planning Commissioners City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 -LN33 udo13n30 ,a.i.MNNo3 RE: August 12, 2014 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Hearing Regarding Green Hills Memorial Park's Master Plan Review. CASE NO.: ZON200 till:. Commissioners: 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. (9.)Lomita Mayor, Peter Rossick; (2) Vista Verde HOA, Rodman Small, (2) Rolling Hills Town Club 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 Pub. Corr - Page 242 2012 — When building of Pacific Terrance Mausoleum was under construction, Lane Mayhew of Vista Verde had numerous telephone conversations with John Reich of Green Hills. 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 Hills, 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, Lori rown Vista Verde Condominium Homeowner (Over 25 Years) 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North, #205 Lomita, CA 90717 e -Mail: LBis1 RoadRunnerC@gmail.com Cell/Text. 310-995-1787 Page 2 of 2 L8: fd: RPVHAug2014FinaIX Pub. Corr - Page 243 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: ADYffNISI'RATION WALKER J. RITTER C M -Y AD MIN rSTRA TOR DAWN TOIVITA Cr" CLER c Na RI), � �` F` MAY 22-3 1990 ENVI ONMENTAf BV.Tr" 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 HALT. OFFICES ® 24306 NARBONNE AVENUE, LOMITA, CALIFORNIA 90717 ® (2 63) 325-71 10 Pub. Corr - Page 244 Mr. Robert Benard following address: Walker J. Ritter City Administrator Lomita City Hall P.O. Box 339 Lomita, CA 90717 May 22, 1990 Page 2 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, PETER J.)ROSSICK MAYOR dac:PR.1 doc. 54 Pub. Corr - Page 245 MAKING ADDRESS, 2110 Palos Verdes Dr, N. Uno P112 Lornna, CA, 90717 {213)514-9230 May 16, 1990 STATEMENT, TO PLANNING CW91ISSION SHPMNG 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 whith will be adverse:_-': affected by any mofification to the 40' setback limitation which abuts the common areas of my condominium complex, I strongly urge that such oroposed modifications surrounding the Greenhills Memorial Park's 100 Year Plan not be allowed for the following reasons: 1. The Adverse Visual 1mracts 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 nroyosed olan would adversely_ affect 500 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, DroT)ertv values. This would occur in light of the above adverse visual imnacts which would occur as a result of such develonment; and 3. The complicated environmental issues which would result from anv modification to the 40' setback limitation and which currently can he seen in the increase of drainage runoff which has been brought on by the placement of fill -dirt for the anticioated 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 -)roi.posed plan as presented by Greenhills memorial. Park and to do what i.s necessary in order to insure that the said 40' setback limitation will remain intact and will not be modified in anv manner. In conclusion, as a result of my deep concern over the above stated matter, 1 have personally contacted and met with a total of 23 homeowners, out of a rossible 25, who feel as strongly as T do in keening the 40' setback limitation. Thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings on the 7reenhills Memorial Park's 100 Year Plan. Sincer,,-,y d(�man C. Small. RCS: sr Pub. Corr - Page 246 Rodman C. Small IROR—C Wany— q gy— -1 c MAILING ADDRESS. 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Unit #112 LomOi CA 9N 17 (213) 514-9230 Page 2 SHIPPING ADDRESS. 1575 N. Wilmington Compton, CA 90222 (213) 603-0528 Tt is interesting to note that the only major hui3ding construction is planned on orooerty abutting the CdLy of Lomita homeowners, ',�,e as homeowners in Lomita feel that the City of Lomita would have standing to support us in keeping the 40' setback limitation on above ground construction or burial. On behalf of myself and the others in the Vista Verde Homeo\,.'ners Association, we urge you to make a careful analysis of the oronosed plan as presented by Greenhills Memorial Park and to do that is necessary in order to insure that the said 40' setback limitation vaiij. remain intact and will not be modified in any manner. Thank you for your r)rompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, olease do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or at P213-514-9230. Sj ncerlv,! T'� X C. Small RCS; sr CC: Councilman Croyts-Lomita Vista Verde Eird of Directors Attachments 41 Enlargement of area abutting Lomita & VVOA 42 Rancho Palos Verde Notice of Public Hearing �3 Negative Declaration of Rancho Palos Verde 44 Complete Master Plan of Green Hills Memorial Park Pub. Corr - Page 247 June 26, 1990 r 11 r JUN 2 G 19K _J Members of the Planning Commission ENVIRI.AIMFWAL SERVICES City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274-5391 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 congregatincq 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, Calis Valenti President Rolling Hills TownClub 1948 Rolling Vista Drive #40 Lomita, CA 90717 Pub. Corr - Page 248 CITY COUNCIL CHARLES BELBA HAROLD S, CROYTS ROBERT T.HARGRAVE PETER J. ROSSICK CHUCK TAYLOR May 22, 1990 ADMINISTRATION WALKER J, RITTER CITY ADMINISTRATOR OMITA ITT F L ITA DAWN CITY CLERK Mr. Robert Benard City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director of Environmental Service 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274-5391 Dear Mr. Benard: MAY 2 2 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL 3BVTf 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 e (213) 325-7110 Pub. Corr - Page 249 Mr. Robert Benard following address: Walker J. Ritter City Administrator Lomita City Hall P.O. Box 339 Lomita, CA 90717 May 22, 1990 Page 2 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, PETER �,)ROSSICK MAYOR dac:PR.1 doc. 54 Pub. Corr - Page 250 RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 C ITY OF RANCHOPALOS%A ILDING & CEAAENT PLANNING, BUILD NGI & CODE ENFORCEMENT February 6, 2007 FED a "' PUBLIC NOTICE FEB 2 0 2007 uNm MAR 2 2 7007 PROPOSED CONNYs, MocnLERK mwmMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -ow R-A�OOItDSRIC NTI'Y ( K sMma DVtm 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 Western 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 Bwa / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING/CODE Er'iFOW;EMENT (310) 544-5228 / BUlLDIMG (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293 / E-MAIL: PLAT NINGORPVCOM Pub. Corr - Page 251 _ _ xa,; .:•r. Nsv' :yi: ;':Y`¢4;.1; :iiskln,"". •• ,au+ .}.' :::i :i PUBLIC NOTICE • ZON2003-00086 (CUP, PRA EA), FsAary 6, 2007 J .5,;' page -2 ,.q.• . .. t S l '!: ,r'S { ° y s �} , ` "" skis s k i'i J - 1•i. CJI, ) •.;.'!'•q��ti f .... 1,. measuring 23, 53,squa feet a ca $is ppp V. 6 re t. Il4 len that roximate Q f a er { , west than :approved in tte original Ma;t�� plan; i 5) allowing a new 75;.931, square Toot.-,,,rtausplerfrl building to the�Wast QjlthQ,e�sh, }'� .. .. 1 f 14 .i1 ll } - 1 •. .t . .......... mortuary, whereby. 9,871 square feet will be above: grade and 65;260 agtaaCe}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,- nd;7) 7)reducing the size of the previously approved mausoleum building footprint at the southwest side of the cemetery, from' a 60,583 square foot building footprint to.a`"- 37,820 square foot building footprint. In summary, the amendment includes a net increase of 2.17 acres (i.e., 94,525 square: feet) of mausoleum footprint area. After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating: measures for the, project, -,the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcemerit;has determined that this projec, 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 Commisslon 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 ; �,�.._..�._. ._. ._ � .. ;ij. :Si,:„vt�,.•_._... ........... +: ~A��.Si,.� �': .........:'.__.......,^+Y!:..�r,'�3'^.�j•?:inl�,q,_','_'.^;':.'...........::'::..«�,�-.,,:,�.i:.a.. Pub. Corr - Page 252 1�l ) PUBLIC NOTICE ZON2003-00086 (CUP, GR S EA) February 6, 2007 Page 2 .t Commission as part of a future agenda packet, provided that the item is continuedto a later date. To receive a copy of the Initial Study, or for additional information, please contact Senior Planner Eduardo Schonbom, ACCP, at (310) 544-5228 or via e-mail at eduardos@rpv.com. Joe jas, AICP Dir ct 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. i Please publish in the Peninsula News on Thursday, February 8, 2007. 07 0024232 Pub. Corr - Page 253 IiRANcHo Pmos VERDEs June 7, 1990 R E V I S E D N 0 T I C 8 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 Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contact Lauire B. Jester for further information at 377-6008. Robert Benard If Director of Environmental Services 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 00274-5391 1 (213) 377-0380 Pub. Corr - Page 254 8/10/2014 Print Subject: 3rd draft/short speech before planing commission From: Joanna Jones -Reed (tenuspro@yahoo.com) To: jLAlieikeye@aol.com; mnfesq@hflip.com; Date: Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:23 AM Good Evening, My name is Joanna Jones -Reed. T�> I would like to talk to you about juxtapositions, the act of positioning side by side, or close together, two contrasting things which is what we have presently before this commission, I place before you the juxtaposition of these two images: The first image is of a swimming pool, with a barbecue area, a recreation room and a Jacuzzi which are all for the common use of the Home Owners to enjoy leisurely relaxing time and, or, entertaining others. For instance, I like to entertain my friends, my family, as well as their friends in this setting. We gather together to enjoy life, to swim, to play music, to eat, to drink and to party in this setting. That is the purpose of this area. It is a recreational area. Now visualize the second image which is that of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, which I refer to as penthouse burial grounds. This Mausoleum is extremely large, and appears football size in length; It is approx. 35 feet high, and is about ten feet higher than our recreation area. And yes, this image comes complete with roof top burials, with mourners, funeral services, solemnity, and large processions at the grave sites as well as music, funeral dirges, etc. This image is dour and gloomy, tearful and sad. This image has a set back of a mere 8 feet from our recreation area, the area where we like to have fun and swim and splash and shout and enjoy ourselves. I ask you to think about the juxtaposition of the two images that I described. I consider this second one described to be a tragedy. It is not merely a fiasco in planning, it is an imposition on our homeowners rights to enjoy our recreational area and a blatant disregard for our individual rights. We are not guests at their funerals; and they are not guests at our parties. Yet this is what Green Hills has imposed on us as their neighbors, and imposed on their clients. This large structure also blocks our pre-existing Harbor View. What was Green Hills thinking? The juxtaposition is an extraordinary encroachment on all the home owners, and I personally believe that the intention of Green Hills is to intimidate us. I believe that Green Hill's intention to build this monstrous structure right in front of our faces is a deliberate attempt to harass us and constitutes malfeasance. We, the Home Owners of Vista Verde Condo Association, are asking investigation into this tragic scenario which we find intolerable. We believe that our rights have been disrespected and we have been violated. Our property values have been devalued and our quality of life has been adversely affected by the strategic placement of this mausoleum. We seek relief and redress of what we believe is a moral and legal wrong committed by Green Hills. Thank you for your time. abouLblank Pub. Corr - Page 255 1/1 w• Aa 'K+` {•• . - 4 "W. . Rm w Via Electronic Mail August 10, 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. 2ON2003-00086) 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 on record with the City 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 by Commissioners about view impairment and their concern that there be no view impairment. There Pub. Corr - Page 257 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 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, 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 attempts to capture what I believe to be major factors surrounding the current status and why we are here in response to the requests of certain Commissioners. GH was obviously attempting to improve its profitability in 2007, and accomplished that, compared with their rejection in 1990. From the perspective of VV owners, the sum total of all the actions and approaches followed in 2007 was to impair their lives, views, and economic well being. The views for many were eliminated and for others deeply impacted along with their right to privacy. A high percentage of the owners at VV have lived there for many years, are retirees on fixed incomes and thus have been deeply impacted with little chance of recovery. As you consider what actions are appropriate to take, I hope you will consider the perspectives and chronology of events in this letter. That is certainly more difficult with the threat of litigation by GH. Also recall the comments in February, 2014 when the Commission voted unanimously to suspend roof top burials but that has been deferred even though Staff reported the City Attorney said that was in Commission's powers. And more importantly when several commissioners stated that "if they knew when they voted in 2007, they would have opposed the project". Very Truly Yours, Richard J. Martin See Appendices on Following Pages; Pub. Corr - Page 258 Appendicies: Appendix A.1 —A,4: Original Public Notices from 1990's with Setback Change Notification. Appendix B: Public Notice from 2007 without Setback Change Notification. Appendix C: Letter from City Attorney Ariel Pierre Calonne to City Council in 1990. She concludes that gravesites are not legally permitted within required setback areas. Appendix D: Original CUP Application for Green Hills. The Applicant ensures no adverse impact to neighboring properties. Appendix E: Letter from Former Lomita Mayor Patrick J. Rossick to City of RPV. He objects to the Green Hills Variance that would allow buildings within the existing 40 foot setback due to view impairment. Appendix F: Letter from Richard and Lisa Pierson which summarizes the situation if various requests are approved. Appendix G: Letter from Former Vista Verde Resident Henry Jeffries. Mr. Jeffries details the unapproved placement of approximately 40,000 cubic feet of dirt in the northwest corner of the Green Hills Property. Pub. Corr - Page 259 PUBLIC PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 Environmental Services has analyzed the request for Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1442 and Variance No. 262 for Green Hills Memorial Park located at 27501 S. Western Avenue, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90732. The project is briefly described as: A 100 year Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Plan includes 194,340 cubic yards of grading with no import or export and regrading of the remaining 45 undeveloped acres of the 120 acre cemetery. Development includes the construction of 2.44 acres of buildincA 11.87 acres of "garden" burial sites, 27.21 acres of ground burial sites and 3.72 acres of roads. The project is divided into 5 phases proposed to be developed through the year 2100. After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for the project, the Director of Environmental Services has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared. Public comments will be received by the City prior to final approval of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION and action on the project, for a period of at least 21 days, through Nay 22, 1990. A public hearing will be held to discuss the project, including the proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION, on May 22, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, Besse Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes. A copy of all relevant material, including the project specifications, Initial Study, and the NEGATIVE DECLARATION, is on file in the offices of the Environmental Services Department, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274. The Initial Study will be available for public review on may 2, 1990. Please contact Laurie B. Jester at (213) 377-6008 for further information. Pub. Corr - Page 260 �►. t c rx r • . �a April 26, 1990 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TEAT THE Planning Covaission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on May 22, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palo■ Verdes to consider: Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1412 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 are required for the Master Plan and the Grading Application i■ required for the proposed 194,310 cubic yards of earth movement. The Variance is required for the expanding of the existing Pacifica Mausoleum which would match the setback of the existing building which encroaches 10 feet into the required 25 foot setback from the west property line. The Environmental Assessment addresses the entire project. Locationi 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 Hall, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. Contact Laurie B. Jester for further information. Robert Benard 01 Director of Environmental Services R B: mk Pub. Corr - Page 261 NOTICE 18 EMREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Commission of the City ofRanchoPalos Verdes will conductbearing Tuesday, June 26, ♦ i 0 at 7;30 p.m. at the Besse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos to consider: Environmental Assessment No. 601, conditional use Permit No. 155, grading Pio. 1442 and Variance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the development of green Bills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Conditional Use Permit in required for the Plaster Plan and the grading Application is required for the proposed 195,340 cubic yards of earth movement. The Environmental Assounnent addresses the entire project. The Variance is required for the following itemar 1. A 10 foot reduction to the required 25 foot setback for all above ground structures adjacent to the west property line, (abutting Rolling Bills Covenant Church and the reservoir), This would leave a 15 foot setback from the property line. 2. A 32 loot reduction to the required 40 toot setback for below ground interments and "garden" burial sites adjacent to ►#a property lines. This would leave a 8 foot setback from the property line. Locations 27501 S. Western Avenue Applicants 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. R®bert Hensrd Director of Environss►ental services Pub. Corr - Page 262 1990NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verde* will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, June 26, i p.m. at the Beene Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Environmental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Owe Permit Pio. 155, Grading no. 1442 and Variance No. 262 to allow a 100 year Master Plan for the development of Green Bills Memorial Park Cemetery. The Conditional Use Permit is required for the Plaster Plan and the Grading Application in required for the proposed 194,340 cubic yards of earth movement. The Envirorabental 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 went property line, )abutting Rolling Bills 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 mites adjacent to 01 property lines. This would leave a 8 foot setback from the property line. Locations 27501 B. Western Avenue Applicant; Green Hills Mkuborial Park All interested parties are invited to submit written commenta 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 infora;ation at 377-6008. Robert Benard Director of Environmental Services Please publish in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on Thursday, June 14, 1990. Pub. Corr - Page 263 R a February 6, 2007 FILED t` tFEB 2 0 2007 IWL J 1. `Vil D ,1 7 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act ("GEW) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has analyzed the request for ZON20034)0086, a Master Plan Revision for Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery, located at 27501 Western Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (Thomas Guile: Page 793, H & J-7). The project is descxibad 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 art and 97,170 cu. yds. of fin) 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 ecres of roads. The amendments to the originally approved Master Plan include: 1) ackno►Medgment that the actual quantity of grading that has been conducted between 1991 through 2004, which Is 268,814 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 out 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) clartf"tion 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 Interroents); 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 PL4NM"r'KXY'( E"fQR. O'En1 (3t0i 5d4 322d d ,wet)nJ t3i3) 2bb, 76'3O I CEP`• FAX (3A) }84 -!'?M 1 E Mt vcgs Pub. Corr - Page 264 PUBLIC NOTICE Z®N200 6 (CUP, OR February 6, 2007 Oe 2 measuringr53 square feet at • a approximately 300- t.M- west than approved in the original Master P allowing : new 75.131 square foot mausoleum building t.• the west of the exisb mortuary,:• 9,871 square: above • :r: and 65,260 square will be below.grade; footprint6) allowing an addition to the previously approved mausoleum buhding lomca soutf�east of the existing maintenance yard, from a 22,187 square foot buhdi • : 33,668:• foot building 'r•t• 7) reducing the size of the previously approved mausoleum footprint at :• t: • ( cemetery,o. .:•1 ••. building. footprint to 37.820 square W building "rint. of :afootprint area. After reviewing the Initial Study and any applicable mitigating measures for the project. Uw Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement has detemIned 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 Dedaration, is on file in the offices of the Planting, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, 30840 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 201', tui 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 261') noon deadline. However, any late correspondence will be distributed to the Pub. Corr - Page 265 PUBLIC NO 2 (CUP, OR & EA) February 6, 2007 Page 2 L 2 v ra rt M -Ti 57142f mes f-MEW-VeNn' Irl STA 1� CODE SFCTM _• ff you eWlengthirapplitoUm in court, you " 6o I'tatorasingSIngarmyf these Wsues you or somone elso raised at the public hoartag deacribod In this notice, or in writton co pond- dellod to the City ol Rancho Pem Vardos at, or prior to, the public hewing. Pub. Corr - Page 266 mm bi 1 fMb3.40way Y81339:=MT �. A A nwINN �AMPi� i. pok*kl W. AMM mAft 4 tAG4?i'.29 P4 6A.Mft:C&t P. .. camENO P. a, FOOM10% k6 Q �A 4now A ..wavam DAVO ., 7j: MVOKIM P pY. �Yq�^19 R WTTK � x A q VVINIARTWO1 O. A CNNM MPOK @. A Tfi*AA.RIDi. dao BID.AM T. . A .,... .•, e= rte. 7 idf i June 26, 1990 Laurie Jester City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California [ApLp�enixC 90274-5391 86876-001 Re; Construction of Graves Within Required Setbacks ®ear Lurie; You have asked my opinion as to whether the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 17.29.030 preclude the construction of graves within required setback areas. I have concluded that grave construction is probably precluded because graves necessarily include "structures" on the ground. "Setback" is defined by section 16.04.1050 as: " the minimum horizontal distance between the lot line and the structure line, or a line parallel to the lot line if there is no structure." "Structure" is defined by section 16.04.1190 as: "anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which rectic X11 t a�tnd (Emphasis added. Section 17.40.030 enerally precludes intrusion by any buildings, structure or porton thereof into the setback area. 1 I an assuming for the sake of brevity, and without opining on the subject, that a grave and/or coffin is not a "building" within the meaning of section 16.04.190, even though it is arguably for the "enclosure of persons." Pub. Corr - Page 267 Me. Laurie Jester June 26, 1990 Page 2 Section 17.040.030 provides r" other,architectural features (cornices, eaves, etc.), minor structures and equipment (trash enclosures, air conditioners, dog houses, etc.) and decks and paving. These exceptions deal exclusively with above ground structures. An a general rule of statutory interpretation, the enumeration of a list of exceptions generally precludes implication of :.. absent a specific exception.: nd structures, it would appear that they are subject to setback requirtamnts. on the other hand, it could be argued that below ground structures are not located "on the ground" for the purposes of the definition of structure set forth in section 16.04.1190, but are instead "in the ground." I believe, to the contrary, that things which are "in the ground" are necessarily "on the ground" as well. Mated another way, "on the ground" does not necessarily mean "on the top of the ground." This conclusion is logical, but I cannot glean any clear legislative intent from the code, one way or another. The purpose of setbacks is also relevant to this natter of code interpretation. Setbacks generally: " . afford room for lawns and trees, keep the dwellings farther from the dust, noise and fumes of the street, add to the attractiveness and comfort of a residential district, create a better home environment, and, by securing a greater distance between homes on opposite sides of the street, reduce fire hazard; that the projection of a building beyond the front line of the adjacent dwellings cuts off light and air from thea, and by interfering with the view at street corners, constitutes a danger in the operation of automobiles." ( (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 146.) In short, setbacks are partiall� designed to preclude active use of reasonable portions of lots. Here, gravesite construction and use of the surface area by the bereaved are the principal uses of the property. It would appear contrary to the general concepts which justify setbacks to allow a principal permitted use within a setback, particularly when, as here, there is at 1 When a setback is applied to reduce the theoretically usable area of a lot to absurdly small size, it may be deemed unreasonable and invalid, ( i� (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 602.) Pub. Corr - Page 268 Ms. Laurie aest June 26, 1990 least a theoretical change that neighbors might rind nearby cemetery uses offensive. moreover, there ;k,a likelihood above • ''f: menorial monuments will acc•x, . ; such monuments are clearly prohibited structures, unless they are analogized ground • pursuant to section 17.40.030 wouldFinally, and perhaps most obviously, if section 17.29.030 had been intended to provide a setback exception for graves, the obvious principal use in a cemetery district, one assume that it would be an express exception. none, an implied exception seems dubious. rights.In sum, I believe the cod* supports the view that gravesites are not permitted within required setback areas. However, the code must be applied case-by-case with due regard for property If you have any questions, please do not coatact me. Y '�e i PZBRRB CAL�Nl7B City Attorney 3 1 would distinguish and except from this opinion below ground uses which have no related surface use. Pub. Corr - Page 269 Green Hills A3e5orlul Park 01 SoutPa a Western Avenue c teas Rancho los Ve 1Z0 tsl nes bMA work 7_213-831-0311 27501 Soixth Western Avgla�le %�dre a tale ai bose work 1 -?13-631-0311 PX050ct l otioaj 27501 South Western Av nuehnci3o l V r loot s T"Ct ., Portion of Got 1, Tract No. 3192 curTvnt fainvi a1Ee OS Farca1t 120 Acreb Dascribo in astail the rAturs of the propoosei ase or dowslopmamts An exiOting 120 acre cemetery. of A SGh G developed and remninInR 45 acres to be developed in piaavea, SUPArN Op "hTDMM 1. >Dwla4n bow the site for the PWVPDS04 use is adequate in visa &food sM�s to sae® Nae os• a®a Por all eh. yards, avtharka, ma11a or faaoas. iwAscaDin• and other features r6"ired by the Developmast Code to adjust the vas with those on abutting lace sen within tbo asi The site presently is martially developed as a beautiful cemetery. Future devel DMOM Vill MintOITI and COMPIOMOnt the best UC benqjy__QL_jbV_e v _no edvers3e Im2i!ct onadLoining land 14&ee. Pub. Corr - Page 270 2.Uplein bov the sit* fox ese relate@ to strestt MA laid 81 signed to quantity of traffic Vanors eubieat . 1 er 1 n � ger l sand e�ill cont,�nue to tae serviced by �atern �veniae. L at We cific location will beve no sivalficant afteroe affect on adja t property or the permitted use t, cmusef Ttae pmaentl.y developed portions of Green Hills rlal 4, The pror000d wm ie not contrary to the 4sawal Plan becansei The General Pian designates the site for CeMeL&ry uses. b0ov thv p"Jo" m y vat&r ftV¢AVA$y, eZ in tDm public right -of -Way or public drainage atreet y f aa, you must obtain approval from the Public r$s c psas�a to lssuaaoe of conetructiom porni.te. 2 WERM CBWr". ender the penalty of perjuty, that the infoafatioa A" eaet*rijle •rkWittsd With thi' applicatiae are trUO ass nmcrect. t" at A a ifoaa 1t46 Pub. Corr - Page 271 Mr. Robort 8enard MR " � u T City of Rancho Palos Verdes SAY t D Director of tnviro ntal Service 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274-5391 ENVIRONMENTAL SE"rr.s Please consider this letter as the City of Lomita'- objection to your Enviromental Assessment No. 601, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Grading No. 1442 and Variance 262. The City of Lomita particularly objects to the proposed Variaace No. 262 which will allow buildings to be built within the forty (40) foot required setback. If the Planning Cusmission allows such an encroachment in the required setback, it will adversely affect the Vista Verde Housing Couplex 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 hamaovnars association, and at our Nay 21, 1990 Council meeting it was discuamed by our City Council. At this meeting the Council agreed that the requested variance would adversely affect their homes and directed the City to orpose the project unless there is some type of modification to the requested Conditional Use Permit and Varian that would satisfy the residents of the Vista Verde H®ownerIn 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 KALA. OFFICES o 24300 NARBONNE AVENUE, LAWITA. CALIFORNIA 90717 ® (213) 3257110 Pub. Corr - Page 272 a � a � Y is :Y, :• b t :�. ° X iG ,5 - � Y, - Z y ,. LY','. fF r. li_3 i;j;a •+`z' �.{ ;R =y°t .� ¢. _" �a i'=. at dac8R.1 dee. 54 .,i Pub. Corr - Page 273 Appendix F I ---- From: Richard and ®r. Lisa Pierson May 21, 1990 2110 Palos Verdes ®r. No. 0 114 Lomita, Ca. 90717 Phone: (213) 833-9217 Night 375-2467 ®ay 333-7365 ®ay S3DJ4U)f 1V11J)WNDVlA%1) T o: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission & tl � M ? 0 ®ear Planning Commission, As owners of a condominium in the Vista Verde condominium complex which borders the Green Hills Memorial Park we strongly urge that no alterations take affect to modify in anyway the 40'setback limitation which abuts our condominium t ' complex. We understand that a 10' encroachment has already been made into the west setback zone. We want to make sure that no encroachment occurs in their north setback Zone. The Green Hills Memorial Park's 100 year plan which would encroach onto this 40'setback Zone should not be allowed for several reasons: 1. There would be a def i ite visual impairment on our view if a building were to be allowed in the 40' set zone. is comp ex is consturcted in such a way as to permanently obstruct all views to the north , east, and west. If the Green Hills proposal is accepted we would have no view stall. This would leave us with a very claustrophobic environment. 2. The riva or is extremely important to consider. As proposed, Green Hills hopes to ua a chapel along with a parking lot which would create additional noise from vehicles a d a violation of our privacy due to the increased number of people so dose to our property Ii e. 3. Green Hillshas added a great deal of f ill dirt to a Mrip of land just on the other side of our property line. This has already resulted in an increase in drainage run. i off onto our property. We anticipate maior dralna e_pLq 1 ms if a heavy rain were to occur since the dirt brought down with the rainwatercould dog our drainage s stem. 4. If the 40' setback is not upheld the adverse visual impact along with the invasion of our privac would definitely decrease the value of ou„,§r ro eq)L Pub. Corr - Page 274 A W A kichard and Dr. Lt�r44vrson Pub. Corr - Page 275 Pub. Corr - Page 275 Appendix GJ 70 s Members of , Planning Commission may zz, 1940 City of Ranciao Palos Verdes, California (p (� From s Henry C. Jeffries D 15 iS D 1`I (j 21.10 Palos Verdes Drive North 0101 jj Lomita, California MAY 221990 a condominium o ENVIRpNEpffAl SERVICES Verde, which is located just across the northern city limits of Rancho Paloo Verdes, within the city of Lomita. This condominium, unlike most, is 100% owner -occupied. On the western edge of our property is Rolling Hills Covenant Church in the City of Rolling Frills Estates. Across our back yard fence sits Green Frills Memorial Park. Tonight, thfs Planning Commission is meeting to consider the environmental assessment of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance Plan being proposed by the Green Frills Memorial Park. This hearing is'to review two aspects of the plan which are of vital interest to all of the honeowners in Vista Verde. (1) The Green bills "Master Plan" calls for the construction of a Chapel and a parking lot on the northwest corner of their property. This corner is immediately adjacent to the co on property area of Vista Verde. (2) Additionally, Green Hills is requesting administrative relief from Rancho Palos Verdes' mandatory 40 -loot setback coning. This sone completely encircles the Park. This 40 -foot "buffer" none prevents the Memorial Park from utilising this area for any construction whatsoever. Pub. Corr - Page 276 P s 2 of 2'o.s city Council,-omita,' California From: Henry C. Jeffries She President/Chief Executive Officer, a Vice -President, and a consultanttemployed by Green Hills recently visited our condo- minium and met with many of the owners to discuss various elements of their plaris and the pending hearings, He were informed that the "Master Plan" is a 100 -year plan which includes the construction of a chapel and a parking area to support the chapel in *Phase 4", defined as occurring in approximately 70 to 60 years, inferring that the proposed site will lay dormant un- til then. In fact, though, the area is not dormant. A recently constructed addition to an existing mausoleum structure on the Park's westein boundary has generated excess dirt which has been dumped into the subject corner area. The dirt has been graded by scrapers into a fairly level area. Additional dirt from intern- ment throughout other ar®as ni the park hau rejulacly been p3aceo into this same area over the last year or so. When asked by us about this activity, the President of Green Hills, Ms. Arlene Gleich, stated that the building contractor had placed the con- struction residue in this area `unnoticed" by the Green Hills staff and that,.in order to trim costs, Green Hills, management was not going to pursue holding the contractor to removing the dirt. Pub. Corr - Page 277 ge 3 of 5 To: City Council from, Henry C. Jeffries Leet ane at�this point in time give you some°idea of how much dirt was moved ®unnoticed" - the area is approximately 80 feet in width and over 100 feet in length and the level has been raised approximately 5 feet - that's 5 x 60 x 100 - 40,000 cu ft or almost 1500 cubic yards of material that's been ,moved into this dormant" area. Approximately half of this dormant area is included within the 40 -foot setback area. Granted, they didn't build anything or bury anybody in that area, but they surely didn't respect any "buffer` zone. By the way, all of the movement of material that has been oha®rved over the lest year and 4 halt has been done without any dust -control methods being employed, probably in violation of some city] county, state, or federal ordinances or regulations. It also seems to be a rather unusual coincidence that with the "unnoticed` placement of 1500 cubic yards of dirt, the northwest corner of the hark now sits at exactly the same level as the floor of the mausoleum. With the potential for relief from the 40 -foot setback zoning, it is the belief on the part of many of the owners of our condominium that Green Wills, rather than wait 70 years to construct a chapel, in fact plans to expand the size of the present mausoleum by extending the present structure into this freed -up area. This means that a back wall of the expanded mausoleum could be erected immediately adjacent to our property line. Should this structure be located next to our common property line, there will be two impacts on Vista Verde. The west end of our building will be surrounded on three sides, instead of two, thereby reducing air circulation. However, of even more significance is that the currently unrestricted view from Vista Verde to the Los Angeles Harbor could be inhibited by a 20 foot -high wall. Pub. Corr - Page 278 p, : d of 5 To. City Council, Lomita, California Froms Henry C. Jeffries 2n the meantime, if the mausoleum is not to be constructed im- mediately, internnents could proceed within the treed -up buffer zone. I am a veteran and have attended a number of graveside services for other veterans. A rifle salute is a traditional method of showing respect for a fallen comrade that goes back hundreds of years. A rifle salute and a bugle being played 25 feet from my bedroom window is not what I agreed to when I purchased my home in Vista Verde 10 years ago. The alternative, if we believe in the published plan of Creen Hills, poses a similar impact on our view - the construction of a chapel of some as -yet undefined sire and shape and a parking lot to accomodate some unknown number of cars. we all knew when we purchased and moved into Vista Verde that we would be serenaded on Sunday mornings by the bells of the church next door hnd the noise attendant to the slamnl`sg of doors and starting of motors of two hundred cars from the west end of our property. With the possibility of a chapel to be built on our south side, we could get the noise'of bells and parking lots from a second side, and at vnpredictable times. ! would add that in Green hills' present configuration, the closest a car door slamming to any bedroom window in Vista verde is about 100 feet. The car would be parked at a random spot on a road, not within the tontines of a to -be -developed designated parking area. Pub. Corr - Page 279 70 S ci 5 Tos City Council, or. a +, Froml Henry C. Jeffries To anyone even remotely involved with real estate, as either a pure -hazer .or seller, it is axiomatic that the most Important component of value of a property is locution. in vista verdes' ten years of existence, an unobstructed view of the harbor and ocean has been a major component in its value. To replace this ,Acw of water with a view of a white stucco wall or a chapel will reduce the proper value for each of the units affected by a significant anount w $30000, $50000, we won't know until one of the units goes on the market. 6y then of ocurse it's too late. This hearing tonight centees,around the possible impact that approval of the Koster Plan and/or administrative relief fron the 40 -foot setback may create. we of vista verde are very concerned about the potential impact upon the value of our property that a blockage of our ocean view,.the addition -of noise sovrces, as well as the disruption in air circulation that could occur if ANY above -ground structures are built in close proximity to our homes. Therefore, we are opposed to the "Nester Plan" and its chapel/partying lot and even more emphatically are opposed to the granting of adainistrative relief from the current 40 -foot setback requirement. I thank you for allowing sae to speak before this Cmanission tonight Pub. Corr - Page 280 5023 N. PARKWAY CALABASAS CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302-14n LESLIE D. HIRSCHBERG EMAIL Idhesq@hf1Ip.com MICHAEL N. FRIEDMAN EMAIL mnfesq@hfllp.com August 8, 2014 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 TELEPHONE (818) 225-9593 FACSIMILE (818) 225-9593 Re: Green Hills 1VMernorial Park - Master- Plan Review and Amendment 27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CASE NO. ZON2003-00086 Hearing Date: August 12, 2014, Agenda Item: No. I Dear Commissioners: This office was recently retained by the Vista Verde Owners Association ("Vista Verde") to represent its interests in connection with the review and amendment of the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan. Please allow me to apologize in advance for my inability to complete this letter and submit it to the Planning Division in time for it to be included as an attachment to the staff report prepared for this hearing. I have had less than one week to get up to speed on this matter and to provide meaningful comments. Executive Summary Vista Verde supports the recommendations of staff as interim measures only while further investigation is undertaken regarding the propriety of the recently constructed Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and, particularly, the rooftop graveyard. Vista Verde urges the Planning Commission to enact the 90 -day moratorium to maintain the status quo while said investigation is pending and to set a future hearing to address issues, including those set forth below, that provide legal grounds for revocation of entitlements for the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. Vista Verde requests that the moratorium include the sale of rooftop burial plots in addition to funerals for previously -sold plots. Vista Verde requests modification of the proposed revised condition regarding the use of motorized equipment prior to and after burial to prohibit such use on Sundays. Vista Verde requests that Green Hills not conduct rooftop funerals on weekend afternoons because the likelihood that those funerals will be disrupted by normal and reasonable noise emanating from the Vista Verde condominiums (e.g., TV, music, swimming pool/common area use, ® Pnwd on Recycled papa Pub. Corr - Page 281 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment August 8, 2014 Page 2 etc.) is greatest on weekend afternoons. Lastly, Vista Verde requests that visitors of the rooftop graveyard be limited to the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of their ability to see inside Vista Verde condominiums. Further In vestigation of the Propriety of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is Warranted by Existing Evidence There are two issues involving the approval of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum which, combined, are responsible for the "unintended consequences" cited by staff in its report. Those two issues are the mausoleum's height and setback from Green Hills' property line. Our review of the approval of the mausoleum (at both the planning stage and construction stage) reveal improprieties on the part of planning staff with respect to each of these issues which deprived the Planning Commission from considering significant changes to the mausoleum structure prior to its construction and give grounds fbr the revocation or significant modification of said approvals. A. The Rooftop Graveyard's Height The site of the constructed Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is southwest of its maintenance yard. This is the westernmost portion of the mausoleum (Area 1 1) approved in the Revised Master Plan in 2007. ® Pnwed a n 9ecyded Npu Pub. Corr - Page 282 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendmew August 8, 2014 Page 3 According to the approved Revised Master Plan, the maximum height of the mausoleum in this location is 25 -feet. The approved rooftop graveyard is substantially lower than 25 -feet. And blocked from view by walls on the north and south side. y- r MEZZANINE LEVEL gw i d � co LL o O o, x OUTLINE OF EXISTING GRADE CEMETERY ROADWAY / j r / ® Primed on Recy,kd Pap-. Pub. Corr - Page 283 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Greeff Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment August 8, 2014 Page 4 The mausoleum, however, was redesigned after planning approval but before building permits were issued. The new design is much more monolithic and the rooftop graveyard is at the maximum height of the structure and is no longer surrounded by solid walls but, instead, and due to the increased elevation of the graveyard, is surrounded by wrought iron fencing and, in the front only, by several pilasters which exceed the structure's approved maximum height. Additionally, the structure, as depicted in the construction plans, exceeds the approved 25 -foot height limit. At the April 24, 2007, hearing on the Revised Master Plan, Senior Planner Schonbom was recorded in the meeting minutes as stating: "Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the condition [regarding structure height] dictates that the mausoleum not impair a view, no matter what the height of the structure is. He stated that the height would he measured from the roadway, since that is something that will remain constant. He stated that would be addressed thoroughly when staff receives an application and plans for the construction of the mausoleum." [Emphasis added] In the building plans, the elevation of the interior roadway is listed as 185 feet above sea level. The rooftop graveyard is depicted, on the west side of the structure, as being at 211 feet above sea level (i.e., 26 feet in height) and, on the east side of the structure, as being at 213.5 feet above sea level (i.e. 28.5 feet in height). Considering that the elevation of the rooftop graveyard approved by the Planning Commission was approximately 20 feet above the interior road, this represents an increase in the elevation of the rooftop graveyard of 6 to 8.5 feet. It appears that this additional height was requested by Green Hills so that it could have two-level "stacked' burials for each burial plot. ® Pnmcd on Rcrycled Paper Pub. Corr - Page 284 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendment August 8, 2014 Page 5 That is a significant increase in the elevation of the graveyard — an increase too great to be approved by the Planning Director without requiring Green Hills to submit an amendment for review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director exercised authority he never possessed when certifying that Green Hills' construction plans conform to this Commission's 2007 approval. It clearly does not. B. Setback From the Northern Property Line The original conditions of approval for Green Hills' master plan, contained in Resolution No. 91-7, provided for the following setbacks: "b. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows: ® P—t,d— Recyd d Npc, Pub. Corr - Page 285 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plana Review and Anzendmew August 8, 2014 Page 6 North _-- 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater." In the staff report of February 27, 2007, in the draft conditions for approval, the setback for the northern property line is exactly the same. The public notice contained no information regarding any change in the setback from the northern property line. For the April 24, 2007, meeting, Green Hills submitted proposed modified conditions of approval which, for the first time, propose the following change in the setback from the northern property line: 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)." Staff states in its report that it found this modified condition acceptable. It never refers to the condition by its substance — only by the condition number given it by Green Hills. The minutes of the April 24, 2007, hearing reflect no discussion whatsoever regarding the reduction of the setback from 80 feet to 8 feet, and there was never any new notice to the public regarding this enormous reduction in the setback requirements for the proposed mausoleum. A reduction in the setback from the northern property line from 80 feet to 8 feet is so significant that it should have required an amendment to the application for a revised Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit. A new public notice was required but never given. It does not appear clear that the Planning Commission ever knew that it was approving such a large reduction in the setback, given the manner in which it was hidden in an attachment to the staff report but never referenced by subject matter in the report. It is very apparent that the public was not notified of this significant change. Grounds for Revocation/Modification Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code § 17,60. 100 - Revocation, provides as follows: "A conditional use permit granted pursuant to this section may be modified, revoked or suspended pursuant to Section 17.86.060 (Enforcement) of this Code." ® Nvm d on Accydcd paper Pub. Corr - Page 286 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master- Plan Review andAniendment August 8, 2014 Page 7 Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code § 17.86.060 - Suspension or revocation of permits, provides: "The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant to the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized for approving such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if: A. The permit was issued erroneously; or B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the applicant; or C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code; or D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such permit. No permit shall be revoked prior to providing a ten calendar day written notice to the holder of the permit and an opportunity to be heard before the officer or body considering revocation or suspension of the permit. Any decision to revoke or not to revoke a permit, other than a decision by the city council, may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title." Vista Verde submits that it is entirely appropriate for Planning Commission to request staff to investigate whether the 2007 Revised Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit was issued in conformity with the law, when no public notice was given of the 72 -foot decrease in the setback from the northerly property line. It should further be determined whether an amendment to the Revised Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit was required for the approval of the construction plans for the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum when the elevation of the rooftop graveyard was increased from 20 feet to 26-28.5 feet above the elevation of the interior roadway. Additionally, staff should be requested to investigate whether Green Hills provided incorrect and/or fraudulent information when it is represented in its application for a conditional use permit that "There is no adverse impact on adjoining land uses," and "future development will continue to maintain a negative impact [on adjoining land uses.]" There is no doubt that Green Hills knew it was going place a taller mausoleum closer to the Vista Verde condominiums than had previously been approved and it did so in a piecemeal f ashion which substantially shielded the true impacts of its proposed development from the watchful eyes of the Planning Commission, its staff and Vista Verde residents. 0 Pled on Rceychd Paper Pub. Corr - Page 287 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Amendnient August 8, 2014 Page 8 Vista Verde believes that a 90 -day moratorium on rooftop funerals and burial plot sales is appropriate to maintain the status quo until a proper investigation can be conducted. Given that this situation was not caused by Vista Verde but was, instead, perpetrated upon it, Vista Verde believes it appropriate for the Planning Commission to initiate revocation/modification proceedings on its own and not force Vista Verde to undertake the burden of doing so. Nonetheless, Vista Verde reserves its right to initiate revocation proceedings should the City elect not to do so. Either way, a moratorium will help to prevent any innocent customers of Green Hills from buying a burial plot in the rooftop graveyard or from having a loved one buried there only to have the body relocated in the event that the rooftop graveyard is found to have been inappropriately approved and/or constructed. Support for Interim Conditions of Approval Vista Verde supports staff's proposed modified conditions of approval but only as interim measures designed to mitigate adverse impacts pending a determination of the propriety of the rooftop graveyard and whether physical changes to the graveyard are mandated by the circumstances of its approval and construction. Additionally, Vista Verde has a few of its own proposed modified conditions of approval that it requests be added again as interim measures. Vista Verde requests modification ofthe proposed revised condition regarding the use of motorized equipment prior to and after burial to prohibit such use on Sundays. All other types of motorized construction equipment is disallowed on Sundays and the same type of equipment prohibited for construction projects should also be prohibited for cemetery use on Sundays. Adequate man -powered alternatives are available so that, at least one day per week, Vista Verde residents do not have to listen to motorized construction equipment on the rooftop graveyard. Vista Verde also requests that Green Hills not conduct rooftop funerals on weekend afternoons. Weekend afternoons are typically a time for recreational activity. Vista Verde residents should be able to use their residences and the common areas for recreation during this time without concern for offending the sensibilities of mourners and funeral goers. It is for both Green Hills' customers and Vista Verde residents that this request is sought. Weekend afternoons are a time when the likelihood that funerals will be disrupted by normal and reasonable noise emanating from the Vista Verde condominiums (e.g., TV, music, swimming pool/common area use, etc.) is greatest. Lastly, Vista Verde requests that visitors of the rooftop graveyard be limited to the ® P—led on Recycled Paper Pub. Corr - Page 288 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Re: Green Hills Memorial Park - Master Plan Review and Aniendnient August 8, 2014 Page 9 hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of their ability to see inside Vista Verde condominiums. Vista Verde residents should not be subjected to unintended, unwelcome "visitors" who can see inside their condominium units and balconies between sunrise and 10:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and sunset. Moreover, this feeling would most likely be shared by those wishing to visit a grave site in solitude and express their emotions in private. Public Hearing 1 will be present at the August 12, 2014, hearing and will be available to respond to any questions you may have at that time. Additionally, residents of Vista Verde intend to appear and speak on their own behalf and not as representatives of Vista Verde. It is my hope that you will allow adequate time for me and for these residents to be heard. Thank you for your service and consideration. cc: Mr. Matthew Geier ® Ponied on Recycled Paper Very truly yours, HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP By: MICR N. q1EDMAN Pub. Corr - Page 289 From- Matthew H. Martin August 6, 2014 2110 Palos Verdes DR N #208 Lomita CA, 90717 To: Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Subject: Green Hills CUP Review on 8/12/14 Dear Planning Commission, Based upon research into the 2/27/07 and 4/24/07 Planning Commission (PC) meetings, it's unclear if the PC ever knowingly approved a reduction in the setbacks for above ground structures for the Green Hills Memorial Conditional Use Permit (80' to 8' along the northern perimeter). This assumption was reached after watching the videos from both of the meetings in 2007, reading the minutes from both 2007 meetings, reading the staff reports from both 2007 meetings, and reading the originally approved Master Plan (Resolution 91-7). It appears that the only discussions about changing setbacks for above ground structures at those meetings were statements and assertions by Staff that setbacks weren't being modified by approving the revision. A copy of the 2/27/07 Staff Report as well as the videos from both meetings are available on the RPV website. The staff report that was presented to the PC clearly stated the following: "With approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for mausoleum buildings and ground interments were established. These setbacks will not be modified or reduced with the additional mausoleum buildings." The original master plan (Resolution 91-7) clearly shows an 80'-0" for above ground structures along the northern end of the property. The photo below is taken directly from Resolution 91-7 (attached) that was passed and approved by the City Council on 2/19/91: b. setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums {except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts *ball be as follows; . North - 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater.' South - 40' Fast - 25' meet - S' Shown below is a photo taken from PC Resolution 2007-32 which was passed on 4/24/07: Pub. Corr - Page 290 7. Setbacks for bone ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Maus leum and the Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision) and crypts shall a as follows: North: 8 '-0' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater (8 -0" for the westem-most portion of the Mausoleum shown in Area 11), South: 40'-0" East: 25'-0` West: 5'-0" It's apparent that a note was added on that date reducing the northern setback for above ground structures to 8'-0" for the Mausoleum in Area 11. This seems to directly contradict the quote by the Staff above and ones below. It's unclear if this change to the setbacks for above ground structures was knowingly approved by the planning commission. The following statement was also made by staff in the 2/27/07 staff report and subsequently to the commission: "The additional buildings requested through the revision include additions to the already approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However, they will continue to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery site, rather than alongitssp2rimeter" The proposed addition to the previously approved building in Area 11 of the original Master Plan was most certainly located along the perimeter of the property. The above statement to the PC was apparently inconsistent with the Master Plan Revision. "Thus,, the setbacks and heights of all proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established by the prior Master Plan as approved through Resolution No. 91-7 (attached)" The setbacks from Resolution 91-7, as shown above, clearly define an 80'-0" setback for above ground structures along the northern property line. The proposed addition to the Mausoleum in Area 11 required a 72' setback reduction from 80' to 8'. Other statements by staff to the PC at the 2/27/07 and 4/24/07 meetings that areas weren't clearly defined in the original Master Plan is inconsistent with the evidence shown. The Photo below shows the map of the originally approved Master plan: Pub. Corr - Page 291 _ c�• 'ratio M'rt�� [ire I '- - R' •}PTl'34 r1...1NYIK6 lRAIP r •' 1 �D' 01NlDlN° u i■ R •tom It t A7 WOK�; .. .... °' °Mtzu ►� wo' °ut°rN„ °t�•fe�°tnm 1 if �•• t -- {_..�__ i ISI The red areas clearly show where the approved above ground structures (Mausoleums) were to be located. Notice that the approved Mausoleum in the northern area (referred to as Area 11 in the new plan) is shown as being located in front (south) of the Green Hills maintenance yard and not extending west past the Visa Verde property line. This originally approved structure was to be located within a large hill and was consistent with the 80'-0" setback for above ground structures because it's placed 80' from their northern property line (the maintenance yard). The green areas of the map are clearly defined as "below ground burials" in this map. The green area to the west of that structure was approved for below ground burials and not an above ground structure. Notice that the green area doesn't extend in front of the Vista Verde property viewing area. There were no above ground structures or even below ground burials approved for the area directly in front of Vista Verde viewing area. The statement by Green Hills Architect J. Stuart Todd in the Master Plan Revision Submittal that "the proposed overall density and development of The Green Hills Memorial Park is consistent with 1991 Master Plan" doesn't seem to be consistent with adding a 25' tall building with 6870 crypts inside and 360 double depth burials spaces on top into an area that wasn't approved for above ground structures. 3 Pub. Corr - Page 292 Research into this subject also uncovered the following condition in Resolution 91-7 (attached) 4. Within 180 4ayz of final approval -p *n t*pogra)phy of the undeveloped northernportion of the site shall be restored to the grades existing on the site in 1983 in' accordance with the 1%200 scale composite Aerial Survey Inc. iw_p4;�r_ ofile in the finishedion of cer cation, the ♦> ore y .,. re view mp� s The till material removed from this area shall be relocated in accordance with Condition Nos. 40 and 41. A taaporary erosion control plan for the area shall be approved by the Building official if any grading occurs between October 15 to April 15. This condition was likely added because several then -owners from Vista Verde reported to the PC and City Council in writing that Green Hills had dumped approximately 40,000 cubic feet of dirt into the northwest corner of the property and raised the preexisting grade by approximately 5 feet (letter from Henry Jeffries attached). This condition of approval included a provision to establish "view corridors" over the area. To the best of my knowledge, this condition was never satisfied and the 40,000 cubic feet of dirt that was illegally dumped in the area was never restored to its 1983 level. This is based on conversations with current Vista Verde residents who remember the dumping and said that the area was never restored to its prior grade. I would like to now return to the issue of setback reduction for above ground structures because it's the most important topic in my opinion. It's unclear to me that any such setback reduction was ever officially approved by the PC. Further statements were made by staff to the PC that the Master Plan Revision wasn't altering setbacks that were set in the original: "The existing conditions contained in Resolution No. 91-7 (atiached) will remain in effect and have been added to this Revision for ease in implementation. With regards to existing conditions, however, the applicant is of a different opinion Pub. Corr - Page 293 regarding condition no. 2b, which states "Setbacks for above ground structures, includinq but not limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica MausoleumI and crvpts shall be as follows: North — 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road..." The applicant believes that 30 -inch garden walls are not structures, and has proposed a series of family estates with 30 -inch high decorative garden walls that would be located in the area between the northern perimeter road to the 8 - foot setback from the north property line (Area 4 of the proposed Master Plan Revision). When the City Council considered the Master Plan on appeal (excerpt Minutes of the October 16, 1990 and the February 19, 9991 meeting are attached), the applicant objected to a 40 -foot setback for structures and ground interments since it resulted in a large area of the cemetery that could not be utilized for the burials. As a result, the City Council allowed ground interments up to 8 -feet from the north and south property lines, and included condition no. 2b to ensure no above ground structures were to be located in this area. Although the applicant believes that the garden walls do not constitute a structure, Staff believes that such walls constitute a structure. According to Development Code section 17.96.2040, a structure is defined as "...anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which is located on or on top of the ground". As such Staff believes that the condition should remain and that no structures including garden walls, should continue to be prohibited within the area �Aecified in the condition." Staff makes direct reference to the decision by City Council in 1991 to not allow above ground structures within 80'-0" of the northern property line. It's interesting to me that staff concludes that this condition shouldn't be modified for 30 inch garden walls and states that the condition should remain intact. The above statement by staff seems contradictory to allowing that exact same condition to be modified to allow a 25' tall Mausoleum in Area 11 at the very same meeting without any known discussion of that action. Staff also made the following statement in their staff report and to the PC: "Further, the additional mausoleum buildings will continue to be located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the perimeter of the cemetery site." As is shown on previous pages of this document, the Mausoleum in Area 11 required a setback change from 80' to 8' and was indeed located along the perimeter of the property. The above statement improperly represented the proposed Master Plan revision to the PC. Consequently, the validity of its adoption may be called into question. How can a Master Plan revision be represented to the PC in one way and then approved and acted upon contrary to those representations? )f the Master Plan Revision in 2007 required a note to change the setbacks for above ground structures to 8'-0", when was this properly disclosed to the public and/or the PC? Pub. Corr - Page 294 I'd like to note that the above references and quotations in regards to factual statements and contradictory actions contain the bulk of my concern as to whether setback reductions were ever officially approved by the PC in 2007. It's my hope that the PC and/or City Council will consider investigating this very carefully in order to understand how and why this happened. It's unclear to me what took place here. I would not, and am not, making accusations of anyone intentionally misleading the PC here. I'm simply presenting factual statements and subsequent actions. It's my hope that the City of RPV will investigate this situation and come to their own conclusions as to whether the setback reduction for above ground structures was actually approved by the PC in 2007. If a setback reduction wasn't officially approved by the PC then I hope that appropriate actions are taken to fix the current problem and to ensure that something like this doesn't happen in the future. I'd like to also mention that concerns about the Area 11 Mausoleum construction were made by Vista Verde residents to both Green Hills and the Planning Department via certified letters prior to completion. Three groups of certified letters were sent prior to the Mausoleum being completed to which we received no response. Concerns were raised by residents in person at the city planning department as well. The public notice that was sent to Vista Verde residents in 2007 did not mention a setback change and improperly represented the previously approved Mausoleum as being southeast of the maintenance yard when the originally approved structure was directly south of the maintenance yard. Our community didn't receive any response to our complaints until then -Mayor Susan Brooks ordered an operational review of the CUP to the Planning Department. The rest of this letter is of less importance compared to the issue of the PC ever officially approving a 72' setback reduction for above ground structures. I'm including the rest of this letter for public record and knowledge. The following statements were also included in the 2/27/07 Staff Report. "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 statements made by staff to the PC in regards to obtaining a major grading permit for the project were also inconsistent with subsequent activity. The PC may call into question the validity of the grading permit based on the following statements: "The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site." The Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11was built almost completely above the existing slope (which may have been illegally raised by 5 feet in the 1980s). The following photo was Pub. Corr - Page 295 included in the Master Plan Revision submittal on page 11-F. Note that the area is incorrectly identified as Area 10 on the plans � .n .AMr�txHm Tex:. ,�,NKlIITCIYAN' LNIAl10li 11A\h W. WASTER OEVELOPWHT M1M MASTER "I AREA 10 GREEN HILLS ME"ML PARK MEMORI t TERRACE MAUSOUTA1 RAHCHOPALIb VERIAS. CPA*OHN14 11-F The bottom right picture in the above figure shows the existing grade of where the Area 11 Mausoleum currently sits. As you can see, the existing slope in front of the Vista Verde Condos is nearly flat and certainly not a hill. The hill that's located to the right of the Vista Verdes homes shown in the above bottom right photo is where the original master plan approved an above ground structure. That hill is directly in front of the Green Hills maintenance yard and the approved building in that location would have complied with the existing 80' setback for above ground structures. The picture below shows how the topography and grade looks today. Pub. Corr - Page 296 In reference to the picture above, the preexisting topography has been altered significantly contrary to the statements made in the Staff Report. The preexisting grade has been raised significantly as the highest point of the Area 11 Mausoleum is approx. 32' when measured from the existing road the ridgeline (pilaster) pursuant to RPV building height code. The following quotes are also from the staff report pertaining to grading permit criteria. "Therefore, Staff believes that the grading will not significantly adversely affect the visual relationship nor the views from neighboring Properties, and the Master Plan Revision complies with this criterion." '?his grading allows for excavations into slopes and backfill to extend the slopes to the mausoleum structures, thereby blending the structure into the natural contours of the property. Further, the preparation and subsequent grading for ground interments will retain the existing topogpphy and will not raise these areas, with the exception of Areas 5 and 6, which will be filled to raise the grade to be similar to the adjacent grade. However, these areas upon completion will retain a naturally sloping topography common to the other areas of the cemetery site. Thus, Staff believes that the Master Plan Revision has been designed to account for the necessary grading, minimizes disturbance to the natural contours of the Property, and ensures that finished contours are reasonably natural. As such, Staff believes that the MasterPlan complies with this criterion." Staff stated that the grading operations for the Master Plan Revision conformed with Section E.9 of RPV Municipal code 17.76.040 in regards to obtaining a major grading permit. Part of this section includes the following statement, "exposed upslope and downslope retaining walls cannot exceed 8'-0" and 3'-6" high, respectively!." In 2009, planning clearance was given to build a 12' high retaining wall in Area 1/Areal 1 and an associated "tractor ramp" for the Area 11 Mausoleum. This clearance included grading operations that significantly altered the existing topography of the landscape (which staff said wouldn't happen). It may also be worth noting that the tractor ramp and its location 8' from the Vista Verde property line wasn't included in the Master Plan Revision and wasn't disclosed to the public or to the planning commission. The purpose of the tractor ramp is to allow heavy machinery to travel up to the top of the Mausoleum in Area 11 and the proximity of this structure to a residential area without any buffer was, perhaps, an oversight in my opinion. The vibrations, noise, and exhaust emissions carried directly into the Vista Verde complex by the heavy machinery may not have been appropriately considered by Green Hills or Staff. The sound level created by operating a typical backhoe at 50 feet is 80dBa (this is according to the Federal Highway Transportation Authority and multiple other resources. I've also measured 80dBa+ from my balcony area with a sound measurement device). The closest condos are approx. 30' away from this ramp and the sound/vibrations/exhaust is unreasonable to residents. The vibrations created by such large equipment operating on top of a hollow structure creates vibrational resonance effects which are similar to a bass drum or speaker. The vibrations and sounds are amplified by this configuration. This issue was certainly not brought up to the planning commission prior to approval or considered in the CEQA environmental assessment. Pub. Corr - Page 297 The retaining wall of the tractor ramp, as it stands today, appears to extend 14' above adjacent grade when measured with a tape measure and confirmed by looking at approved construction plans. Approving a retaining wall in excess of 8'-0" directly violates the criteria for a major Grading Permit as shown above. I'd also like to point out at the Master Plan Revision includes 10' high retaining walls in the proposed Mausoleum in Area 11 (has not been constructed yet) which seems to be inconsistent with the above grading permit criteria of maximum retaining wall heights (Page 11-A, 11-C, and 11-D of the Master Plan Revision Submittal). Staff also stated the following in reference to grading activities and view impairment: "the grading and related mausoleum buildinq do not impair views, and the excavation does not s%gnificantly effect the current appearance of the slope from the public rights-of-way or from other residences. Lastly, the proposed grading activity will not be detrimental to the public safety or to the surrounding properties" As is shown by evidence, the slope of Area 11 was significantly changed and views were impaired substantially for Vista Verde residents. With further reference to the Master Plan Revision Submittal and grading activities, the Cut and Fill Plan of the document, page M -B (shown 2 photos below), shows a 'net cut' in the area west of the Area 11 Mausoleum. I find it hard to believe that this area experienced a 'net cut' because the grade was artificially raised approximately 12'-14' in this area (shown directly below) in order to accommodate the 'tractor ramp' for access to the roof of the Area 11 Mausoleum. 14' Pub. Corr - Page 298 As is shown in prior correspondence for the staff report, Green Hills has many single and double depth internments that are currently placed in violation of their CUP. According to Green Hills Master Plan 7/22/14 item number 6 there exists a 16'-0" setback in the northwest corner of the property between the western property line and the maintenance yard. 6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garde " urial sites and roads shall be as follows: North and South: 8'-0' (except the northwest corner betw a western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16'-0") East and West: 0'-0" If you refer to the map revised Green Hills Master Development plan below, you will see the northwest area as well as the western property line. The maintenance yard is the gray area to the right of the number 11. 10 Pub. Corr - Page 299 The photo below shows the location of dozens of double depth below ground internments (according to estimates based on the master plan revision) that are approximately 8' from the property line in the northwest corner between the western property line and the maintenance yard. 11 Pub. Corr - Page 300 The tape measure in the photo above is extended 16'-0"from the property line and the below ground internments are shown well within the required setbacks set forth in the Green Hills CUP No. 155. The photo below shows another view of the below ground internments which are in violation of the setback rule. Further confirmation that this row of double depth internments may violate their CUP is shown by looking at page 1-B of the Green Hills Approved Master Plan Amendment Submittal from 2007. 12 Pub. Corr - Page 301 J, STIURj' TT?GI> f %X: MAS TER aEVELOPNW PLA11 MASTER PIAN AREA i aewirtx n-xr. GREEN NkU MEMORIAL PAW PAMCA MAU9L\EW e�sonras RANCHO PALOS VERGES, M FO"LA 1 _ HAV N x, p uvrcw «m U. The first row of double depth below ground internments are shown as being 16'-0" from the property line. I've reviewed all of the recently approved constructions plans for this area of Green Hills and none of them show approval of below ground internments within the required 16'-0" setback. This 16' setback for below ground internments is also violated on top of the Mausoleum that was constructed in Area 11 of the Master Plan. The planning department approved construction plans which include a row of approximately 57 below ground internments within the 16'-0" setback restriction. The photo of construction below shows where those internments are located within the Mausoleum in Area 11. 13 Pub. Corr - Page 302 In the photo above, the concrete wall which is closest to the wooden structure is 8'-0" from the Vista Verde property line. The entire first row of internments (approx. 57 according to approved construction plans) were placed in violation of their conditions of approval. The possibility exists that the second row of below ground internments are in violation of condition 6 of their CUP as well but official measurement by a surveyor would have to confirm that. The height of the Mausoleum may be higher than was approved by the PC as well. According to the following excerpt from 4/24/07 minutes, Schonborn told then -commissioner Jim Knight that the height of the Mausoleum would be measured from the roadway. Commissioner Knight discussed the plans for the new mausoleum. He noted that currently the silhouette shows the ridge line below anything that will block a,view. His concem, however, was that as the grading behind was raised, a new benchmark would be established, which he felt would then cause view impairment of the harbor. He asked staff if that had been considered. Senior Planner Schonbom explained that the condition dictates that the mausoleum not impair a view, no matter what the height of the structure is. He stated that the height would be measured from the roadway, since that Is something that will remain constant. He stated that would be addressed thoroughly when staff receives an application and plans for the construction of the mausoleum. 14 Pub. Corr - Page 303 Based on approved construction plans for the Area 11 Mausoleum, the elevation of the road at the eastern most edge of the structure is 185.00' and the highest point of the grass is at 213.5' and the highest ridgeline (pilaster) is at 217.00'. In either case, the maximum height of the structure exceeds the 25'-0" height limit shown in the revised Master Plan submittal. (28.5' to the grass area or 32.0' to the ridgeline). The height of the structure may also not be in compliance with condition number 38 of their CUP (shown below). eWith the exception.the mausoleumbuilding • . . •n Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the average elevation of : finished grade ':•:atthe front of : building • the highestpointof the structure and 30 -feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highestpoint of the stricture. This shows that Green Hills is possibly in violation of their CUP based on both unapproved and approved construction activities. Again, this something the PC may consider investigating. Condition number 35 of the Green Hills Conditions of Approval, shown below, gives the City the authority to initiate revocation procedures if the applicant is in violation of any of their conditions. It appears that there may be grounds for such an action. 35. Should the applicant fail to comply with any of these conditions of approval or mitigation measures, the City may initiate revocation procedures for this permit, which shag include a public hearing. Notice of said public hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all effected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Sectbn 17.80.090. To sum up my correspondence with the PC, It appears that the PC never knowingly approved a setback change for above ground structures and the validity of that supposed approval may possibly be called into question. Inaccurate representations were made with regard to required compliance sections for obtaining a conditional use permit revision and a major grading permit. The current validity of both their CUP and Grading Permit could possibly be questioned based upon apparently inaccurate statements and/or contradictory activities. It also appears that Green Hills may be operating in violation of their CUP by violating condition 6 of their conditions of approval by placing dozens of below ground internments within a 16' setback area. The below ground internments within the setback easements in Area 1 don't appear to have been approved by the city planning department but the internments within the 16' setback easements on the rooftop of the Area 11 Mausoleum were. Thank you for reviewing my correspondence. 15 Pub. Corr - Page 304 Kindest Regards, Matthew H. Martin Attachments. Resolution 91-7 Letter from Henry Jeffries IN Pub. Corr - Page 305 RESOLUTION NO. 91-_2_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SUSTAINING IN PART THE APPEAL OF AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 155, VARIANCE NO. 262, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1442, AND ISSUING A FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 601 FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE' DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY. R• WHEREAS, Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery has requested approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Variance No. 262, Grading Permit No. 1442, and Environmental Assessment No. 601 to allow a Master Plan for the development of Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery at 27501 S. Western Avenue; and WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to -tile Development Code, the Planning Commission held public hearings on May 22, June 26, and July 24, 1990,• at which 'time all interested' parties were given the opportunity to give testimony and present evidence; and WHEREAS, on Augib t 14, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted P. C. Resolution No. 90-43 approving a portion of the master development plan, thg entire site grading and setback reductions for the Pacifica Mau�leum; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the deci on of the Planning Commission and, after nptice pursuant to the evelopment Code; the City Council held publio hearings on Septemr'18 and October 16,. 1990, and -pursuant to re -notice, reopened and conducted additional public hearings on January '15 and February 19, 1991, at which time all interested parties were given tiie'opportunity to give testimony and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the City Council does hereby declare that a Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with City and State CEQA Guidelines and that the Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the Initial Study in reaching its decision. The City Council further finds that the approval of this project will not result in a significant impact upon the environment due to the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 601, which have been incorporated into conditions of approval in Exhibit "A", attached reto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan in that the development of the site in conformance with the proposed Master Plan and related uses comply with the General Plan and zoning land use ;. desianationR_ Pub. Corr - Page 306 ;z. ► accomgmodate the intended use, subject to the conditions of approval 'ntaiged inr', hibit "A", attached hereto, Section 4: That the site is serviced by Western Avenue, the raffic capacity of which is adequate to serve the site and subject .se.withouti-suffering significant impacts to its level of service. Section -5: That the subject use will cause no significant adverse effect. -on adad,jacent property or the permitted use thereof, due to the �ond f:o ns of approval contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, which.',in-clude modification of grades and landscaping to control erosion and visual appearances, proper equipment storage, placement of "structures which minimizes view impacts, limited hours of 'corisii uction, landscaping and dust control. I ' d-' '`Section 6: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property and the use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district in other southern California cities. ' �cifically, while the existing Pacifica Mausoleum encroaches into ,.,a western property setback abutting church and public utility uses, reasonable and adequate setbacks are maintained. Additionally, below ground interments encroaching into setbacks which abut the rear yards of single family residential properties, approved and developed under the jurisdiction of L. A. County subsequent to ,the establishment of the park and major thoroughfares, are not similar to above ground structures, and reasonable setbacks from the adjoining principal uses are retained. Section 7: That such Variance is necessary for the reservation and enjoyment of a subst i. p p rty right o he applicant, V�Ich rig t is possesse by other proper y o ers under li a. -con itions in the same zoning district, since the setback for above ground structures abutting non-residential districts is more restrictive than the average setback in similar zoning districts in other southern California citias' and the expansion of the Pacifica Mausoleum will only, -fill in a corner of an already developed area and the reduction in the setback for below ground interments provides a similar and reasonable setback between adjacent uses with landscaping and screening. Section 8 That the grantin of the Variance will not be materially detrime to e pu iic we njuri to property and improvp,nents in the area in which the property is located, since the . the add• n w' t�imnpa�ctje ilI match the ''g a c e reefferin pingn the setback i{s re uir�d,--7, elow ground in erments will encroach in the set asks adjacent to residen 2a evelopment. Section 9: That the granting of suc ange will not be contrary to the objectives Ian, since the—p-Ro-lbosed uses are the uses allowed in ea d n` on x ibit "A" will a equ e y buffer Pub. Corr - Page 307 Section 10: That the grading ecessary for the primary permitted s over 110 acres in size and it is eptly sloping site with roads with rading. is balanced on site. s not excessive beyond tl use of the lot since the necessary for the use to minimal percentage grade, cemetery create a and the Sec ' 1: That the grading and construction do not adversely ffect visual relations ips wi nor neig oring it tTice-Z a gra es complement the topographic features f adjacent sites, the finished grade of the northern side of the ;ite will not exceed the grade as existing in 1983 and above ground ;tructures are to ed to minimiz ew isual impacts. ., Section 12: That the nature of the grading minimizes disturbance :o.the natural contours; finished contours are reasonably natural, rince the finished grade will not exceed a 3:1 slope and generally is such less steep and the proposed grades will be consistent with and )lend with the existing site development. Section 13: For the foregoing reasons, and based on information ►nd findings included in the staff report, minutes and evidence )r—Rented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of 3.L ho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 155, )ariance No. 262, and Grading Permit No. 1442; and adopts the Final Aegative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 601 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a cart hereof, which are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, snd general welfare in the area. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 1991. M ATTEST: /S/ JO PURCELL City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 9" 7 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City C(,..ncil at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of February, 1991. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Pub. Corr - Page 308 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 155, VARIANCE NO. 262, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1442, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. )NDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND GRADING •PERMIT CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT This approval is for the master plan of development and site grading -as generally shown on the Green Hills Memorial Park Quality Designation Plan, dated 2/19/91. Prior to submittal of building permit applications, a Master Site Plan, consistent with the approved Designation Plan, including landscaping and irrigation, shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Setbacks for below ground interment sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shall be as follows: North and South - 8' (except the northwest corner between the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be'161) East and West - 0' Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts be as follows: North - 80' or no closer than the northern perimeter whichever is greater., South - 40' East - 25' West - 5' --- Pacifica Mausoleum setbacks are as follows: West - 15' existing / 5' northwestern addition North - 40' * (k-'=- expansion northerly along the eastern ridge of the existing building shall be offset 8 feet to the west from the existing eastern edge of the building) Detailed building plans, including but not limited to building sections and elevations, detailed grading and lighting plans shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Services for approval prior fo submittal .for building permits to determine conformance with the Master Site Plan. The location and configuration of structures and roads shall substantially conform to the Master Site Plan approved by the City Council. All building and site y pl-ns shall clearly show finished grades and building ridgeline e. rations, using actual sea level elevations. Any development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision. A noticed public hearing and review and approval by the Plannino Pub. Corr - Page 309 5. A cul-de-sac turn around shall be constructed at the west end of the new road north of Inspiration Slope. This cul-de-sac may be removed when the future road loop is completed. SIGNS 6. The applicant shall submit a complete sign program for review by the Planning Commission no later than April 30, 1991. The program shall address all existing major identification signage on the entire property. Additionally, any new proposed signage shall be included in the sign program. STORAGE Outdoor storage of equipment and supplies is allowed only in the maintenance yard. Supplies shall be neatly stored and stacked so they are not a safety hazard. No storage of wood, broken fencing, landscape prunings, and other trash or debris is allowed anywhere on the site other than the stockpiling of such debris within an approximately four (4) acre site located in the southwest corner of the property or as otherwise designated by the Director of Environmental Services. Screening of this area shall in noway impair views. 8. The location of any temporary construction storage or trailers must be approved by the Director of Environmental Services. Any temporary construction storage or trailer shall be removed from the site within 30 days after building final of the associated structure. The exterior of any construction storne or trailer shall be maintained clean and painted at all times. ' I� HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION 9, a. Construction and grading activities including but not limited to equipment warm up, geologic investigations, interment excavation for placement of multiple vaults and installation or removal of large landscape materials shall be limited to daytime working hours (7:00 a.m, to 3:30 p.m.) on weekdays only. b. Excavation for removal and replacement of vault tops for funeral service preparation, individual placement of vaults for funeral services and operation of landscape maintenance equipment shall be allowed in any area of the park 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Sunday. anA Pub. Corr - Page 310 C. No construction activities at all shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. within 120 feet of any property line abutting a residential district. All equipment shall be equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels. %DING AND DRAINAGE A master grading plan (1:100 scale) for the entire site shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Services within 90 days of approval of this application for review and approval in conformance with the approved Master Site Plan. A note -shall be placed on the approved grading plan that requires the Director of Environmental Services approval of rough grading prior to final clearance. The Director (or a designated staff member) shall inspect the graded site for accuracy of elevations and created slope gradients. The Director may require certification of any rading related matter. . Grading for foundations shall conform to Chapter 29, "Excavations, Foundations, and Retaining Walls", and Chapter 70, "Excavation and Grading" or the appropriate current chapters of the Uniform Building Code. A surface drainage swale or some other type of drainage system approved by the Director of Public Works shall be designated or constructed along the northern property line of the subject property so as to accommodate all surface runoff away from the property line and drainage provisions shall provide for erosion control. If a concrete swale is designed it shall be colored in earth tones. 3. The existing unsupported vertical cut on the north side of the maintenance yard parking lot shall be reviewed by. the applicant's geotechnical and engineering consultants. Their recommendations must be submitted to the Building and Safety Divition within 30 days of the final approval of this application. All requirements of the Building Official and City Geotechnical consultant must be complied with within 90 days of their final approval. 4. within 180 days of final approval of this application, the topography of the undeveloped northern portion of the site shall be restored to the grades existing on the site in 1983 in ccordance with the 1:200 scale composite maps flown by American Aerial Survey Inc. i xc are on file in the Department of Envi al Service . ion of finished gra es a submitted to the Director of Env 1 S rvices or review an raval. After cer i i.cation, the hector of Env nmental Services shall establish vie�rr_idors over this area which shall not allow future view a airment. Pub. Corr - Page 311 dam+. The fill material removed from this area shall be relocated in accordance with Condition Nos. 40 and 41. A_temporary'erosion control plan for the area shall be approved by the Building ' Official if any grading occurs between October 15 to April 15, 15. Buildings or grading proposed on slopes of 35% or greater shall require review and approval of a variance prior to final approval. LANDSCAPING 16. All existing and proposed landscaping in areas identified as view corridors (see Condition No. 14), except as identified in Condition No. 21,. shall be maintained so that it does not significantly impair any near or far view as defined by Section 17.02.04 A-15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 17. All existing and future landscaping shall be properly maintained in a healthy, trimmed, and tidy manner at all times. 1,. The six large eucalyptus trees on the west side of the Administration Building parking lot shall not be removed unless required by the holder of the easement in which the trees are located or acceptable evidence is provided to the Director of Environmental Services from a certified arborist supporting removal. 19. When Inspiration Slope is developed to the point where the majority of the landscaping is completed, the existing hedge which separates Crescent Lawn and Vista Del Pointe from this area shall be removed. 20. No later than 60 days after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall begin restoration of the gradL-along the northerly property line (see Condition No. 14), and shall maiAtain natural vegetation in all undeveloped areas. When such vegetation requires removal or cutting as required by either the L. A. County Fire Department or other governmental agencies, such vegetation shall be mowed or scraped so that it is reduced in height and all dust is controlled. 21. The existing hedge located on the applicant's property on the south property line adjacent to the rear yards on Avenida Feliciano shall be pruned and maintained so it does not exceed the height of the chain. -link fence, which is 8 feet tall, and existing and future screen planting in the 8 -foot setback along the northern property line shall be maintained no higher than the fence height. SEWERS AND WATER 22. Any new facilities must tie into local main line sewers. The usage q;tp may be limited by the size and type of sewAge syst m Pub. Corr - Page 312 r 3. The site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities as determined by the L. A. County Fire Department. All L. A. County Fire Department requirements shall be satisfied. ASEMENTS' 4. Any grading, construction, placement of structures, including but not limited to walls, fences, and interments on any easement, requires prior written permission -from the easement holder. 5. The owner shall submit a title report within 90 days of final approval of this application. All easements shown on the title report shall be clearly delineated on the master grading plan. Exact location and width of easements as well as the name of the easement holder shall be shown on the plan. 'ENCING '.6. The existing chain link and wrought iron fence which surrounds the perimeter of the`site on the applicant's property shall be maintained in its existing condition except the barbed wire on top of the fence shall be removed within 180 days of final approval of this application. TOURS OF OPERATION 27. Hours* of public operation for the flower shop are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., every day. The Administration Building public hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. every day. The Chapel may be open to the public from 7:00 a ovT to 9:00 p.m. every day. The cemetery grounds may be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. every day. ,V. GENERAL 28. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various Municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property. 29. The developed and undeveloped portions of the site including but not limited to buildings, grounds, and roads shall be maintained in a neat, clean, and well maintained manner at all times. 30. The applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of this application, a certified copy of the July 20, 1948, "Certification and Declaration of Dedication of Cemetery Property" recorded in Book 27781, pages 265 and 266 of the Official Records, ..F T —. ahejsxl axz . ; fnrnia . Pub. Corr - Page 313 1.. Should the applicant fail to comply with any of these conditions of approval the City may initiate revocation procedures for this permit. 32. Within thirty (30) days the applicant shall submit, in writing, a statement that he has read, understands, and consents to all conditions of approval. MITIGATION MEASURES - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BUILDING HEIGHT 33. Buildings designated on the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall conform to the submitted plans on file in the Department of Environmental Services. Maximum heights (actual sea level elevations) including forms, framing, and ridge heights shall be certified at the applicant's expense. 34. The family mausoleum on Inspiration Slope shall be located as shown on the Master Site Plan so as to not impair views from Peninsula Verde. The exact location of this structure shall be approved by' the Director of Environmental Services. 35. Future buildings designated on the Land Use Plan shall not exceed 20 feet in height as measured from the average elevation of finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 25 feet when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to highest point of the structure. 36. The Pacifica Mausoleum northern expansion shall match the height of the existing structure, be offset a minimum of --T feet along the existing eastern building line and respect a minimum 7 -foot setback along the western property line. LIGHTING 37. A lighting plan for all new exterior lights shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Services for approval and there shall be no direct off-site illumination from any light source. Lighting must be.shielded, ground oriented with the minimum wattage, height, and quantity necessary to provided safety. Lighting shall not be placed on the side of buildings adjacent to residences. Building lights shall be placed below the building eave line, and any lights on a pole or standard shall not exceed 10 feet in overall height. GRADING AND DRAINAGE wi t-hin 100 feUof. tb*drMb 314 ,from the Building and Safety Division for all grading operations, within 100 feet of a residential area excluding radinq for interment excavation only. Drainage and erosion control measures shall be included as conditions for all grading permits. Graded areas which will be used to support structures shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical Consultant. Building and Safety permits must be issued for -all structures except small, one story, "Storage" structures less than 120 square feet in area and less than 12 feet in height with no plumbing or electricity, such as family mausoleums. Runoff from roofs, hardscape, and other site drainage shall be controlled and carried to the existing storm drain or other approved drainage facilities. A permit from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works will be required for any new connections to the existing storm drain. During,all grading, construction, landscaping, interment excavation, geologic investigations and similar activities, dust shall be controlled by frequent watering and/or screening of the ,ea as necessary. Airborne dust shall -not be allowed to leave _,ie property in visible quantities. If any import or export of material is required, trucks used to transport the materials shall be covered to prevent spillage and street sweepings may be required as determined to be necessary by the Director of Public Works. Temporary storage (maximum 24 hours) of interment excavation soil is allowed on the northerly side of the property so long a,s such interment excavations are covered with a green dust cover. The northern portion of the property shall be restored to the 1983 grades and any building excavations shall be stored in the area south of Lake View Drive and the Garden of Reflection. All storage of dirt shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet fxam the southern and western property lines, except for overnight storage of interment soil. Finished grades shall not exceed 3:1 slope. NDSCAPING On 4:1 or greater slopes, erosion controlling plant material and other erosion control methods such as jute netting shall be required. -nought tolerant, low maintenance and erosion controlling .ndscaping is required in the western setback adjacent to the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion. Landscaping and irrigation in all setbacks require review and approval by the Director of Environmental Services. Irrigation systems shall be designed to provide adequate coverage with no overspray, runoff, or excessive quantities of water output. Use of drip irrigation systems are ..L----..._ ....�...� , r , _....._A-_� ..__ , ....F F�u'b: torr'"-�i�it 315 a..M. ,or another similar variety as approved by the Director of Public ;arks and Director of Environmental Services shall be used in all new lawn areas. iEMI CALS I 4The,applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of this application, copies of permits from the South Coast Air �-,:---Quality Management District and L. A. County Fire Prevention Bureau for storage of fuel, and permits from the L. A. County Fire Department, Hazardous Maintenance Division Section and Fire Prevention Bureau for the chemicals stored in the embalming rooms in the Administration Building. Permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the crematory must also be submitted. Current copies of these permits must be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 46. A consultation audit through Cal OSHA including the establishment of a training program on the proper handling and safety requirements of equipment and material for mortuary and crematory employees is required. Training programs for new employees shall be conducted on a regular basis in accordance with Cal OSHA recommendations. Verification of these activities is required to be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. GEOLOGY 47. Prior -to issuance of building permit's, the developer shall obtain clearance for construction from the City Geologist and shall submit a geology and/or soils report of the expansive properties of soils on all building sites. Such soils are defined by -Building Code Section 2904 (b) or the appropriate current section. PERMITS �a 48. The applicant shall provide, within 60 days of final approval of this application, copies of permits or licenses from the State Cemetery and Funeral Board. Current copies of these permits must be filed with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes at all times. MITIGATION MONITORING 4 The responsibility for monitoring these mitigation measures shall be jointly vested with the Department of Environmental Services and the Department of Public Works. Periodic reports required of the applicant shall be provided to the Department of Environmental Services and they will be maintained in the Project Address File. Pub. Corr - Page 316 May 22, 1990 TO: Members of : Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California From: Henry C. Jeffries M is lob 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North #101 Lomita, California MAY 22 1990 } EPIRONMENTAt SERVICES I an one of'40 owners in a 25 -unit condominium known as Vista Verde, which is located just across the northern city limits of Rancho Palos Verdes, within the city of Lomita. This condominium, unlike most, is 100% owner -occupied. On the western edge of our property is Rolling Hills Covenant Church in the city of Rolling Hills Estates. Across our back yard fence sits Green Hills Memorial Park. Tonight, this Planning Commission is meeting to consider the environmental assessment of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance Plan being proposed by the Green Hills Memorial Park. This hearing is'to review two aspects of the plan which are of vital interest to all of the homeowners in Vista Verde. (1) The Green Hills "Master.Plan" calls for the construction of a Chapel and a parking lot on the northwest corner of their property. This corner is immediately adjacent to the common property area of Vista Verde. (2) Additionally, Green Hills is requesting administrative relief from Rancho Palos Verdes' mandatory 40 -foot setback zoning. This zone completely encircles the Park. This 40 -foot "buffer" zone prevents the Memorial Park from utilizing this area for any construction whatsoever. Pub. Corr - Page 317 p : 2 of 5 To: City Council, ,,omita,' California From: Henry C. Jeffries The President/Chief Executive Officer, a Vice -President, and a consuitant?employed by Green Hills recently visited our condo- minium and met with many of the owners to discuss various elements of their plans and the pending hearings. We were informed that the "Master Plan" is a 100 -year plan which includes the construction of a chapel and a parking area to support the chapel in "Phase 4", defined as occurring in approximately 70 to 80 years, inferring that the proposed site will lay dormant un- til then. In fact, though, the area is not dormant. A recently constructed addition to an existing mausoleum structure on the Park's western boundary has generated excess dirt which has been dumped into the subject corner area. The dirt has been graded by scrapers into a fairly level area. Additional dirt from intern- ment throughout other areas of the park has regularly been placed into this same area over the last year or so. When asked by us about this activity, the President of Green Hills, Ms.*Arlene Gleich, stated that the building contractor had placed the con- struction residue in this area "unnoticed" by the Green Hills staff and that,.in order to trim costs, Green Hills, management was not going to pursue holding the contractor to removing the dirt. Pub. Corr - Page 318 r _ge 3 of 5 To; City Council, Lomita, California From: Henry C. Jeffries Let me at,,this point in time give you some -idea of how much dirt was moved "unnoticed" - the area is approximately 80 feet in width and over 100 feet in length and the level has been raised approximately 5 feet - that's 5 x 80 x 100 = 40,000 cu ft or almost 1500 cubic yards of material that's been moved into this "dormant" area. Approximately half of this dormant area is included within the 40 -foot setback area. Granted, they didn't build anything or bury anybody in that area, but they surely didn►t respect any "buf-fer" zone. By the way, all of the movement of material that has been observed over the last year and a half has been done without any dust -control methods being employed, probably in violation of some city, county, state, or federal ordinances or regulations. It also seems to be a rather unusual coincidence that with the "unnoticed" placement of 1500 cubic yards of dirt, the northwest corner of the Park now sits at exactly the same level as the floor of the mausoleum. With the potential for relief from the 40 -foot setback zoning, it is the belief on the part of many of the owners of our condominium that Green Hills, rather than wait 70 years to construct a chapel, in fact plans to expand the size of the present mausoleum by extending the present structure into this freed -up area. This means that a back wall of the expanded mausoleum could be erected immediately adjacent to our property line. Should this structure be located next to our common property line, there will be two impacts on Vista Verde. The west end of our building will be surrounded on three sides, instead of two, thereby reducing air circulation. However, of even more significance is that the currently unrestricted view from Vista Verde to the Los Pub. Corr - Page 319 p. : 4 of 5 To: City Council, Lomita, California From: Henry C. Jeffries in the meantime, if the mausoleum is not to be constructed im- mediately, internments could proceed within the freed -up buffer zone. I am a veteran and have attended a number of graveside services for other veterans. A rifle salute is a traditional method of showing respect for a fallen comrade that goes back hundreds of years. A rifle salute and a bugle being played 25 feet from my bedroom window is not what I agreed to when I purchased my home in Vista Verde 10 years ago. The alternative, if we believe in the published plan of Green Hills, poses a similar impact'on our view - the construction of a chapel of some as -yet undefined size and shape and a parking lot to accomodate some unknown number of cars. we all knew when we purchased and moved into Vista Verde that we would be serenaded on Sunday mornings by the bells of the church next door bnd the noise attendant to the slamming of doors and starting of motors of two hundred cars from the west end of our property. With the possibility of a chapel to be built on our south side, we could get the noise'of bells and parking lots from a second side, and at unpredictable times. I would add that in Green Hills' present configuration, the closest a car door slamming to any bedroom window in Vista Verde is about 100 feet. The car would be parked at a random spot on a road, not within the confines of a to -be -developed designated parking area. Pub. Corr - Page 320 le 5 of 5 To: City Council, Lomita, California From: Henry C. Jeffries To anyone even remotely involved with real estate, as either a purchaser.or seller, it is axiomatic that the most important component of value of a property is location. In Vista Verdes' ten years of existence, an unobstructed view of the harbor and ocean has been a major component in its value. To replace this view of water with a view of a white stucco wall or a chapel will reduce the proper value for each of the units affected by a significant amount - $30000, $50000, we won't know until one of the units goes on the market. By then of ocurse it's too late. This hearing tonight centers.around the possible impact that approval of the Master Plan and/or administrative relief from the 40 -foot setback may create. we of Vista Verde are very concerned about the potential impact upon the value of our property that a blockage of our ocean view ,_the addition- of noise sources, as well as the. disruption in air circulation that could occur if ANY above -ground structures are built in close proximity to our homes. Therefore, we are opposed to the "Master Plan" and its chapel/parking lot and even more emphatically are opposed to the granting of administrative relief from the current 40 -foot setback requirement. I thank you for allowing me to speak before this Commission tonight Pub. Corr - Page 321 Eduardo Scl-ionborn From: Ray Frew <RFrew(4i)ghmp.con�» Sent: Monclay, August 04, 2014 8:59 PM To: Eduardo Sc aAwn Subject: Fin & Keep Fighting IIi fiduru-clo. I'erhaps �rou ShOUId share this �y ith Ow COannissioners. I don't know if this is soma ck.mn spamming, car if it is soincone s� mpathetic to the Vista Verde pcgde and foot my em,.7il in the distribution list I-)\ aeciderIt� Ru-, Sent hTm my Whone Begin 11onvarded message: From: <richarciis'�r.al�oo,conr Dab: August 4, 20 at 8:04:27 I'M MD"I It: Wisltoac(i�unz� rimer t�rn�ril.cortl%, <c msc 1WchdrhUUn;iiI con,,>, <m cteor 1'q t n1�ri1_cu71x%- <nnartin'�r�tatified(roc Q I's .cOin>. ,w(c lZrt���.cottt> Subject: Keep Fighting Hello everyone, Don't give up. Consider private i_tivestioator to find evidence of kickbacks to Pyr Conlin issioners Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Gerstner, Ktlight. Play MUSic cliuillg services such as "Devil went down to Georgia", "Highway to hell", "Hells Bells" "Sympathy for the devil", "Running with the devil", No +-r'_ies werc- 11ciniif-d cI1r3tmg the sendng of `his rriessa,,, 1i(}l E Jl'.i�Js- ,ll3rliCx�C1`L numMer of l-'1 ch- 'f�; iat.l'l s vet-ely Page 137 Pub. Corr - Page 322 A 4. sl (NI'l".1�NAIIONALCEME'l-L,'RY,( I'FNIAHI)N, AND F i WERAL ASSOCIATION August 4,2014 Sew Via Eiriail: I loylorahlc Plaruling Coll linissi ollers cto Fdttark.lo Schotiborn Scri'm Plamier, AI(I'P City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Departmew 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: In the Matter of Green Hills Memorial Park Dear Mr. Schonborn: 107 Drik , C VA 20164 ?03391,8400 'rail Ciw [,800 045 7700 1 ie;cfjxoll) The International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association (ICCFA) appreciates this Opportunity to submit these comments in conjunction with the upcoming hearing of August 12, 2014, We respectfully request that this letter be made part of the hearing record, The ICCFA was founded in 1887 and is the only funeral services trade association in the death care industry that represents all segments of the profession including funeral homes, cemeteries __ nonprofit, for profit, religious and municipal — crematories, monument builders, and related professionals such as attorneys, architects, engineers, and certified public accountants, The ICCFA currently has over 8900 members, representing over 15,000 employees serving hundreds of thousands of families each year. The businesses represented by the ICCFA range from small "mom and pop" entities to large publicly -traded corporations. It is well-settled that cemeteries are legally dedicated areas specializing in the interment and entombment of human remains. The obligation of cemetery to maintain its grounds, grave sites, and infrastructure is ongoing and has no "expiration date." Due to the permanence ofeemetery operations, acreage dedicated for cemetery use is subject to governinental regulation, especially in the areas of zoning and special use permits. Burial ceremonies at cemeteries typically take place seven days a week, and often with little advance notice, i.e,, the requirement in Judaism for burial within twenty-four hours of death, The ICCFA is seriously concerned with procedural issues arising in the Green Hills Memorial Park (GHMP) Planning Commission review, and the larger and more far-reaching implications this matter may have elsewhere. We understand that GHMP submitted plans to the Commission detailing its proposed use of a new mausoleum, Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, and that extensive hearings and opportunities for public comments were provided over a period of several weeks. At the conclusion of this review period, the Commission formally granted GHN/IP permission to construct the proposed mausoleum and to proceed with its use according to the plans that were subrnitted. W1,10 i I�G I ;EMB1601 Pub. Corr - Page 323 \/Vllcil �1- 11�11�,+[-);,)!-,, W theidkl�-,k,llt vi` 0h1JC(:tCt-1 it) S1.11.11 all CXICflt OU.1[ tl)t,: Pk.Iolllig ('0111MIS'SIMI dec7d;1"d t,i) wcollsider the approv;Il It hi (l bko\ved. While "ve hope i1!) aKTOITII-nodllioli betl,�een (0 -IMP Arid Vista Verde Call be nstlbhshed. (lie fCCIFA Is deeplN, trot.thled by the; prospCc! f'l fl)(Commission reversirl", or Illodifyinu, Its approval at this, point III time. 1)QlWvC that SUCI-I action Lvottkl ncl��,,.ile tyle review procedtires and the due process by vvillch .Ire Considered, approved or denied_, a.nd the rellam,,c pla(,c(l tipon sticli "Idlolis by b(tsl I A ccnioui i.-; iio differew trona an) other hosiocs's that applies fol 'Ind rc(.eiv(,s approval frond a local planning commission or Zoning board. Givell the vast expenses ol,construction, it \Votlld he tbolhai'dy lo commence construction in the absence ot'governmental approval, Likewise, once approval has been granted, the business should have the right to rely on the approval granted to move forward with its project and ",ith the expenditure of significant. funds. 'rhe W(TA believes that a danocrous precedent may be set whereby the Planning Commission after observing due process and granting approval, then seeks to reverse itself or significantly modify its approval after the applicant has relied on its approval and completed the project. ject. This after -the -tact reconsideration can have only ruinous consequences for businesses, Undermine future investment and construction projects, and make a mockery of the approval process. For these reasons, we urge the Planning Commission to reaffirm its approval while encouraging the parties to niake what accommodations can reasonably be agreed upon, Thank you, Respectfully N4. ["ells Execulivc, Director and General Counsel International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association 107 (-'arpenlet-Drive, Suite 100 Sterling. Virginia 20164 1-800-645-7700 Email: rfclls0)iccta,corn AZOMM Pub. Corr - Page 324 In Service to America �' Vietnam Veterans of America, DIVED SOUTH BAY CHAPTER 53 AUG 4 2014 August 2, 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Honorable Planning Commissioners c/o Eduardo Schonborn City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Planning Commission: The RPV Planning Commission is considering whether to impose a moratorium on burial services at Green Hills Memorial Park and/or whether to impose conditions on Green Hills Memorial Park's ability to conduct such services. The issue involved is the efforts of Green Hills Memorial Park to preserve the dignity and sanctity of burial services, including those of military veterans and police officers, without improper interference by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and disruption by its neighbors in Lomita. The Vietnam Veterans of America South Bay Chapter 53 wishes to express its support for the efforts of the Green Hills Memorial Park as a generous and cooperative neighbor to the communities it serves and ask that a moratorium would not be imposed. It is our hope that concerned residents can understand the wishes of the families who desire their loved ones be buried with the proper respect, honor and ritual traditions that were earned by their dedicated military or police service. Likewise, we believe every effort is made to respect the privacy and sanctity the residents desire at their residences. The Vietnam Veterans of America South Bay Chapter 53 hopes that the Planning Commission will reach a decision that is as beneficial to all involved parties but that in no way infringes upon full military honors, as defined by the United States Congress, being bestowed upon deceased Veterans or active duty personnel killed in the line of duty while in service to their Country. Sincerely, �— Je ry 2al:,President Vietnam Veterans of America South Bay Chapter 53 4733 TORRANCE BLVD #553 TORRANCE CA 90503 (310) 540-8820 Page 138 Pub. Corr - Page 325 18907 Wilton Place Torrance, CA 90504 310-291-3774 July 18, 2014 J�E�f`V'D Mr. Ray Frew Green Hills Memorial Park 27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall Attn.: Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Mr. Eduardo Schonborn (eduardos(i rpv.com) In Re: Three Volley Salutes at Veteran's Funerals Dear Mr. Frew, Mr. Schonborn and RPV Staff, I was recently informed that some neighbors of Green Hills are trying to have a moratorium imposed to prevent the traditional three volley rifle salutes at military and veteran's funerals. My understanding is that these folks are also requesting a moratorium on. Green Hills selling Veterans gravesites near their homes if the three volley tribute will be performed. As both a Rabbi who officiates regularly at Green Hills, and an attorney specializing in federal law, I find this objection to be both morally repugnant and in violation of federal constitutional law. I will set forth the basis for these assertions below and would request that this document be incorporated into the record of this dispute. I am. always available to discuss this issue by calling the number below. 1 Page 142 Pub. Corr - Page 326 OUT COLUltry has a long tradition to recognize the needs of Gold Star families, who have lost a loved one to war. The protection of military funerals for service members killed in action is of vital importance, both historically and constitutionally. This position has been expressed since the Peloponnesian wars, is codified in Federal Regulations, and has been supported by the United States Supreme Court. Similarly, giving military honors to honorably discharged or retired veterans is a constitutionally protected activity. The United States Supreme Court ruled three years ago in Snyder v. Phelps (562 US 2011.) that military family members are entitled to carry on military burial traditions uninterrupted. In that case Marine Corps Lance Corporal Snyder was killed in action. The Westboro Baptist Church, a hateful organization run by the late Fred Phelps and his family, picketed his funeral. While the Court ruled that the Phelp's family's hateful speech was protected, that ruling was based on the fact that the picketers were 1000' away from the funeral, quietly holding signs and not disturbing the service itself which would have been prohibited. The right and responsibility to bury those killed in combat has been engrained in civilizations since the beginning of recorded history. Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, provided future generations an indelible accounting of the Athenian custom of staging elaborate funerals for fallen soldiers during the Peloponnesian War (344-404 B.C.). These funerals served as a testament to the character of Athenian democracy as described by Pericles, the Athenian general, during his famous funeral oration. And when this power of the city shall seem great to you, consider then that the same was purchased by valiant men, and by men. that knew their duty, and by men that were 2 Page 143 Pub. Corr - Page 327 sensible o_f dishonour when they were in t ,fight, ai-0 by such inen as, though they failed of their attempt, yet would not be wanting to the city with their virtue but made unto it a most honourable contributiort. For having everyone given his body to the cornmomoealth, they receive ve iri place thereof on remarkable sepulchre not whereirt they are buried so much as wherein. their glory is laid up upon all occasions both of speech and action to be remembered forever. Thucydides, (Richard Crawley trans., Modern Library 1951) (411 B.C.E.). Today, the military provides specialized funerals for its fallen active duty service members and veterans. These unique funerals serve many purposes. The obvious goal is to honor the fallen Service member. To do this appropriately, Congress and the Department of Defense ("DoD") have created special rules and procedures for military funerals, making them unique in both custom and symbolism. While these rules were recently codified in legislation and DoD policies, they are the result of long-standing traditions rooted in both United States and international custom. Adhering to these traditions and guidelines creates the necessary uniformity in. military funerals, performed either on Government property or in a public space, vital to ensuring a proper burial for the fallen service member. (See for example Department of Defense Instruction 1300.15 (Oct. 22, 2007); Armed Forces - Funeral Honors Functions at Funerals for Veterans, 10 U.S.C. § 1491 (2009). More importantly, "[rjendering military funeral honors reflects the high regard and respect accorded to Military Service and demonstrates military professionalism 3 Page 144 Pub. Corr - Page 328 to the Nation and the world.." Military honors, as used today, were first recognized by Congress in. the National Defense Act: of 2000. However, the formal elements of an honors detail date back to the 18th century in the United States, and earlier in Europe. A funeral honors detail performs many important functions at a service member's furneral, some required by statute, others by tradition. Section 1491_ requires, at a. minimum, folding of the National flag, the presentation of the flag to the next of kin, and the playing of "Taps." To properly perform these tasks, strict procedure must be followed. For example, "when the flag is used to cover a casket, it should be so placed that the union is at the head. and over the left shoulder. The flag should not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground." When presented to the next of kin, the issuing marine states: "On behalf of the President of the United States, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and a grateful nation, please accept this flag as a symbol of our appreciation for your loved one's service to Country and Corps." Additionally, "Taps," unique to the United States military, may only be performed by an official military bugler, or if none is available, through a recording with adequate sound amplification. The volume is critical to the Honors being performed. To supplement Section 1491, the military follows time-honored European traditions dating back to the 18th century. The three -rifle volley, performed over the casket of the fallen, has the most striking beginnings. Historically, gun salutes were a sign of respect and trust. Viewed today "as a great honor," the rifle volley sterns from the European dynastic wars, commonly referred to as the French and Indian Wars, where both sides would cease fighting to clear the battlefield of the dead. A three -rifle volley was 4 Page 145 Pub. Corr - Page 329 then used to signal that the field was cleared and fighting could resume. It is apparent, even amidst battle, that the fallen were afforded the utmost dignity and respect. Today, the three -rifle volley is performed by seven service members each firing in unison, (see UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, CELEBRATING AMERICA'S FREEDOMS —GUN SALUTES 1, http: / lwwwl.va. gov/opa/publications/celebrate/gunsalute.pdf) Despite customs and statutes, the United States has always provided the -family of the fallen service member control over how the funeral is performed. This recognition and respect for the family is a reflection of the Government's strong interest in honoring both the fallen and their families. Furthermore, traditions such as the three rifle volley, the playing of "Taps," and the use of active military personnel as pallbearers, brings order, discipline, and meaning to the grieving family in a time of despair. All of these customs are to help the grieving family through the loss of their loved one. They are an integral part of our burial customs. Anyone who lives next to a cemetery must expect to hear military honors. Their very right to object to the noise was protected by these veterans, for some at the cost of their lives and limbs. I would suggest that if the noise is disturbing, it is good to be disturbed in this way. If it forces a moment to remember the sacrifices of others for our freedom, let us be uncomfortable. How many of these veterans lived with gunshots and explosions being directed at them to do them harm for protecting our national interests? I knew a veteran of the Vietnam War who was troubled for decades because his buddy stepped on a land mine and his friend's shredded bones tore through this man's body as 5 Page 146 Pub. Corr - Page 330 shrapnel. The physical wounds eventually healed, but the horror of that moment was with him for life. This past decade we are seeing the bulk of the Greatest Generation passing away. Are we really going to tell the family members of a WW2 veteran that we cant give the deceased a three volley salute because it will bother the neighbors? How bothered was the veteran by losing four years of their youth to be plunged into hell on the beaches at Normandic, the frozen soil of the Battle of the Bulge, and on the sands at Iwo Jima and Saipan? Furthermore these veterans have an absolute right to be buried appropriately where they choose to purchase a plot. Please tell me what the difference is between refusing to sell a plot to a veteran because it may disturb the neighbors and refusing to sell property to Blacks, Latinos, Catholics and Jews because it would disturb the neighbors? Our veteran s deserve to be a protected class, that have eorn.ed that right. .As a Rabbi I know that incorporating these volleys into our services is also a religious obligation to bury the dead. with all of the dignity and honor we can give them. Do the right thing, the moral thing that these men and women deserve. Let them have their military funeral honors without interruption. Yours truly, Rabbi Gary M. Spero, J.D. 310-291-3774 I AM Pub. Corr - Page 331 Subject: FW: Green Hills Memorial Park From: Joel Rojas Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:05 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Memorial Park Late correspondence From: Lori Brownmarlto:lbisl.roadrunner mal.com .. a_ _. � i_....__....__.j Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:13 PM To: Plan ningCommission Cc: Debbie Landes; Barbara (Hughes) & John Astbury; Lane Mayhew; Mike McLachlan; Vi/VHOA mail.com Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park (Sent via e-mail) May 12, 2014 Planning Commissioners City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Planning Commissioners, Bill James and John Cruikshank: First, congratulations on your recent appointments as Planning Commissioners. Your genuine interest in visiting the Vista Verde Condos is sincerely appreciated. The severe impact of Green Hills' Pacfic Terrace Mausoleum (previously referred to as Memorial Terrace by Green Hills) on the 25 home owners is devastating. The sheer gigianteness of the mausoleum overshadowing the pool, jacuzzi, and barbecue area has rendered the area almost useless. The Pacific Terrace Mausoleum has directly resulted in a steep loss of real estate values to our homes due to the loss of harbor views, loss of privacy, and disrupting loud noise from machinery, funeral processions and visitors. Visitors come 7 days a week and especially on weekends and holidays. Any further development or expansion of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum will further severly impact each homeowner. Again, thank you for your patience, time and interest. Respectfully, Vista Verde Homeowner's Pub. Corr - Page 332 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. North Lomita, CA 90717 -Debbie Landes, Board Member -Barbara Hughes -Astbury, #108 -Lane Mayhew, # 109 -Lori Brown, Special Interest Group Pub. Corr - Page 333 Subject: FW: Green Hills Memorial Park From: Greg Pfost Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:01 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Memorial Park fyi Sincerely Gregory Pf St, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes :30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, Californio 0275 (.:310) 544-5228; c�regp a rpv.corr) From: Lori Brown [mai Ito: Ibis Iroad run ner mail.comj Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 7:58 AM To: PlanningCommission Cc: VVVHQA mail.com; Barbara (Hughes) & John Astbury; Julie Reynolds; Nadejda Georgieva; Lane Mayhew; Johnny Shadiid; Mike McLachlan Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park (Sent via e-mail) May 12, 2014 Bob Nelson Planning Commissioner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Bob Nelson: Thank you so much for your interest and taking time out of your busy schedule on Saturday, May 10, to visit the Vista Verde Condominium Homes. As you were able to witness, the impact of Green Hills' Pacific Terrace Mausoleum on the twenty five Vista Verde Condominium Home Owner's is severely devastating. As we stated earlier, the majority of the Vista Verde Condominiums are "original home owners." We bought our homes for the harbor view, quietness, and privacy. This has all been wrongfully interrupted by Green Hill's Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. This has directly impacted the significant loss of real estate value of our homes. Pub. Corr - Page 334 Again, thank you on behalf of the five Vista Verde home owner's units you visited: Barbara Hughes -Astbury (#108), Julie Reynolds (#106), Nadia Georgieva (#207), Lane Mayhew (#109) and, Johnny Shadid (#110). We are appreciative of your time and interest. Respectfully, Lori Brown, #205 Special Interest Group Vista Verde Condominiums 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North Lomita, CA 90717 (310)995-1787 Pub. Corr - Page 335 Subject: Correspondence re 5-13-14 Planning Commission Agenda: Green Hills Annual Review Attachments: Planning Commission -01 Green Hills Annual Review 5-12-14.pdf From: Daniel Freedman [mailto:Daniel.Freedman@GreshamSavage.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 7:40 PM To: PlanningCommission Cc: Eduardo Schonborn; Joel Rojas Subject: Correspondence re 5-13-14 Planning Commission Agenda: Green Hills Annual Review Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners, In preparation for tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting, please see the attached correspondence from Ellen Berkowitz regarding Green Hills' continued annual review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniel Daniel .Freedmaia Gresharrf Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC; 333 South Fiope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Office: (213) 213-7240 Fax. (213) 213-7391 ( Cell: (310) 773-1091 Daniel.Freedman@GreshamSavage.com www Gr e sham.Sa..v.a.g_e_._c o.m _,_... 1, t-rte€f ££ b3Ytr£3 orfi to 4i l ta�xrsttr,£r t;caiics s. i he, rifoirtsat€on cont;fined in this em ari tnd any of aich nests inray 4» cf,)nfidP-Wial of ,>rtb et;i to Vit <if,e r "Y,lit?nf: l}=iti,€ 1 age or alto€ey -,mores ,xtxit,'t docf lr w 'l you afe rrof the mt rrf d rs�c,ipi rat of this t.u: rrrsiriif;at"m you may riot use, disclose, pint, t;Cahy or;3,..y{,��.rtrf : in £a. if Vora have ?frs in errof, fila,;,,, -,so notif, the sr:*i rdf�f and desk y all r,,apies rArsrat�:- 2, t R a Ci rc u 1sr, 230 Notics . iii a. £;n,d;a°ice With Cl fculaf 230 :al =he: Iiite� ffal St ventre. S; ,rv,ce, ave, it °Tarin yai: thar arry sax advira; comaatneo iti a; "',, e,,•said, rc r d ng fany attach nientg not €raoi e;d or wrfitei1 to be used, aiid cani,G£ ha, ..s<d, by yov or at V nther- red pier t O "11le 1,Uroose, of( a) ing �JE3r1,._ti€�,.. th<a r t<ay r3o, ±rrag;°:>sed hjtthe , or (h: st.1sp{ars f {a; f,rs,in£,ti€; . £7f recon'rworofirig t { t_a€:e..:atiC rl of matrei, to any third party. of VirlA.sesw Alf!)£)ilgh fliiS it. ;and any ,)V aF„t!wd doctlr?'"l; W° or f(es, <":"e: bef.emld to be free of any Virus Cg Gf{' Fi dMbol, is s Me re,:;f2orr<r:Faiiify ofthe, recipient to a;nsfa;c th,t� it is virus free. and t;'a3 sender does not an,,ept any rr,.;sfaorr,. t.tlif¢ io ray lf;.>ts or, d €rl a,y, 3r sin;,, fit any tialar fr;ar., if... trs, . 4. Security of ,,:hail.Iecircin c, email r,-> writ over the p0lic ;niter ot, ;and may not he secures, Thus, we cann.,ot zfiaaiarite(" the, privacy of confideritia lty 'of iii£=CYr?atjprl. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Pub. Corr - Page 336 GRE-SHAt'-I SAVAGE May 12, 2014 VIA EMAIL Ellen. Berkowitz0Gr°esharn5avage.corn - Lo, Angeles (213) 213-7249 • fiat (21;.=3) 213-7391 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Green Hills Annual Review Case No. ZON2003-00086 Dear Honorable Commissioners: This law firm represents Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills"). At the Planning Commission (the "Commission") hearing on February 25, 2014 in connection with the annual review of Green Hills' Master Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), the Commission heard concerns from representatives and members of the Vista Verde Homeowners Association and other residents of the Vista Verde condominiums (collectively, the "HOA") relative to the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum"). At the Commission's next hearing on March 11, 2014, Green Hills asked the Commission to continue the annual review to provide Green Hills and the HOA an opportunity to attempt to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution. We are pleased to report that Green Hills and the HOA have done so. We submit this letter to present the voluntary improvements that Green Hills is willing to pursue and implement in response to the concerns raised by our neighbors at Vista Verde. (The improvements are contained and explained in greater detail in the Exhibit attached to this letter.) Green Hills proposes to implement some of these improvements immediately (i.e., within the next two months) and some in the very near future; others will require further review and analysis to determine their feasibility and effectiveness before selecting the most appropriate option. 5'50 East ilospit<aIity C—ine, Suite :i()0 w San Bernaardino, Caaiifornia 92408 3750 Uaaiversit} Avenue, Suitc 250 � Riverside, California 92,301 5S0 W"t t:' stl,cct, Suite 1810 - San Diofr o, California 92,1€ 1 :3:3:3 Smith Hop e, 4treet, 35 � Floor * Lot Anules, Californiea 90071 Gresb!; nt3a yr@,a. c:.tm G 000 -- 1354558 Pub. Corr - gage X37 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 2 A. Background on Green Hills and the Use of the Mausoleum Roof. As a preliminary matter and for the record, we would like to provide a brief background about Green Hills in general and the Mausoleum in particular. Green Hills is a non-profit organization that has served over 75,000 San Pedro and Palos Verdes Peninsula families over the past 60 years at its 120 -acre park. In 2007, Green Hills proposed a Master Plan Update (the "Master Plan'), intended to guide the future phased development of the park. The Mausoleum was included within that Master Plan application, which included schematics representing that the Mausoleum rooftop would include burial plots. The Planning Commission adopted the Master Plan in P.C. Resolution 2007-33, approving Case No. ZON2003-00086. Since that time, Green Hills has constructed a number of the improvements proposed in the Master Plan, including the Mausoleum. With respect to Mausoleum roof, there are a discrete number of uses and activities that occur on and around the rooftop during regular park hours. When a ground burial is scheduled for the roof for example, the plot must be prepared, which involves digging and opening the vault using a back -hoe and other equipment. Typically, this work is performed the day of the burial, if the interment is scheduled for the morning, it may be done the day prior. Preparation work and burials are generally conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and they usually take no more than 20 to 30 minutes) The burials themselves are generally scheduled between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. While most interments occur during these hours, all cemeteries allow for some flexibility in timing given the practical reality that funeral processions coming from other venues do not typically follow rigid time schedules given the emotions involved. Thus, for example, a church service may go on a little longer than anticipated because of a loquacious pastor, or more mourners than expected participate in giving remembrances about the deceased, occasionally causing a funeral procession to arrive at Green Hills slightly after 3:00 p.m. In such case, Green Hills ' By way of comparison, other permitted activities that regularly occur in residential neighborhoods include the use of leaf blowers [8:00am to 5:00pm], construction [7:00am to 6:00pm], and/or garbage collection [7:00am to 7:00pm]. Pub. Corr - G ag3e58338 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 3 will not turn them away. Once a funeral procession arrives on the park's grounds, the burial ceremonies themselves typically last about 20 to 30 minutes, although some may be shorter (e.g., if no witnesses attend) and some longer (e.g., a fallen police officer, for example that draws a larger group). For the most part, burial services are quiet and somber events, although some religions and cultures include musical accompaniments in their services, such as harps, violins and acoustic guitars. Others may have short bagpipe or mariachi accompaniments. Because Green Hills has a policy of non-discrimination against any races, ethnicities or religions, and will not dictate how mourners can conduct their observances of the deceased (within reason), it allows music at its services. After the burial ceremony concludes, the burial vault is immediately sealed and the lawn restored in a process that typically takes 10 to 15 minutes. The only other activities that occur on the roof are maintenance activities common to any park or lawn — the grounds are mowed and tended to on a weekly basis; trees and hedges are regularly trimmed. From time to time, during park hours, there may be grave -site visitations (typically lasting about 10-15 minutes) or viewings of plots for purchase (typically about 5 minutes). Both of these are generally quiet activities. We explain the use of the Mausoleum roof in this letter in response to some of the allegations made about activities occurring on the Mausoleum roof in the HOA's February 18, 201.4 letter. In that letter, the HOA advised that Green Hills "routinely breaks noise restrictions," by "discharging firearms, and allowing loud music, live bands and other forms of excessive noise." Further, the letter advises that Green Hills allows "park patrons to throw parties after hours on the roof." These allegations give the impression that Green Hills allows the equivalent of raucous concerts, at which patrons randomly shoot guns in the air, partying through the night. This is not true. As noted above, although some cultures incorporate brief musical accompaniments into their memorial observances, the characterization of these events as "live bands" playing "loud music" elicits an erroneous and inaccurate impression. Additionally, eligible veterans are guaranteed under federal law to full military funeral honors, which includes the right to music (i.e., "Taps" played by a bugler) and, on occasion, gun salutes. It is only in this context that firearms are discharged on park grounds. Finally, Green Hills most certainly does not allow "park patrons to throw parties after hours" and strictly enforces its rules relative to park closure and hours of operation, ensuring that its security detail protects against such offenses. In Pub. Corr -C, 000 39 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 4 fact, Green Hill is aware of only one instance that trespassers were found on the Mausoleum roof, and they were removed from the premises as soon as they were discovered. Some of these allegations may have stemmed from the fact that when the Mausoleum roof first became available for interments, approximately 10 burials were performed in a one month period. We understand this was disturbing to some Vista Verde residents who experienced an unusual volume of burials during a fairly short period of time. Since then, the average number of burials has decreased substantially to approximately 3 per month (5 in October, 5 in November, 2 in December, 7 in January, 2 in February, 1 in March and 1 in April). B. Green Hills' Voluntary Proposals to Address the Vista Verde Residents' Concerns. 1. Voluntary Improvements to Operations for Immediate Implementation. In light of this background, and the discussion held at the February 25, 2014 Commission hearing, Green Hills has prepared the attached Exhibit containing a number of voluntary improvements Green Hills proposes to make relative to the Mausoleum roof. Section A of the Exhibit contains operational improvements that Green Hills will implement immediately (i.e., within the next two months). These improvements are primarily intended to respond to the HOA's concerns regarding sound, notice and security, with due consideration for the religious, ethnic and personal integrity of Green Hills' visitors. As detailed further in the Exhibit, Green Hills will: • Prohibit amplified sound on the Mausoleum roof (except as required by federal law for honor guard burials). • Advise all appropriate individuals and entities that burial services on the Mausoleum roof should be scheduled between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. • Install a wooden fence running the length of the ramp leading up to the Mausoleum roof at the Green Hills/Vista Verde property line. Pub. Corr-GP°ag3e58840 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 5 • Limit maintenance hours on the Mausoleum roof to between 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (currently permitted between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.). • Install new signage on and around the Mausoleum roof notifying visitors of relevant park rules (i.e., be respectful of neighbors, keep to noise to a minimum, no alcohol permitted, etc.). • Provide advanced notice of burial activities and ceremonies that are scheduled to occur on the Mausoleum roof, both on-site and on the Green Hills' website. • Provide the HOA with a security hotline telephone number, and track all calls and complaints in a complaint log. • Continue to use walled tents during burial services to the maximum extent possible (i.e., unless wind or other circumstance makes use of the tents unsafe). 2. Voluntary Improvements to Mechanical Equipment. Green Hills has also heard concerns about some of the mechanical equipment currently in use on and around the Mausoleum roof. Section B of the Exhibit contains more detailed explanations of the following proposed improvements: • Minimize the use of the "mini -haul" to backfill burial sites on the Mausoleum roof. • Recalibrate the exhaust fan inside the Mausoleum to run during the day only, and replace a mechanism in the system so the fan runs more quietly. • Ensure that two lawnmowers are not used simultaneously on the Mausoleum roof. • Install a special sprinkler to prevent accumulated dirt within the drains at the Mausoleum, which should in turn reduce water accumulation. 3. Potential Long -Term Improvements. Green Hills has also organized a list of more substantial, long-term improvements, which may be used to enhance privacy protections relative to Mausoleum visitors and the Vista Verde residents. Originally, City Planning staff recommended the G 000 -- 1354558 Pub. Corr - age M1 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 6 construction of a permanent wall or fence along the edge of the Mausoleum roof to prevent visual observations between the residents and the mourners, which would also reduce sound. The HOA is concerned that this would also obstruct light, air and views, so Green Hills has been investigating other options to achieve the desired purposes (although Green Hills would be willing to construct a permanent fence if necessary). These proposed improvements are detailed in Section C of the Exhibit and are summarized as follows: • Investigate whether a tent or band -shell could be customized in such a way that would: (i) increase the sound attenuation properties of the tenting fabric/material (as compared with those currently used by Green Hills); and (ii) improve visual privacy by including walls on three sides of the tents. Consistent with current practices, these improved tents could be erected at the commencement of activities and removed after the activities conclude. • Investigate whether temporary outdoor privacy panels may be erected along the fence between the Green Hills and Vista Verde properties that would obscure a wider area of the Mausoleum rooftop. • Investigate the use of customized or roll -up screen (similar to sun -shades) that could be dropped down before and/or during services on the Mausoleum roof. • Investigate the installation of a privacy fence or screen with enhanced ambient lighting along the wall between the Mausoleum and the Vista Verde pool area. • Investigate the feasibility of planting hedges or foliage on top of the Mausoleum roof, and/or tall and thick trees such as cypress at the base of the Mausoleum, either at intermittent intervals to provide a soft screen or more closely together to provide a more substantial sound and visual barrier along the property line. Currently, Green Hills is working with sound and structural consultants to determine the overall effectiveness, feasibility, and safety and permitting issues of these options, among other things. We will advise both the Commission and the HOA when we have further information in this regard. Pub. Corr-GP°ag'e58842 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 7 4. Phase II of the Mausoleum. Although not at issue with respect to this annual review, the potential future construction of Phase II of the Mausoleum has been raised on several occasions by the HOA. In this regard, the HOA has requested that Green Hills engage in the immediate silhouetting of the Phase II structure. It is Green Hills' view that such immediate silhouetting of a yet -to -be designed development would be speculative, particularly given the fact that Green Hills is not immediately pursuing development of the structure and that no formal architectural drawings have been created for it. Notwithstanding this, Green Hills will nonetheless make the following commitments: • Green Hills has no immediate plans with respect to the construction of Phase II; • When Green Hills considers constructing Phase II, Green Hills will retain architects, engineers and other necessary consultants to fully design the building; • Green Hills and its consultants will consider impacts to views of the Vista Verde residents when designing Phase II; • Green Hills will engage in the silhouetting work when the final design of Phase II has been completed; and • Green Hills will consult with City staff during the design of Phase II. C. Conclusion. In consideration of Green Hills' proactive effort to engage with our neighbors, we hope the Commission recognizes that Green Hills is committed to voluntarily take substantive measures to respond to the HOA's complaints. Importantly, we note that there have been no allegations or accusations that Green Hills maintains its property below the appropriate standard of care, nor has the City found that any activities at Green Hills create a "nuisance" condition. To our knowledge, not a single substantiated complaint or allegation has been made that Green Hills has acted in violation of its CUP of the City's Municipal Code. Moreover, Green Hills has never Pub. Corr -1 -Ac'-, X43 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 8 expressed an unwillingness to respond voluntarily to any issue or concern raised by the City, the Commission, or its neighbors during all its years of operation.' In light of this, and in view of the agreement with the HOA, we respectfully request that the Commission allow Green Hills to pursue and implement these voluntary improvements. When Green Hills determines which of the voluntary "Potential Long - Term Improvements" it proposes to implement, Green Hills will notify Planning staff and, if requested, this Commission. We hope the Commission is pleased with this outcome and concludes this year's annual review. Thank you for providing Green Hills the opportunity to work with the HOA to achieve a voluntary and mutually satisfactory resolution to this matter. Of course, we look forward to seeing you at the May 13t" hearing and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. V Ellen Bdrkowitz DJ_ ,) GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF Enclosure cc: Joel Rojas Eduardo Schonborn Michael McLachlan Ray Frew John Resich 2 Furthermore, in no way, as was suggested in previous meetings, did Green Hills conceal or obscure the fact that roof -top burials would occur on the Mausoleum. As noted by City Planning staff at the March 11, 2014 meeting, the roof -top burials were identified in the original Master Plan and approved by the Commission. Pub. Corr -G 000 44 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 9 EXHIBIT Potential Auditory and Visual Improvements for the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum Roof at Green Hills Memorial Park A. Proposed Voluntary Improvements for Immediate Implementation. 1. Restrict Amplified Sound: Currently, the CUP allows the use of amplified music during burial services at Green Hills, including on the Mausoleum roof. Microphones are also used during burials to enable the mourners to better hear the services. Notwithstanding the importance of music and/or vocal enhancement during certain services, Green Hills would consider restricting the use of amplification on the Mausoleum roof subject to minor exceptions (i.e., military funerals, which guarantee the right to honor guard burials under federal law). This requirement could be noted in Green Hills' park rules and on signage placed around the Mausoleum. Additionally, security patrols could be advised of this new rule. 2. Mausoleum Roof Maintenance Hours: The CUP currently allows for the excavation of ground burial sites between 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. for sites located within 120 feet of residential zones. Green Hills would consider agreeing to voluntarily limit these hours further for the Mausoleum roof by requiring all maintenance activities (including excavation and landscaping) to occur between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Green Hills could note the new hours on signage placed around the Mausoleum, and could advise maintenance personnel of this new limitation. 3. Signage: Green Hills is currently working to produce signage for the Mausoleum roof notifying visitors to be respectful of Green Hills' neighbors and to keep sound levels to a minimum. Additional signs could be produced to notify guests that alcohol consumption is strictly forbidden on the park premises or that amplified sounds are prohibited, among others. 4. Burial Service Hours: Currently, Green Hills requests that funeral processions enter the park after 9:00 a.m. and before 3:00 p.m. Green Hills would agree to change these hours, and request that processions enter the park after 10:00 a.m. and before 3:00 p.m. To discourage funeral processions from arriving into the Pub. Corr -GIS°ag3e58845 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 10 park after 3:00 p.m., Green Hills will continue to charge a fee to funeral processions arriving later than this requested time period. Although this fee is used primarily to reimburse Green Hills for various additional expenses associated with labor and over -time costs, the fee has the added benefit of encouraging burials to occur before 3:00 p.m. 5. Ramp Fence: Green Hills would consider installing a fence along the Green Hills/HOA property line running from the base of the ramp (leading up to the Mausoleum roof) to the edge of the Mausoleum roof. This fence would be designed in such a way as to provide a sound and visual buffer between the properties, particularly with regard to park uses and activities occurring on and along the ramp leading to the Mausoleum roof.. 6. Temporary Tenting: Green Hills currently erects temporary tenting on the Mausoleum roof before the commencement of burial ceremonies and related activities, weather permitting. These temporary tents have the effect of partially obscuring the view of the burial services and of directing the sound of the services away from the Vista Verde residences. Green Hills will continue to use these tents for all services (weather permitting) to provide an auditory and visual shield, while it searches for more effective, state-of-the-art, sound and visual screening as described further in Section C., below. 7. Advanced Notice of Burial Activities. a. Notice by Flagging: Green Hills currently places a small yellow flag upon a burial site which is scheduled to be utilized within the upcoming week. Notification to the HOA of this practice could provide Vista Verde residents with advanced awareness that a burial will be occurring in the near future. Such flagging may also potentially be used to direct Vista Verde residents to additional information on Green Hills' website (see below). b. Notice by Website Posting: To allow for Vista Verde residents to have advanced notice of scheduled burial activities on the Mausoleum roof, Green Hills would consider posting such notice on its website. This would allow Vista Verde residents to schedule around Mausoleum burial activities if they so desire. Pub. Corr-'P°ag'e58846 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 11 8. Security Patrol: Green Hills' security detail patrols the 121 acre park grounds from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 9:00 p.m., and performs a visual inspection of the Mausoleum during its regular patrols. During business hours, security is advised to be alert for inappropriate activity (such as drinking or boisterous behavior). After dusk, when the park is closed, security is advised to remove any unauthorized visitors from to the park. 9. Security Hotline & Complaint Log: Green Hills will provide HOA residents with a security hotline to call and report potentially inappropriate or prohibited activities observed on or around the Mausoleum roof during park hours. Any complaints received would be promptly responded to by Green Hills' security and may be tracked on a complaint log. As Green Hills is completely gated and locked at dusk, users of the Mausoleum roof after such time would be deemed unauthorized trespassers and thus may be reported to security until approximately 9:00 p.m., or to the County Sherriff after hours. 10. Visitor Rules: Green Hills currently maintains strict rules and regulations intended to prohibit disruptive and/or potentially dangerous activities by park visitors. These rules include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) boisterous or unseemly conduct on the park grounds is prohibited; (ii) children under 14 must be accompanied by an adult at all times; (iii) no dogs or other pets are allowed in the park, with the exception of trained guide dogs or when kept in a ventilated vehicle; (iv) vehicles must be driven slowly; (v) the use of skateboards, bicycles, roller blades, and/or roller skates is prohibited; (vi) consumption of alcohol is prohibited; and (vii) persons inside the park after hours shall be treated as trespassers. Green Hills makes available a written flier detailing park rules to all park visitors, and will ensure that relevant park rules are posted at the park entrance and other publicly accessible and visible locations. B. Proposed Intermediate Improvements to Mechanical Equipment. 1. Mini -Haul Use: Green Hills uses a type of equipment known as a "mini -haul" to backfill burial sites. The mini -haul produces a sound that is higher -pitched and therefore may be perceived as more abrasive than other types of similar machinery. Accordingly, Green Hills will evaluate minimizing (and possibly eliminating) the use of the mini -haul on the Mausoleum rooftop for burial Pub. Corr-G°a'e58 g847 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 12 preparation purposes. As an alternative, Green Hills will evaluate using only a standard tractor to replace the mini -haul's functions. 2. Exhaust Fan Improvement: Comments have been made that the exhaust fan used at the Mausoleum generates unwanted sound. Green Hills has investigated the condition of the fan, and will improve and/or recalibrate the fan in such a way as to further reduce any sounds produced by its operation. The fan has also been recalibrated to run during the day only. 3. Mowers: While Green Hills assures that all maintenance and landscaping equipment does not exceed the maximum decibel levels set forth in its CUP, Green Hills continues to review methods to further reduce sound. In this regard, even though site maintenance occurs faster with the use of two mowers simultaneously, Green Hills will discontinue that practice as part of its sound reduction efforts. 4. Water and/or Drainage: Green Hills has been advised about potential drainage issues occurring behind the Mausoleum and along the HOA's fence line. In response, Green Hills has verified that the drainage channel is properly engineered and meets all City Code requirements. Nevertheless, it appears that water occasionally pools for short periods due to accumulated dirt within the drain. To alleviate the problem, Green Hills' maintenance crew will ensure that the drain is cleaned on a regular basis, and will install a special sprinkler to flush the channel several times a week. C. Potential Long -Term Improvements Requiring Further Analysis 1. Construct a Permanent Wall/Fence on the Mausoleum Roof: A wall could be constructed at the edge of the Mausoleum's roof to reduce the alleged auditory and visual impacts on the Vista Verde residents. Although this wall may rise above the City's 1.6 foot height limitation on new construction within Cemetery Districts, heights above 16 feet may be allowed if approved by a CUP. A wall of this nature could provide significant sound reduction benefits as well as a visual buffer between the two properties. While we understand this is not a preferred solution for the HOA, it would nonetheless provide effective improvement for dramatically reducing (if not entirely eliminating) the alleged auditory and visual disturbances asserted by the HOA. Pub. Corr-GP°ag'e58848 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 13 2. Foliage, Hedges or Trees: Green Hills would consider investigating the feasibility of planting hedges or foliage on top of the Mausoleum roof, and/or tall and thick trees such as cypress at the base of the Mausoleum. The plants could be placed at intermittent intervals to provide a soft screen or could be placed more closely together to provide a more substantial sound and visual barrier along the property line between the Mausoleum and Vista Verde residences. Any additional planting would, of course, have to be approved by the applicable regulatory agencies. 3. Improved Temporary Tenting: Although Green Hills already provides tents for burial ceremonies and services upon request for shade and privacy purposes (as described in A.9., above), Green Hills will evaluate whether these tents may be customized or improved in such a way as to: (i) increase the sound attenuation properties of the tenting fabric/material; and (ii) improve visual privacy by including walls on three sides. Specifically, Green Hills is analyzing the use of rubberized or other sound absorbing materials and the possible configuration of a tent structure in a band -shell shape. Consistent with current practices, these improved tents could be erected at the commencement of activities and removed after the activities conclude, and would have the effect both of obscuring the burial services and directing the sound of the services away from the HOA residences. 4. Temporary Privacy Panels: Green Hills will evaluate whether temporary outdoor privacy panels may be put into place in advance of any scheduled burial activities. Such panels could be erected on-site as needed, or constructed on a moving trailer to be driven onto the rooftop and left there for the duration of any rooftop activities. The panels would differ from the tents described above in that they would obscure a wider area of the rooftop and would provide additional sound attenuation benefits. 5. HOA Pool Deck Privacy Fence: Green Hills will investigate the possibility of installing an improved "privacy" fence/screen, with decorative ambient lighting, to replace or extend the HOA's existing pool area fence that runs between the HOA's pool and the Mausoleum. Green Hills would work with the HOA to assure that the height, size and type of fencing is in accord with the HOA's preferences, and will achieve the desired screening results. Pub. Corr-Pag3eN9 The Honorable Planning Commission May 12, 2014 Page 14 6. Custom Installed Roll -Up Privacy Screens: Green Hills may construct and install roll -up screens (similar to sun -shades) that could be dropped down before and/or during burial or maintenance activities occurring on the Mausoleum roof.. This option would require the installation of a mechanical system that could be raised above the existing Mausoleum railing by permanently installed poles, with a drop-down sun -shade mechanical system rising above the Mausoleum. We understand this option may not be acceptable to the HOA because it would require a permanent mechanical system that may obstruct views. Pub. Corr-�age58�50 � ro C a y v o v y o ao y � o° p R m G o E 3 y o G 3 bA a bA y b ° p y y CL w' O G C O C y N V A U� a bA .� ✓ ti N cm- �V G p wa. a m L1. y ED p P~m. .� 'N >' y O F L C 5 >D bA O w CL N 3 p n? m bA ° y o p > p p bA U sm, Ed, cn ❑ p o 73 v .cJ�0-. bG G _� EDCmO' NX y v y> C1.° u E c 8 3 m 2 E z 1 H f m m n x Pub. Corr - Page 351 Pub. Corr - Page 352 N N N N O O bD N w b➢ U Com, N ^i O O 'D O V �' U 3 2 v o o c� a> o. O ° o E -'4 ,"v^., ..- o v v 0 v o_ m �^ o bA c � 'c v .� Y u o q o o c •o c. 0 3� q .y � .-. � c 3 c o F v o p N m y 0 0 "G v ' v of '0i C IJ,.c ,�. "C L�' aai v' F c°p ro v E o Y o 3 "0 3 3^ os o N n G o b4 0 cc v 0i Vii° ccc as 3 ac 2 3 o wao a o E o b L x v 5 r 0` •p iC v v 2Y 'Lf " y >, b0A o 0 E o N cS O N N ro o j o v° D a o F a c v a m M v. cA m o .o ti a> 1. P. o o s°. N c ro O1 O� C ° Z N .> ti o 4-0.,., O N bb >i w N Y N o a U O vI v by v 'G -0 a om c vv o-,0 u 5 °> F? o o ° o b4 '> o° vo Aa p y❑ o a m 0 3 o 3>> C °a m o o m o 6 0 o v ° c a w o° Q m v o U v bD as o a m c o v E> v ".� 7 p_ O bD a o a X O �1 N > aU N ro v N c3 y YO G .'�. ?' ✓ v G i O N coax F3.c F u �3 'c c, Pub. Corr - Page 352 ago v or oci° nac' - 'ow,p° m �m'3cE58 mm BTNE�oB my y y-� $mo i o'o-aEmm8 � BiEca�£a Q1 �9E omoF�o �nm ar Amo �'Em ��=.caR$mm3 n m$rno' n85�E.9 Aam v �m X06 3 B�Ebcm 3m@£m3o Yt �4 m Ec �mo� .N g o�8$ .8 ��. _ E ma'c�c m_ v `o v� _ € o wEmu�'�"ppm my rnn gg £ �m v s+`o 'p m - £Ti - �m5 m�'L= E�o'.E $ne��o. m��E�3 � m j � £�c E c o rn m 3 Nn an o v'S -=FFWWE m v ffi{L° r _ gc yy mcE ;jm v mAf ?' co88Ecmz .Lo .I°ca o$Q d ya `o ay9o; Qa �E$ a.m8rnw rnrn $ 'E 8o m �j tA� E� mem Eag�Tio$ 8 E .L 'v"€Vnuib 8 av $ v> o_m vm._c£ rn 'n v c _ _zoo ay c5m < c E nE S cv>8a1a 5o J 3ommE3 o';= I'S .5 2.E -0 3 mL°. E'- 2@> JT -We cN' o ' �E�B E-`'5 a'oE m -$_m Njy3cgm £ ra2m_ 5Fc£m 8 -._�. fl a8 _�m o 8 o5c �• m= o U �cm ° B e @m'3`o.m �o� m :E m mac'- �g aco p `u rn _ q� n S" c m .� m F. 5 5`�� w o. u t m°, 'oct �i rn � i. m D m $ ii L" I Ei =8 ca!I, co ry € ,�'c •- `oo i2. m--Ean a �m 5Yo'e m° o,'N �,m a @ 6 €_�a€ o ����-g �E'Eav�5aWt� a S£s8�_.EN�£ N�mL� 3m"•8� €a. r. T$oE a.o` 8320 mo$3JEmm t o n 9 9imba�q o mm$ '..8 r a O �2z. 23 g� $�oE$ � m g�"E2m16 BS A mm 6. �+'o oss m� wdt'�`o= �5��'o�-3a5 m mOco$ �myrn�ern m �8�$-�0"�..` c B`''7s E m Svc mm m c m c$ n n£> 55i� m H 8p sisa E F g`-�„E p38 - �.% Eg mm mE Eo rn E @V �E Ea 3y�o i.2 - =8eI5 Eo NL°°QaP@ c8'p3. d.€�� Vim” 8m8g 8 Gyps §'c o FU£ dam m�y�$`m �.nE 8ma ci3 rnN$ Om 8m.$E @ninE�$£3c �8i 9 V m D'm Ern -o vQ ElaEr € $.FE oo $3E`_ mo E. mZ,cS `08 2 °may_ Grp tt;; omyEEEE @ n' Ec i.r. my �Ei'uao mo�gi�� $ ��FSm$`°m mc'8 E�� Ec�brnu�i 8r'SEc vm�g'�` mY1�.��ac ' E rvam.c 'Kmc cSm smm o ?oz E -c o ' T., w mEm= .m2 u8@ E- a� �B @ro mm3 5 .� mm� QE E ig8 E sa y�c`o� �m cw- e�b {YY£ c rnuU.�' c° m4cc ma �mFE aoY $38ry �e m B 3� �4 o$Sg ey5$c��m�a�m - Sc imm`�- 8�m c E ao8 ._u$ m8 �E �Lm€€m �° x aEwB v m3 a.m t c�n`v '"Timtom �TFV Bi c $`S'm mm m _ 2'ca m of b8}9 S £ "Ec`+mc$ v rn E Ea n� Z• mRu .4E y m 8th m£ _ �n qqU i". msrn 3 y H A 5� oo.-= 3ry u cy 8£m Sm £_� @E m5 �E w m� rnau m c v mm�m 8m mmcRmm F @ 8 £ ��.� @ E�Et �Ws>Sm"-m sm$g o��yC ag�aOFag� m y C C 8.2,-B 0�1 p1 N N 3 O- g L� _ O m a G O .- L p O m . D _ E E o Y.' , .8 °' " 3 3' t v mr .� �m a� u o lgoc Vis£ °iEx p,n Bi cEE°c �Z._�ii��iS c@c m�2,m� 39 E@EE nim idm$ 8 wrnv �E °mE m' 3 Ti vv m gE aUa'o�g'c� - v rn olv.m m2• o '- r�rnm mo rn 2 .o msmc c=o c d� � :_ 3 �5 8 ��, Ti=m' -o m o cmo�E o._ c8i E Eat 5c� $$rnm°u'- E`�o.8 E' �ooE -E=333 cm rn�c.� mCg mo3`55 0 �w�gu cmc Ste° @ m8m a �g .105 £5 r QB1,E �T�'-°m ac`ma mg �@ p_Ro2 g- EdB m'SmiSppg= m y Es ''noio8 v $cam 3v� m8 n.5' oa� £=N_ c -8 .c m - E5Q S -10� Ny ornsQs�a Wo�a$- � � 3 "3 m. 8=affir,'m p-<gup� L -5 dy�c ��$ comb �m ogg ti m8. IN `-£y -am- (2 e .1 32'a '- c�oET.6��3Tm3�ErmV `� 5 8s Ir m.e.v@a Tic A==� �£ snag W �on8"J 2 aS�E�sg i w.E3�,gc;.2 c acmc�n@ :rn5. � 2t yv 8vc� c� 8crvU d m _ d° E o x @ oc o� C,E °� �ig8 mm:'m C_z ra $ oy > > a 03 mE nd g_ o 'b "m nn.y 8.� m �� B.2 s'o E 'EcO rn°, ooB:E c- o£YoiE y aE u .�1a S6SE Ear " rr mE 7 5° cros �n $"mahESE�y'.4E `�� 'o���N.� ogNoc�B awstq' @2>8 ° .0@��yE ms_' DEaoy�m .�2•Nomvom$�. 2S £i9 r 8 c2 y y FB-� _$. ��mLLog"= �'m"� qpm m 5 nm8"5 y8 tv�� c:ze? g 0 8 - s° SES; Q 5 �._s t= ° am���` g m E SFR s sg e ms 0�9 mtl$�v ovmv �om�m3L`" @„ m m€EmUyor�mN g aEF �N 2 �£ m 5 9 cr$ 5 9 ev -�- FF 8 Fc $m9=y E EEo S m U �5E `o�8m .=nc �5.8 rnm2m $Em $£ii n£ �8 F` �'�e3a Srvv'mma rnunr �c r Q��°O �S m,°t mv�i5 ri 1=o°u �I ��Pub. Corr - Page 353 Pub. Corr - Page 354 9 \/k ED k ca f_ \ { a ƒ _ / ƒ) ]) ) 8 CCD \ E $) « \ ® Z$ ( . # §/ [ 9 { § k § ƒ % k �0 { \ �. ) 0 \ E 2 Ek ® /} ) 58 r \ , >/2 k _ ƒ � ) * - Gm 2 § oo§o ) g a § oe a.0 FO LU A) ° §� 60 ®® 0 /ƒ ] \ oS� c« m _ Kk e g )® < 7) S \ §R5� \4 ® )A t 2E /E § �\ 0 e § /2 �� 22 2 ƒ%CL \CL <� L) (D 5� co . \ u §§� &[ kk / E}K ��{< E {e \\ \ � &_ \\/§ \ \ ee \/ 7} §ƒ 7 § o ))® a)» 7/ / }E ` } 2 C'4 2$ x § \ / q E ƒ n ) ] ) « )& e 0 / \ } \ ® \ ] LL §{ § f ° ) } ) ) E 2) c o a_ o\»< b o- $\ / j r» LL o= f G» 2« g') z f \ n o J r .< m 2 $ [ % \ f § § 2 ` $ \ « § / / § § / § \� �§ \ \ § / / j \ ) } \ / ƒ \ ƒ \ r . G < 5 $ E § 2 / G S 2 Pub. Corr - Page 354 N m � y -2 _I` �'E$ cm omyc �t W e' o% 3° 8N m'=}cm m C 3 0 (D° O) 4Y O m N m �? CD y O m C �, .�. N' .O m m •O C N Q MID •p 01 �p m 'N C U •- C= C O •- M _ O N; «E CO mrsv�AN E> W E ME 82 ca o E ON Sm m ma ,NO E •E e t6 z v°mmo o -Ea m���,?rO am° oUymy vm a0 •6uc->EN ULpmycN°. L y p r a O_m._ N 3 z'm m am c eE 'o coN °E m E r aox0 0 c0t0 LmaUO 6. Ai m -p d 0 01 r- Y20 C N«•O ca m N mV m y° U'Ec'19 L+m• icEE 0 ~mN�mLm"cIV ozin wmmr'tQ g rO LO0C f0 M cELN o o m mo•�-c rg L0/w L y C a At > mfE - m �1 mL� c 8 na ESLm-L o o c et 8 yL m u, m C 7 m E m U C p .� O! m C w w w "+ m II C C m t� p ._ N p C c• m m N .0 0. ,y m p O mc�� 3m m VELE $�cmie�c y �p� m= a x€ayi� m3 w� m Eomoo v2m0mt $.om mvmw m m N c N m -s m m C m m > N m m C 7 y U .m O c v« 3 prn E m N O) N> N m .- 0 0 V 0 m >> N y - m c m N mL m n m EL -a E c c E m acv o m c9 N 3 p/�� rn> 0 r ._ N _U p m U'�.«m. y 8 m Ul C^ is > .p C O' C >p 03� E �ycm ror aim 04 ca EmL °Ema m ' 7 m N Q m 0 E a N � C 0-0 ID `= O 'O m y O U m m" 0 ° `o o m c� 0z m e m °� E . Qy c� Wim' �� m Or y a E -r 0 gym' cF Ha o-0 c0i �Noaa)2 ~uO6L> ca�8 Noor m $• c m w M `m w arc m � Y>�° c� c �= 3 a -°m >' m m m c Q.0 (D 000- oY om c ccs>E o amoaa >o FNN c��mE�. v N rnm mQ a E m m aE �._ yid N N (O' C cO p dt m C C� C mt� L m �' C N Y N C m _m _� G m N ._ Ol p m' N L L m a y X dim°c8 E:E E.OU d min�Nm m EE�v!a�€rn > 'F- E Ec �nI�mC Q>O mO 0 r- pO p Lc 6m0>E"o r Pub. Corr - Page 355 m �C Y c m N a v� m �3 N ID fA C n m m 7 m N 10 m E � N. w m O p tm O P N m t:FS I.: C m u v N m C C m Q H y w rnv �00 0 m - m o L vao m C L C 80 N m Vim-_° � `o m 02 N=� s m N m m cd): � c0 w E w ao 0 axi a E.'.t s O '— • N L N •p (0 t m c U m C to X Y (D m C m C 0 N _ Q > CL 3 v y o. m °mv En m N M 0 - U N r U 3 p = p O C C mm ++ = E y C m C V _m �� m oIsL 0 0 L L E31mo rw>I 'p=14 m aN E'm'ao'�mI �y =v N c m E c E0 �' 02 O m m3(�ro .40 c..,w= 2 •- om aim 'cC m Q mO=- (D -S- >,1 3 m ma S L E j TH c rn 0 Y f O .-1 • E 3 u =rn y Qfd �s CL d nm� 2 me w0 3 N m m m m 3a CL m r p N V5 pc f0 m YoNlm! m�m i m N E L O m r o_ O m 3 NNIm3g 3 Xm(D m i yo, je cm m O 2 0 y yL d ami o 3 E m; -5 (D o 4 v rnw z oc rn��3 O tL r of m 112 =iN rnL c34i a� $ rN Y t> 3 m c° 3 =� Y d m �N� c m( oY-r �1 oEa3i �c v r- cu y> Eby t _m;E a�mOol v_,m� Oo my € O'?m 'c c -,A o E c m Y p c a B O E 4 E i c cn°cu 0 t Uv8mm m-3s"ampE.o oN�c i o .c Uw Pub. Corr - Page m W f0LO c = Cp N L a) g! m 'O >> ,°C N m m O .� ro .. m c ,r m 3E=2nssL 3m > 8 co U8 Na L no o» o m m 3 E a ala m 8 m- 42 �m a m'i E C m _� E m _� _ y m m n co 622 CL2mN=Fm -Le S°E om taw-ic o3 cm U) C:) �g m bio mrnp ° _rnm ro E= y o b E'o (n 'Y� O m m N m .D N o0mm`m2m� 3£ CU c: 8" -'d ci 8 ec ' N �y a rno (D 0 MC �2 c� °co m E o E. 8 c m�tG o smo=oE `m °E 80 NaM CD cu ��I > C p C i/J m C m •� N ° p C> '0 m mN 0) M m .n O Q Ca t0 >. C !0 m m O) N m C m -O = m O UM) Q) :E CD 5)' 8 3 m r«s a •c 8_ a m E = 3. ° m E> N 0 m o E qLo m c g m,m �° m n N 10 `� m c ' a' p = aro N m 'C 0" it — �p �C ,D �� 7 j Q' N m m E a v m o L ro E q� m M c m c m m m roc N m w m �° L C tp C C rr'1• c C O) ° (] !0 'O O >• m O (7 'a d N N -0 .9 c Cc m �° � rn m° N .O m� p O C c aci 2 c y wy .a W Yj V U i Q O_ E m c m 'O ') m O m C y N w W 'O .� 3a c o a EYH"c 2 8 = o o r, N €-Lc c m (a mcu rn�maim j -(D BC.n—c° cin 3�� io�o t38 m �m c =L Do:F;:r a � g= o ps U m m s� m_=o Lsm�> _ N Cum N m !0 U C O .Lm., O p, ° T w— L N .L•. (E0 !0 N 3 Zoc m="3v3m m'mo ma o=o Elm co mm o E� E mo� m a� Qm Z E m `o m m co _o as `° Es chi mE?=0a -0 L. c: a°)s :5 a) ,°amN8. Nara a� N °r ° 10 wo m'o"mc m w c ao E m E E.c m co w p a°i �m.o .c°c a) °n mmnyw� �m0:t EEm F am U) CU I-2 8 N Ya3 mai (D(WOza'" mNs o `m � a a) JD m_o >2 Q 'p E 'O O m L "' m m .m O d' O C O c0 O N N "' > .D O C a7 p co N (D 'O U ° 'M .L3 L� L .L� > N >., C N C t0 L C C p = L = O7 (0 = c o m mo U) 0 O)w(a m .N .n o a"� � y N ti m L �'r:c FL Etc-m3�E Epm�vcmmm Em`m cE�� Ea) aEv�i E=E °oc U Ezs 3 V m-0 c can m> U U o . 8a 8 U cmc �$SU 6? E 0 cn m7s Pub. Corr - Page 357 - — - _mT-.CC`gi�eippj5 m�� e0Nm. weO°72 rn>mrorl(UpU°m 79 16 rfiCm Ep�t�o - wWuO -S E(D @ t—�oc �m oOam. am 2 -6 i: 16 2 �mLQ@•NG (a O p LO X R ° wigEg ZO N Wx t ci ca O a) p . D p = (>� E$ ',.°L sr Cc Q) m Q •- •O >. j $ cC m t @ 3ma a>N�O'° 0 oNC 8 mro NM Zpm.g 0 @ a)m T (L) C2 fM°0 ��NC �/0m We @pNN >. p N@ .G -,G O �mO NE ° 7 mO C a 3 -cc0@ oE Vm @ mm @ N L @ .• U)$ N tl) 7 m ' 7 C =Nmc".no�Y'Z3EL@oa 3 -.0 0-5 o ovo3 N (D co z" �roN m°cmi m• @m3Nm m c ro _5 a mac roLn °ami C72LLn3mm °� d LL 'YUNNqq w.dmm>C mNm@ rrm$mO>NU Ltvai• om NmmNCL0oN@Z�,nEN�'c 3 'm� t�mwc (@� .m(-m..E.. Y Cd Lpaco eyC$ m�o > o E E- oc° O E ac L po p O � I F_cO c 0 � oA m o mg Qo N-0 co rn@Lao v 2-m -NOcK ^ya> Om m nID CD m 0 a) Ci�mmc >0 0 m -°mm Lm° 2 mo E @ m °Lm0 tE o�Cm�c@ o=Vc°CZN@@) c j m O c- 2O @-r- -0 O ocO cOO@OC a@ @ m1TEtO jl�D 7@ N M2 a)N N a CL N€EmEN>Sa)—a� 0E@ O U CL> t! E@ Pub. Corr -Pa-ge --3 : 8 Eduardo Schonborn From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> pnt: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:33 PM ,. 'o: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: FW: Green Hills Hi Eduardo — The numbers are as follows: There are a total of 336 spaces; 42 of these are family spaces, which means there could be a total of 378 internments. 165 spaces have been sold. At this point, there have been 29 burials. Also, just FYI, the two parties (HOA and Green Hills) along with their respective attorneys (Mike McLachlan and me) will be meeting this week to discuss possible mitigation measures/resolutions. We believe it would be most appropriate for the parties to resolve their issues together and report back to staff as to our progress, and — as needed — obtain staff's assistance in this effort. Hopefully, by April 22nd we can have a workable solution that can be reported to the Planning Commission. Please let me know if you have any questions. -?'hanks. From: jresich@aol.com [mailto:jresich@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:22 AM To: Ellen Berkowitz Subject: Fwd: Green Hills -----Original Message ----- From: Eduardo Schonborn <EduardoSOrpv.com> To: 'jresich@aol.com' <jresichC5),aol.com>; Ray Frew (RFrewo-ghmp.com) <RFrew ghmp.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 11:17 am Subject: FW: Green Hills John and Ray, Please see request from one of our commissioners, below. Although we are recommending continuance of the item, are these numbers you can provide me with sometime today? Thanks! -eduardo Eduardo Schonborn, aicp Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department .30940 Hawthorne Blvd. i;ancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 "www. Dalosverdes.com/rDv/olannina/planning-zoning/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f Pub. Corr - Page 359 eduardos(a)rpv.com From: Gordon Leon[mailto:aordon.leonD.,gmail. com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:26 AM o: Eduardo Schonborn bject: Green Hills Eduardo, Would you please have Green Hills provide the numbers of how many roof top burial sites are on the mausoleum, how many are occupied, and how many are sold but un -occupied. We need this data for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Gordon Leon 310-463-9244 Ellen Berkowitz .Shareholder 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 ?x: (213) 213-7391 1 Cell: (310) 592-3479 , ww.GreshamSavage_.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the Intended recipient of this communication, you may not use, disclose, print, copy or disseminate the same. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message. 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. A. Security of Email. Electronic mail is sent over the public Internet and may not be secure. Thus, we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Pub. Corr - Page 360 Eduardo Schonborn From: Gordon Leon <gordon.leon@gmail.com> nt: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:26 AM to: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Green Hills Eduardo, Would you please have Green Hills provide the numbers of how many roof top burial sites are on the mausoleum, how many are occupied, and how many are sold but un -occupied. We need this data for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Gordon Leon 310-463-9244 Pub. Corr - Page 361 Eduardo Schonborn from: Jeffrey Lewis <jeff@broedlowlewis.com> tnt: Monday, March 10, 2014 6:30 PM 'to: PlanningCommission Cc: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Green Hills Chairman Emenhiser and Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing regarding Item No. 2 on your Agenda for your March 11 meeting, the Green Hills matter. For what its worth, I agree with Staff s 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 I made my motion two weeks ago, I was cognizant of two things: First, the property owners represented that they had zero control over the hours of the burials and the attendant privacy impacts and noise (i.e. gunfire 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 internment 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 :*►xpct that the prior application to build the mausoleum 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 staff, does not conform to my intent when I made my motion. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Lewis BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP 734 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 190274 Tel. (310) 935-40011 Direct (310) 935-4002 j Fax. (310) 872-5389 Email: Jeffna,BroedlowLewis.com I Web: www.BroedlowLewis.com Certified Specialist in Appellate Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization This message may be covered by the attomey-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately. Pub. Corr - Page 362 Eduardo Schonborn r From: Christie Bowman <Christie.Bowman@GreshamSavage.com> on behalf of Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> 'Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 2:17 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: 'mike@mclachlanlaw.com'; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw,com>; PlanningCommission; Daniel Freedman; Ellen Berkowitz Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park - Request to Continue Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086, Attachments: T:\EMB\Green Hills Memorial Park\Schonborn E -013-7-2014 Request to Continue Planning Commission Hearing.pdf SENT ON BEHALF OF ELLEN BERKOWITZ Mr. Schonborn, Please see attached correspondence regarding Green Hills Memorial Park and a Request to Continue the Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Thank you. Ellen Berkowitz Shareholder Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Office: (213) 21.3-7249 Ext.1802 Fax: (213) 213-7391 www,GreshamSavage.com 1. Privileged and Confidential Communication, The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not use. dISCIOSe, print, copy or disseminate the name. if you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of this message, 2. IRS Circular 230 Notice. In accordance with Circular 230 of the internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments, is not Intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a) avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter to any third party. 3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. 4. Security of, Email. Electronic mall is sent over the public internet and may not be secure. Thus, we cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information. Pub. Corr - Page 363 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast,com Pub. Corr - Page 364 Eduardo Schonborn From: Mike McLachlan <mike@mclachlanlaw.com> int: Friday, March 07, 2014 11:13 AM Co: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com Subject: Planning commission meeting March 11, 2014: Green Hills Memorial Eduardo, Later today you should receive correspondence from attorney Ellen Berkowitz, who was recently to represent Green Hills with regard to the ongoing CUP review process and the matters discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. She will request that the agenda item for Green Hills be continued to April 22, 2014. I am in agreement with that, if it is acceptable to the City. Ms. Berkowitz needs time to get up to speed, and we are planning to engage the respective parties in the near term to see if the operational issues of the roof top burials can be mutually addressed to the satisfaction of all. That will take a few weeks. Mike McLachlan Law Offices of Michael D. McLachlan, APC 10490 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025 Office: 310-954-8270 Fax: 310-954-8271 Pub. Corr - Page 365 GRESHAM 1 SAVAGE ATT<>RNE.Y5 AT LAW March 7, 2014 VIA EMAIL Eduardos@rpv.com Eduardo Schonborn, AICP Senior Planner, Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Ellen. Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com • Los Angeles (213) 213-7249 - fix (213) 213-7391 Re: Request to Continue Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086, Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan Dear Mr. Schonborn: `.: This law firm has been retained to represent Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") with respect to the upcoming City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") Planning Commission's annual review of the Green Hills Master Plan Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). As you know, the CUP's annual review (Case No. ZON2003-00086) was heard by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2014, and was continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting for further discussion. Due to the extremely sensitive nature of this situation, Green Hills respectfully requests that the matter be further continued 6 weeks, to be heard again at the regularly scheduled April 22, 2014 hearing. This continuance will allow for Green Hills to engage with the Verde Vista Homeowners ("HOA") and its legal counsel, and to more fully vet and evaluate potential resolutions to the HOA's concerns. We have contacted the HOA's legal counsel, Michael D. McLachlan, and he has agreed that this proposed continuance is appropriate under the circumstances. We sincerely hope that the Planning Commission is also agreeable to this request. SVNI I31_RNr1RDINt;) 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408 RIVI RSID 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 • Riverside, California 92501 = - S' -N- I:)ILGO 550 West C; Street, Suite 1810 • San Diego, California 92101 LOS ANGELP1 333 South I -lope Street. 35'n Floor • Los Angeles, California 90071 Orcxham Savage.cem F"um-Templates -- 954397.1 Pub. Corr - Page 366 E. Schonborn March 7, 2014 Page 2 Should you have any questions whatsoever, or if you would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your consideration. NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation EB:DFF cc: Carol W. Lynch, Esq. (clynch@rwglaw.com) Michael D. McLachlan, Esq. (mike@mclachlanlaw.com) Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (pc@rpv.com) Firm -Templates -- 954397.1 Pub. Corr - Page 367 Eduardo 5chonborn From: Joel Rojas Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 136 PM To: Gordon.Leon@ymail.con) Cc: Eduardo Schon'born Subject: RE: Mausoleum in Green Hills Cemetery section #11 We are doing that and will report back in the next staff report. From: Gordon Leon [gordon.leon@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:52 AM To: julieikeye@aol.com; Joel Rojas Subject: Re: Mausoleum in Green Hills Cemetery section #t11 Joel, Can you please check if Green Hills fully disclosed the roof top graves in their initial application? Thanks, Gordon On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:41 AM,<julieikeye@aol,com<mailto:julieikeye@aol.com» wrote: re: the meeting at the planning commission Item: 3 - The mausoleum in Green Hills It seemed that several of the commissioners didn't remember Green Hills asking for burial plots on top of the mausoleum. I found out that there was no mention of them in the plans. The only indication at all was a drawing with some rectangles on top of the roof of the mausoleum. Is that sufficient for the master- plan or does there need to be any verbal or written mention that there were burial sites intended to be there? Did they put one over on you as well as us? And is there anything we can do at this point to rectify the situation. Thank you, Julie Keye Gordon Leon 310-453-9244 Page 7 Pub. Corr - Page 368 LIN Eduardo Schonborn From: Roger Metzler <metzler.roger@gmail.com> -Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:03 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Green Hills Master Plan CUP Review Attachments: GreenH!llsLetter2014.pdf Mr. Schonborn - I live on the south side of Green Hills Cemetery and read the staff report that was prepared for the Planning Commission meeting February 25. 1 was shocked to see the photos included in the report of the view impairment caused by the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum to the residents of Vista Verde. It is obvious that something was overlooked in formulating the Conditions of Approval that the Planning Commission included in its Exhibit B of Resolution 2007-33, that allowed such impairment to occur. There was an 8 foot setback requirement included in Section 7, but that doesn't appear to have been sufficient. Furthermore, I couldn't find any condition on the height of structures in that Exhibit. I would be interested in receiving your insight as to what conditions might have been included in 2007 and 2008 to prevent such impact on the Vista Verde and other neighboring residents. I would also like to suggest a revision to the new condition that the Staff Report recommends be adopted by the Planning Commission. That condition, on page 7 of the report, requires that a frame silhouette be constructed to outline the size and shape of future mausoleums and mausoleum extensions prior to their approval. I would f,-auggest that the condition be broadened to include ALL future above ground structures on the cemetery r: roperty, not just mausoleums and their extensions. My suggested rewording of the condition is: "Prior to approval of all above -ground structures on the cemetery site, including but not limited to future mausoleums and mausoleum extensions, the applicant shall construct and certify a temporary frame silhouette that illustrates the location, height and outline of the proposed structure. If, after silhouette construction, Staff determines that the structure will cause a view or visual impact to any surrounding residence or property, then the size and height of the structure shall be reduced and/or redesigned so as not to cause a view or visual impact from that residence or property." Making the silhouette condition apply to all future structures may prevent view impairment issues with future Green Hills buildings, such as a new administration building or replacement of the temporary modular buildings which now exist adjacent to the administration building. I have attached a letter to the Planning Commission containing my comments and suggestions pertaining to the Master Plan CUP review. I would appreciate it if you would include it in the materials submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the February 25th meeting. As stated above, I would also be interested in your insight as to what conditions might have been included in 2007 and 2008 to prevent such an impact on the Vista Verde and other neighboring residents. Pub. Corr - Page 369 Thank you. Roger Metzler 1921 Avenida Feiciano, RPV metzler.roger@gmail.co Pub. Corr - Page 370 44! � 1-- 3 1921 Avenida Feliciano Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 February 22, 2014 Planning Commission of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed the Community Development Department staff's report and recommendations regarding the annual review of the Green Hills Master Plan Conditional Use Permit (ZON2003- 00085). The pictures included in the report of the view impairment to Vista Verde residents caused by the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum are truly shocking. Obviously, something was overlooked in the development of the Conditions of Approval that accompanied the Master Plan Revision in 2007. I'm sure it was not the intent of the Planning Commission at that time to allow such an egregious impairment of the view of any residents surrounding Green Hills. Obviously, the 8 foot setback specified in Section 7 of Exhibit B of Resolution 2007-33 was riot sufficient. And I couldn't find in those conditions any height restrictions imposed on above ground structures. Perhaps a revision of the setback requirements and the addition of height restrictions should be considered during this review in order to prevent any future occurrences of such dramatic view impairment. At the minimum I suggest that the staff recommendation to add a condition that a frame silhouette be constructed to outline future mausoleums or mausoleum extensions prior to their approval be revised to be more inclusive. I would suggest that the frame silhouette condition be imposed on ALL future above ground construction on the Green Hills property. Such a condition may prevent such view impairment issues if and when Green Hills gets around to constructing a new administration building or any replacement of their temporary modular buildings that the Planning Commission and City Council have directed take place within the near future. My suggested rewording of staff's condition is the following: Prior to approval of all above -ground structures on the cemetery site, including but not limited to future mausoleums and mausoleum extensions, the applicant shall construct and certify a temporary frame silhouette that illustrates the location, height and outline of the proposed structure. If, after silhouette construction, Staff determines that the structure will cause a view or visual impact to any surrounding residence or property, then the size and height of the structure shall be reduced and/or redesigned so as not to cause a view or visual impact from that residence or property. I certainly hope that additional conditions can be agreed upon in order to prevent future impacts such as those experienced by the Vista Verde residents. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, Roger Metzler Pub. Corr - Page 371 I-AW OPPICE.-S OF MICHAEL D. McLACHLAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10490 SANTA NIC) ICA BOOI.EVARD Los ANGTIUS, CA 9ooz5 FAX 310-9W8271 February 18, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MA II, Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: February 2.5, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda Item #3 Green Hills Annual Re14eity (Case No. ZON2003-00086) Dear Commissioners: I write on behalf of the Vista Verde Homeowners Association (the "I-IOA") relative to Green Hills Memorial Park. More specifically, this leiter addresses the initial phase of the Memorial Terrance Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum") which was recently constructed eight feet to the South of the HOA property in what is known as Area I I to the Green hills Master Plan. I 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 MaLISOIC11111, and requests that the Planning Commission reconsider the Conditional Use Permit for the fliture 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 Page 41 Pub. Corr - Page 372 Planning Commission City of'Ranclio Palos Verdes February 19, 2014 Page 2 ZD properties. 5ee Sl<. -(l ,1'Rcj)or1, February 27, 2007, [,'2. Tlie constrUdiOn OftlIC 1V RLISOIC1.1111 was completed last year, and it is now in IWI operation, B. Tim Vista Verde HOA The I IOA complex was developed in 1081, and contains twenty-five coni oinin4un units. M(_)st, of tile units are constructed with a s(,)tjtlieast orientation, giving the units it doNvii-valley view oftlie ocean and harbor. TXVCFIty4OLIr Ol'tile, units are single floor units, Split. oil two floors. One trilit northwest portion of [lie property occupies two floors. I'l-te IIOA property also contains a common pool and recreation arca located on tile Southeast portion of the property. Tbjs portion of the property contains as spa, I)arbeclue area, a pool, and (letacl)ed recreation room. I'llis portion of' the property l7ormerk, enjoyed ocean and harbor views, C. Mausoleum Impacts ota the HOA Owners The Mausoleum has fundarricritally changed the lives of -'every single pot -son living at. the 110A, on nearly every level imaginable. Words amd even photographs cannot describe the result of'ffjis project, Its impact, can only be f1illy absorbed in person., and to that end, the I IOA extends an invitation to Lilly 01, 'yOU and )IOLIF staff NA -ho have yet to visit the site. For current purposes, however, I will try to summarize some of die adverse impacts, and will present sore visual materials at the bearing. Tfie problems with the: MaUSOleUIII C,111 be broadly grouped into three, categories: (1) height; (2) proximity, and (3) operations. 1, Height is height ol'tlic structure has c(-.)rnpletcly blocked the ocean view of'llic first floor units, Tlie first attached photograph shows the current view tron-i one unit. The second 1100r Units also have impaired views, but Most significantly StIller 6-011) the pr0NXiITIitV and operations problems, as well as the ruin of" di(common area. `.Fhe common pool and recreation area now sits in a 1046ot deep flole occasioned by the north Wall Oftbe MaLISOletim. While there is small sliver of view remaining, more. than ninety percent of the pool area now facers a large concrete Nvall at a distance of' eight lleeL 'the character of"this space is as drastically impacted as the First floor units. I enclose a I'( -w post -construction photographs of the pool area. Page 42 Pub. Corr - Page 373 Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes February 19, `'014 Page 3 The height ofthe MiALISOJeLtill would need to be as I'Lill ten sect shorter it " It Nvere to have not had the adversc impact on the views at the I 10A property. The situation has let! those at Vista Verde believing their preciQLJS Views have been stolen fi-01-11 Ific living and sold to the deceased — likely not a land Use OULCOrne the City had in mind and one that lilwly would not 118VC OCCUrred had (3reen Hills been entirely 1`61-111conlino t_1 I 2. Pre xjmity & 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 internments, when combined with the height and proximity issues has essentially moved the burial and mournino process directly in to the living rooms of every single 110A owner. L_ T'lle proximity is shocking, and now ain inescapable aspect of daily life at the HOA. The proximity of the rooftop burials has destroyed the privacy an(] cluict enj 0y1flunt ol'both the HOA residents and those mourning ), just a few fact away. T'he problems are not limited to a few hours during set -vices., but extend for days prior, involving excessive construction noise from plank installations, backhoe noise and cx1i,clust. (Vista Verde is down wind), among Others funcral planning activities, Green I -bills has elected to operate the above -ground burial sites with absolutely no consideration For the FIOA members. The cemetery routinely breaks noise restrictions, permitting services to be broadcast by loud speaker, discharging 1"irearnis', and allowing loud music, live bands, among other Forms ofexcessive noise. Green Hills refuses tea enforce curfew, allowing park patrons to throw parties after hours Oil the roof Ot*tl1C MaLISOICUM. Green Hills' behavior toward the IJOA residents is regularly hostile-, including episodes of shouting at the residents to move away firoin their windows during set -vices, aniong other retaliatory 001RILIC1, D. Requested Action The HOA asks that the Commission tale such steps as are necessary to ensure that the current problem is rnitigated. Primarily, the HOA requests that the current SitUati011 not be allowed to be compounded by futtire expansion of the ill -planned Memorial Terrace MaLlSoleurn, Sufficient grounds exist to pursue modification of the Conditional Use Permit to eliminate future eastward expansion 017[fie K-11-ISOICU111. That construction Will Only Further eliminate views and destroy the quiet use and cl1loyment of the neighboring residents. The allowance of an eight-lbot setback, on residential -adjacent construction of this type Was a profound mistal\-e ShOLdd be rectified going forward, Page 43 Pub. Corr - Page 374 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 roof top internments. 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. Pub. Corr - Page 375 1 Y <L1 i I' r e Amp 'L. Fcbruary 17, 2014 1`o: The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes f used to love to come home: and be at home. It was my peaceful haven from this chaotic and cont Using world. It also provided it nice acid comfortable envirotinient in wliiclh to have. guests. I could see the ocean from my windows and my patio, And, at night the view ofthe lif hts over the harbor was spectaCLda -. Today this is all gone, Cneen 1 -Fills stale it tivherl they built the new Memorial Terrace Mausolcurn. Now, not only do I not have a view- it is disconcerting that people are buried in graves tivithin a stone's throw and more sites fere being sold, Then there are the continually disruptive funerals and of course the families who visit their loved ones often tivith dogs and children, and which unbelievably sometimes turn into parties. And, then, if this wasn't enough, Breen Fulls has a ramp in front of what used to be my "sl nroom" where big machinery drives up and down, sometimes two at a time, and when they get to the top of the mausoleum the graves Eire dug. After the funerals more machinery goes us to cover the graves. What a way to spend what used to be quiet mornings and afternoons. You can understand see how my life .has been compromised. as Hills did Vista Verde Condominium a disservice that is not only unfair and unjfist. but disruptive and frustrating. It is my hope and plea that you do not find Green hills in accordance with the initial Continued Use Permit and "delete or modify existing conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate.." Also, thatt any future expansion of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum be prohibited as currently planned and that any future construction in that area be subject to conzptete review. Personally, I firmly believe errors were made and that both the Commission and Green I°fills realize the folly of this nrausolcu n. Respectfully, (.ane Mayhew baric C. Mayhew Consf.ilting Page 56 Pub. Corr - Page 380 To whom it may concern I am a resident owner ofa cnndomioiom in the Vista Verde complex on Palos Verdes Dc N, |'m writing to express my displeasure with the design and construction of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and why it has severely impacted my property value, and more importantly, rny peace of rnind. | purchased this property in20O8and atthat time this condo had amuch different vievvandamoch ditterent feel. When I purchased this property I liked the view and the privacy that the balcony gave me. The cemetery, although directly visible off- the balcony, didn't seern to extend into my living room as it does now, Now when I open my blinds I arn greeted with a place where headstones are going to be laid. They are going to be so dose that | can probably read the names on them. | also am expecting in the future to be greeted with mourning families as well as sometimes loud funerals which have included bands' firing squads, and other loud activities in the past. This is, quite obviously, NOT the same property that } purchased inZOO8anymore. The View: My view has been severely impacted by this mausoleurn, especially from the common area puok1acuzzi/bbqarea. As I mentioned above, the spacious awe-inspiring view that I paid for in just 2008 is now cramped up by this horrific concrete concoction in which dead bodies are stuffed inside it, on top of it, and anywhere else they can put them. The view from my common area pool/Jacuzzi/bbq area is cornpletely gone now as well. When I purchased this property we had a great view of Sari Pedro and even part of Long Beach frorn the pool. When sitting in the Jacuzzi you had a clear view and could look out into San Pedro. Now there is a giant concrete block that blocks everything. Furthermore' it has taken all the sun away from the pool area. It is also inconvenient because all the vegetation clippings/etc from the mausoleum is going directly into our pool and Jacuzzi. The disregard for Our view, property, and our privacy is unbelievable. For decades this community has been great neighbors to the Green Hills cemetery and this iahow weare repaid? Privacy: if people are able to see CLEARLY into my living room they will see that I may have expensive things in my home. People ontop ufthis monstrosity are going tobeable toeasily look into myliving room, kitchen, and office. They can see if I am home or not. This is equivalent to having a public park outside of my living room now. I now live in a state where I must keep my blinds drawn at all times unless I want strangers peering directly into myhome. Maybe this isn't abig deal tosomepeople but kistome. | would not have purchased this property if I knew people could look directly into my living room from the cemetery, I see this as a privacy issue as well as security. Noise: The noise from the construction of this thing has been beyond intrusive and aggravating The crews would start working at Gam some days and not stop until after7pm some nights. Digging, drilling, pounding, and kicking up dirt/debris directly into my condo. Instead of having my balcony door and Pub. Corr — age 381 south facing windows wide open I had to leave then shut to avoid tons of dirt and dust getting into my home along with the terrible noise and workers directly out my windows. There is also the obvious noise frorn the funerals themselves as mentioned above. Before this thing was built I was already annoyed with volume and frequency of the funerals. I understand that is part of living next to a cemetery, but my point here is that these loud noises are going to be 30-50 feet from my living room window now. If they were already bothersome before 1 can't imagine how it is going to be. There is also the noise from the maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers, sprinklers, and gardeners etc. There is also noise from the digging equipment that must be used EVERY SINGLE tune the need to bury someone in this thing. Furthermore, the digging equipment literally SNAKES this entire building when it is operating. The vibrations and noise from rnachines will give me a clear reminder that another dead body will be shoved into the ground right outside my window in the near future, Energy Use: Because I'm forced to keep my south facing doors and windows closed all the time I have seen a large spike in my energy usage on air conditioning. I am unable to take advantage of the ocean breezes that used to come directly into Illy home. Providing me with cool and fresh air. Instead I am forced to run my air conditioning all day and even at night in order to keep my home at a comfortable temperature. My duality of life and happiness has been declining steadily since construction began. I don't enjoy living in my own home anymore and I am scared to find out: what someone else would ever pay to buy this. Some of the following actions would help relieve the pain and suffereing of Illy community Limits should be established on the number of people allowed to buried in this mausoleum. Right now I don't know how many are allowed but it is far too many Limits on using heavy equipment. Green Hills should be required to use old fashioned shovels or equipment that does not provide the obnoxious noise and vibrations to my home that it currently does. Limits on allowing services to be help which infringe on our peace and privacy. Large, loud services with hundreds of people, live music, or 21 gun salutes should be absolutely dis allowed this close to our community, Repairs should be ordered on the non-functioning water draining system which is creating mold and mosquitos directly outside my home. - The loud fans that are currently running non-stop day and night for ventilation should also be removed or modified to reduce intrusion of our peace and quiet. - Green Hills should be required to provide professional window Lining on all my doors and windows facing the intrusive mausoleum. Thanks Matthew Martin Owner Page 58 Pub. Corr - Page 382 Vista Verde CondomifILIM 2110 Palos Verdes Dr N ##208 Page 59 Pub. Corr - Page 383 F'ebruary 17, 2014 To; The Planning Commission of the City of Ranch Palos Verdes I used to love to conte home and be at home. It was my peaceful haven from this chaotic and confusing world. It also provided a rice and comfortable environment in which to have guests. I could see the ocean from my windows and my patio. And, at night the view of the lights over the harbor was spectacular. Today this is all gone, Green Hills stole it when they built the new Pacific TvIatisoleum. Now, not only do I not have a view, it is disconcerting that people are buried in graves within a stone's throw and more sites are being sold. Then there are the continually disruptive funerals and of course the families who visit their loved ones often with dogs and children, and which unbetievably sometimes turn into parties. And, then, if this wasn't enough, Green Hills has a ramp in front of what used to be my "sunroorn" where bili machinery drives up and down, sometimes two at a time, and when they get to the top of the mausoleum the graves are dug. After the funerals more machinery goes us to cover the graves. What a way to spend what used to be quiet mornings and afternoons. You can understand see how my life has been compromised. Green Hills did Vista Verde Condominium a disservice that is not only unfair and unjust, but disruptive and frustrating, It is my hope and plea that you do not find Green Hills in accordance with the initial Continued Use Permit and "delete or modify existing conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate." Personally, I firmly believe errors were made and that both the Commission and Green Hills realize the folly of this mausoleum. Respectfully, Lane Mayhew Lane C. Mayhew Consulting Page 49 Pub. Corr - Page 384 EduardoSchotiborn From: Lori Brown .<([)islroadrunrier,@gtiiail.com> Sent: Monday, February :17, 2014 5:10 PM To: Eduardo Schonborn Cc: Mike McLachlan; VVOA HOA Subject: Green )-fills Cemetery 'Master Plan Conditional Use Permit' (Sent via e-mail) I-"Chuary 17, 2014 Cormilmlity Development Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Btvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Commissioners: This is to inf6rrn and notify you of the severity of the impact of Green Hills Memorial Park's recent deveiopnrient ofthe Pacific Terrace Mausolernrr has caused the Vista Verde Condominium Owners. 1_3ACKGROtIND: Green Hills Memorial Park previously owned land naw occupied by Vista Verde Condominiums, located North ofRPV City border and South ol'Lomita City border. band was sold and developed in 1981 into 25 units located at 2110 Palos Verdes Dr, North, Lomita. 'The Vista Verde Condorniniunis are occupied mostly by original owners who bought their units around 0 years ago for the coastline view,' privacy, and -quietness. ISSUES: Green Hills Memorial Park 30 years ago was prirnarily a VALLEY with a "coastline view" "privacy", and "quiet." Over the years, Green Hills has moved eNcess amounts of soil, creating HILLS and developing Mausoleums along; the "exterior border" of their property. Specifically, the Pacific Terrace Mausoleu n impacting the. Vista Verde Condo Owner's: 1. Obstructed "coastline views" due to height Of Mausoleumn; 2. Light Foot (8') Properly Set Back causing: a. I.,oss of sun and privacy in pool, ,jacuzzi, B13Q area; b. Excess noise from heavy duty machinery (Backhoes, Tractors, Golf Carts), and Rineral processions amplified with microphones, sound speakers, nIusic, on top of Mausoleum. soleu. In addition, the starry sound of guns (21 gun salutes) which can be heard with all our windows closed. c, Loss of privacy. People on top of Mausoleum peer directly (eye level) into our living rooms. d. Excess carbon monoxide created from heavy duty equipment on top of Mausoleum and autos coming and going for funeral processions. Direction of"wind causes carbon monoxide to blow directly into our living rooms. Where else in RPV has an 8' Property Line Set Back been allowed? RANCI-10 PALOS VERDES MISSION Fourty years ago, RPV viligently fought for 13 years to have Unincorporated land area controlled by LA Page 50 Pub. Corr - Page 385 County to become Incorporated into RPV. This was done with the Mission to: "Save Our Coastlines." 'Tow Density Land Use" "Overall Ambience Of Community" Has Development Gone too Far? Based on RPV's Mission, STOP further development of'Green Hills' Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Green Hills has plenty o,f" 1 riterior land" (121 acres) to bury deceased without destroying what little "coastline views" are still left. Respectfully, -Logi Brown Vista. Verde Condo Owner, 9205 211.0 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Lomita. CA 90717 LBis I RoadRunner.com Page 51 Pub. Corr - Page 386 From: Sent: To: Subject: To: Eduardo Schonborn, Senior Planner Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:30 PM Eduardo Schonborn Green Hills Master Plarr Conditional Use Permit Annual Review - concerns Why do 1 oppose future rnausoleum construction irmnediately In front of my building... and why I'm completely disappointed with the current one.' It caused and continues to cause physical, energetic, and emotional damage to me and my family (and, of course all people living in our complex). The very close proximity to our building caused structural damage to our property. Cracks on the walls, stucco, driveway, cement are just the visible signs... The south base is exposed more than it use to be, which affects stability of the wall. The dirt, dust and cement powder ended up on our screens, homes, hangs.... The noise and Pounding during building process was very disturbing and took more than year and a lral f! The noise level was and still is (in case of burial, which happens almost every day) higher than the allowed limits. People morn, cry, or stare at Our windows every day, we lost our privacy totally.... N,lost importantly, my beautiful place lost big part of the amazing view it had and big chunk of value because of the mausoleum and activities on the top of it. The first floor view is completely taken away! It is so close you hear pastors speaking about the life of deceased person. It is as if the burials are occurring in my living room. I have no idea how someone could allow or approve such project! The result of the current mausol.eurn has been truly catastrophic, Energetic flow is disrupted and that can cause sickness and unfortunate outcome to us. Even someone who doesn't follow Feng shui principles as we do knows that being surrounded by negativity is never a good thing. Yet, we are forced to witness it and to be part of it. I'm just not happy anymore with the place I live in. It once was wonderful. You should not allow any future construction adjacent to our building. respectfully, Chit 207 owner Page 54 Pub. Corr - Page 387 Eduardo Schonborn `rom: bkastbury@netscape.net ''Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:24 AM To: Eduardo Schonborn Subject: Green Hills Mr. Schonborn, Below are comments that we wish to submit to RPV Planning Commission for the February 26, 2014 meeting regarding Green Hills Memorial Park. Thank you. John & Barbara Astbury Vista Verde Condominiums omita, CA 90717 > Purchased this property because of the beautiful ocean and harbor views. Now have no view. > Property value has now been significantly lowered because of the lack of a view. > Common pool area was once enjoyable with an ocean view but now sits in a 10' hole and is ruined. > Constant noise and water discharge from air conditioning system bordering property line. > Drainage swale between Green Hills and Vista Verde receives no sun light causing moisture to accumulate without evaporating and create perfect breeding ground for mosquitos. > Some young family members visiting grave sites get upset I am sitting on my balcony and become louder and rather obnoxious after drinking whatever is in their brown bags. They delight in throwing trash and cigarette butts over the back side of the structure. > Green Hills security patrols are both non-existent and a joke, not wanting to take any action to enforce rules. > Recent service had a mariachi band playing very loud for nearly four hours, very disturbing. > Proximity of this structure is simply shocking and demand that RPV not permit any future expansion of the mausoleum. Pub. Corr - Page 388 Eduardo Schonborn: From Elmer W. Scheel Jr. 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North #206 Lomita, CA 90717 Phone: (310) 831-9589 E-mail: carisc heel hotmail.corn Ref; ZON2003-00086 (Annual Review) Green Hills Memorial Terrace Mausoleum Comments: I was not notified of RPV meetings of early 2007 or RPV revision to Green Hills Master Plan through Planning Commission Resolution 2007-33 on April 24, 2007 which changed the setback from 40 to 8 feet, and allowed excessive view reducing height, Before or during construction of Green Hills Terrace Mausoleum, there were no indications of setback or height — such as height and area outline flags to show size and impact of the proposed project. As constructed, the mausoleum has added noise, and greatly reduced views, privacy, and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Property values and desirability are greatly reduced. I cannot imagine being able to sell my condo at a fair price. Buyers would not want to buy my condo due to the size and proximity of the mausoleum to our building. I would suggest that Green Hills purchase the property and convert the property to cemetery use. Thank you for your consideration. Elmer W. Scheel Jr. Page 55 Pub. Corr - Page 389 November O.2O13 Michael McLachlan Law Office ofMichael McLachlan, APC 1040OSanta Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CAQOO25 RE: GREEN HILLSPACIFIC TERRACE MAUSOLEUM Counselor K8CLGch|oO: You requested documentation of recent activity on top of the Green Hills' Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Enclosed are Photographs and Videos. As of November 7, it appears approximately 17 burials have occurred on top of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum since about October 9(an estimated 4-5burials aweak). However, there is usually daily activity on top of the Mausoleum as Green Hills has brought machinery (Back Hoe, Golf Carts, etc.) on top of the Mausoleum to dig the holes for the coffins the day oFso BEFORE�leaving aDOPEN GRAVE sometimes for aday o[several days. Later, followed by pop uptents, chairs, tables, flowers, etc. oDtop ofthe Mausoleum the day of the funeral. Then, there is the mowing of the lawn, moving flowers, surveying for the next coffin location, plus visitors. In other words, there is DAILY ACTIVITY UD top of the Mausoleum. SPECIFIC DATES WITH PHOTOS: Saturday, October 19 - (Refer to Photos with marked date and pink b@UQ0De\ - Ven/ |oUd, ainging, speaker for rnUoic` microphone for pastor (which could be clearly heard in Vista Verde Condos). Set up, ceremony, and tear down lasted from about noon to 5:00 p.m. (5 hours), Monday, October 28 - (Refer to Photos with marked date) - Very large, loud and noisy funeral service with approximately 150 people with kids running around, loud music, people talking (which could be c|mmdy heard from the Vista Verde Condos) very disruptive. Saturday, November 3 - (Refer to PhOƒOS/V|Ugo with marked date) -G[enn Hills started nloYViDg grass at appn0XiDlGie|y 7:00 a.m. (very \OUd noise woke n)GDy Vista Verde Owners). At approximately 11:00 a.m. Green Hills started preparing Lop Of Mausoleum with three large machines making very loud noise. UPDATES: Monday, October 20 - Lane Mayhew (Vista Verde Unit #1O8) had 8lengthy telephone conversation with John Reich of Green Hills. She informed him Vista Verde does have legal counsel. Pub. Corr - Page 390 Tuesday, November 5 - Joel Rojas, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Edua0do, both of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes staff visited and observed Lone MeyhevV's(Vista Verde Unit #1O9)obstructed view. This was inresponse toMatt Martin (Vista Verde Unit # 208) directly contacting the Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor, Susan Brooks. A proposed Special Hearing was discussed. CONTINUING ISSUES: HARBOR VIEWS -aoefWMherb|VckeU bvthe Pop UpTents and |e[Oe, heavy equipment un top of the Mausoleum NOISE -oUtop Ofthe Mausoleum created bvthe heavy equipment iSextremely loud and PRIVACY - lost with people oOtop ofthe Mausoleum peering into Vista Verde Owners Living Rooms and taking photographs, (Refer <uenclosed photo ofvvebelieve hobe aGreen Hills employee photographing a Vista Verde Owner (Johnny Shadiid Unit #110) in their own living room. SET BACK -|Sitlegal tohave burials within eight feet ofresidential eating areas (Vista Verdes Barbeque/Pool area)? STAGNANT WATER & MOLD-P@cificTgrr@ce Mausoleum's water runoff ialeaving stagnant water and nlO|d in the drainage pipes and the |G[g8 water trough OO the bottom of the nl@UsO|eUnl right next to Vista Verde units. This is a serious health concern due to the West Nile Virus and YeU0vv Fever. Refer to enclosed marked photos. At this point, we believe the Special Hearing with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is needed. Board of Directors Vista Verde Homeowners Association Enc LB,fd Green Hills Doc oLawyer Pub. Corr - Page 391 Brien -and Urxlsvy Qinpr 2110 Palos Ver -des DIR N Unit 2U L:)mi' a,.,CA 90717 (474� 7t,,7 -6117h &tzptr.mber 17, 2013 To-, IMs. So Kim, VtV of Rancho Palos Verdes b Green Hills Merrsorial Park: Nluusuk?uln Con.qfjjezion and Prap:xed Zoning Changes Nly wife and I ars re!4dent 'vwrl or<' in tne vi ta. Verde condomin iu.m compiz-, of Lwnil;" -"hich thp. GTc-ert Piff% MerrinoW Parkin Rancho Palos Verdes. Afthex,�J; vu ore reialively new owne.rs here at Vi5ta Vordr,, we ase quite shocked andsaddvivO t)y thr,� cowig ptinfirm od -hp mFw Pacific Terrar�- hq,*M4M0,jM bordering our Vnis nenv rnaUsoteum buildinf, towz�r' <)vef mif pool And iiIBCZ =rea orn.1 ti, .,, ftak, pre,:?n Tripp and rnen:al bars novi t:,Ior.K 7,'uC'q oi p'I'z-v;vUMY k�.'pt!ddIlLtfiJ by Lime (ixvr IIsi; residents. 40urunderslandiF-,� ,,fro-m,an propossedplan byexceeding the h6j,,h( le -,,vel (L),,., n--arly8! Feer'), but also vlolatca-� lcanamzrj,'; fgiv [)uildingl-s not setb,ackdOfeet From Uvr korriplvx' 70,11" PTOD'i'mitycit tfiv U� ;.If k,, cal lexiU? 'those,: whiz, wish to mauni Thu new rnaysule vr'71 uv ill cfs! ai 11 N not vkeeep my vvifu cir I or: ny ri f our n eighbors fro rr, enjoy iaijz, utir pfr.'jx,rtv, h-ij7�iawa.titiarie",iklg"-.ar,�",il,4e5h,;.*Pri,,dlLhwig- Fris-,ic)l�:,,i-i,'r.lo,,,s ind,13SQS, rip ,htt-text dr�o' Thi HiKs, Memodipl Park also p;vrWa ,,d firit to Impprip, awn neighboring compl-u-�!i (,Abting.vpw-anclyetthu Pacific Tetroce -Ius;t ask any oi our nuip,,hbors on lhiit ,,odp of thta.' co"niple."I.. And no-tv the Gmen Hill;.. M<,worial P,96 and the City of Rancho Palu.-; Veides af�c.anside4.ng- rpiDnIng the lind Nitr.,E o rnprci 'proper- cerrietery zonine? This wrould allow thein to Continue d'uVelupmP.0 01c,"12 the borde.rs to expand thu.j r maw�Wevm Ir,4u Ild ings until there are no ppcis Und nu rer,-ttaining ,npws frarr, any of the 4:'-x,`sstinF" Clearly t1he Memar-ta?, Pw,hai 4,hovtn that th--kr hawe no issue bypo5slit; r,)oJS0r)g rAaiu,is to whq gant them the abili(V to coritinoe Pwprnsion art the expense of their rwiF'hL)OrF,? 'rhank you for time and pleasc vvnkklef votur tinighborF here in Vista Verde b,:(ore jo't glving Gre.en a blank vjs5 Uo unflatefally dp)if-lop Aclmg its bordurs. Sincef�,Ily, Brian Car�.r 1� irx)sa V Caftpr Page 61 Pub. Corr - Page 392 So Kim From: Nad <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:38 AM To: So Kim Cc: Greg Pfost; Joel Rojas Subject: Re: question So Kim, Thank you very much for the clarification! This really helps because we are so confused and... Don't know exactly what to expect. Have a great day! Nadia Sent from my iPod On Sep 16, 2013, at 8:04 AM, So Kim <SoK cr,rpv.com> wrote: Hi, Thank you for your email. I understand that many of the residents in the condo complex in Lomita have concerns related to the new mausoleum. The proposed land use changes does not have any relation to the existing, current or future mausoleums. The current land use designation for the is Commercial - Retail (CR) and zoning designation is Cemetery. The City is proposing to change the land use designation from CR to Cemetery to match the zoning designation and to ensure that the use remains a Cemetery. I hope this clarifies any confusion. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvaeorg@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:44 PM To: So Kim Subject: Re: question Hi So Kim, 1 would like to express my concerns regarding the proposal to change the existing land use designation of Commercial -Retail to Cemetery I am a owner of one of the condos ate Vista Verde complex Located at: 2110 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lomita, Ca, 90717 My understanding about the proposal to change the existing land use designation of Commercial -Retail to Cemetery is that the Green Hills 'General Plan Land Use' includes MORE mausoleums around their parameter directly impacting Vista Verde views & property values significantly... The mausoleum built at front of our building already had great negative impact on our lives: Page 62 Pub. Corr - Page 393 1. Construction took more than a year and a half. During that time we were subject to pounding, shaking, soil removing right on the border plus even from our property under the "balcony" of the pool area. Partially our base of that area was exposed which awakened the base. We had new cracks on our stucco, driveway, and cement over the pool area. We had enormous amount of dust, including but not limited to soil, cement, wood, chemicals and paint sprayed over the new building, which the wind blew over our property (terraces, windows, screen, inside of the units, all over the pool and jacuzzi, our lungs, etc.) I have videos and pictures documenting clouds of dirt and dust in the air... It was noisy almost every single day, even on Saturdays since 7 in the morning. 2. In the plan and initial proposal it was said that no view would be impacted and ... here we are, first floor don't even have a glimpse of the harbor anymore, for the second floor it is greatly reduced to less than half of what was before the building. Architecture's videos on their web site were misleading, showing the height of the mausoleum on the carport level... 3. Having burial ceremony on the top of the mausoleum in such close proximity is ridiculous - it feels like they are having that ceremony on my property, right out of my windows! You can see people standing there so clearly and you can talk to them without shouting ... it is that close! Forget about privacy! You cannot even plan a party nor have guests coming because it might be a burial at that time and... Bikini and pool party right next to mourning people? I'm saying we are too close so you can see eye winking ... 4. The mausoleum has 2 huge ventilation machines on the cement wall towards our property and you can hear them when they work. It is constant low noise but annoying hum which goes at night too. We have bedrooms facing that way! Moral question - what is the real reason to have such embarrassing closeness to peoples' building when there is plenty of room on the Green hills memorial park property where would be no such impact on any ones life? My understanding was that the setback between the properties was not just a few feet; it's supposed to be about 40? Also, my understanding is that the building size (height including) and volume exceeds the original plan... And, also my understanding is that they are planning another building like this one in expansion of it on the East side. This definitely will make the property value to plunge down, way down! More than the plunge it took as of today with the existing one now... We lost property value, we lost our view, privacy... Does that feel right to someone? Best Regards, Nadia Page 63 Pub. Corr - Page 394 On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM, So Kim <SoK(a,rpv.com> wrote: Hi Ms. Nadia, Attached is the public notice. In brief, the City is proposing to change the existing land use designation of Commercial -Retail to Cemetery, consistent with the current use. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Associate Planner <image001.jpg>City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 / sok@rpv.com http://www.pcilosverdes.com/rpv/ From: Nad Gv [mailto:nvgeorcL@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:15 PM To: So Kim Subject: question Hi So Kim, Can I have the Important notice from the City of RPV regarding Green Hills proposed changes emailed to me? I did not receive it and I'm one of the VVO complex (situated on 2110 Palos Verdes Dr.North). Thank you very much! Nadia Page 64 Pub. Corr - Page 395 So Kim From: Ray Frew <RFrew@ghmp.com> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:19 PM To: So Kim Subject: RE: Green Hills Memorial Park/Planning Commission Public Hearing Thank you for the quick reply! Ray From: So Kim [mailto:SoK0)rpv.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:02 PM To: Ray Frew Cc: Dennis Lane; John Resich AOL; Tom Frew; Nick Resich; Greg Pfost; Joel Rojas Subject: RE: Green Hills Memorial Park/Planning Commission Public Hearing Dear Mr. Frew, Thank you for your email. You are correct in that the proposed land use change to the Cemetery from Commercial -Retail to Cemetery has no relation to existing or proposed improvements at Green Hills Memorial Park. You presence is welcome if you have any comments related to the land use change. If you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner From: Ray Frew [mailto:RFrew(aghmp.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:12 PM To: So Kim Cc: Dennis Lane; John Resich AOL; Tom Frew; Nick Resich Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park/Planning Commission Public Hearing Dear Ms. Kim: I am in receipt of the Notice dated September 2, 2013, in relation to the public hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on Tuesday, September 24, 2013. It is my interpretation that the sole purpose of the meeting is to receive input pertaining to the City's desire to create the designation of Cemetery for the General Plan Land Use Map. Would you please affirm to me that the Planning Commission is not considering any changes, as a result of this new designation, that would affect any of the current operations at Green Hills Memorial Park, including all operations related to creating and maintaining burial property, the operation of the crematory and the operations of tenants, Green Hills Flower Shop and Green Hills Mortuary and Memorial Chapel, Inc.? Is the presence of an Officer or Board Member of Green Hills Memorial Park deemed necessary or desirable at the public hearing? Thank you for your time and help. As directed by Joel Rojas' letter, would you please confirm receipt of this email? Respectfully, Ray Frew President/CEO 1 Page 65 Pub. Corr - Page 396 310-521-4417 direct office 310-503-5431 cell phone Pub. Corr - Page 397 09-16-13 Ms. So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: Proposed changes to 1975 General Plan Land Use Map (Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue) Ms. Kim: I have grave concerns regarding changes/revisions to the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map (Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue). The notice dated 9-5-2013 stated in part "... The City has preliminarily approved a series of land use changes, thereby correcting ambiguities between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map." Will "correcting ambiguities" be used to facilitate removal of neighboring property owners rights? Will it serve to cover-up, hide and/or negate illegal acts already perpetrated by Green Hills Cemetery 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 • Obstructed vista views, soon to become total loss of views when plantings mature • Loss of 40 ft set -back • Structures built well over (by many feet) the 18 inch limit above our property fence • Complete loss of privacy in my home and in the jacuzzi and pool area. • Complete loss of the enjoyment of my home *When the shrubs/trees Green Hills Cemetery has planted directly in front of my living room and dining room mature, I won't even be able to see the sky anymore. I feel as though Green Hills Cemetery is entombing me while I'm still alive. In order to insure the protection myself and my property I must get an expert analysis of the proposed changes. I will need copies of the documents and preliminarily approved changes, as well as a reasonable postponement of action by the City until I get the results of the analysis of said documents. Respectfully submitted by property owner & resident of 2110 Palos Verdes Dr North #111 Pub. Corr - Page 398 Statement of Joanna Jones -Reed 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N. #204 Lomita, CA 90717 310-809-9903 9/9/13 I am a resident owner of a condominium in the Vista Verde Condos. I am writing to express the horror of witnessing the proximity of the construction of the Green Hills pent house gravesite, the so called Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, in front of our property, in front of our living rooms, our balconies, our garages, our swimming pool, our Jacuzzi, and our barbeque area. Rest assured all the owners in our complex are indignant and flabbergasted. Wouldn't you be? I mean we buy these lovely spacious units overlooking rolling green hills to enjoy a marvelous ocean view and then "up pops a towering concrete monstrosity blocking our view!!! Blocking our prime ocean view!!! This is audacious not only on the view principle but it also is contrary to a setback of a minimum of 40 feet distance from our property line for new property construction Question: In whose interest is it to have people mourning 20 feet from our balconies, our living space? Do you think the mourners will appreciate having gawkers, or party revelers viewing them? This is totally unacceptable, off-putting and outrageous!! We have to witness families burying their kin, their dear departed, while we are having breakfast or lunch or sitting on our balconies with a cool drink or swimming and partying in our pool area.. Why was this allowed? Why do we have to witness processions of mourners in place of our outstanding ocean view? This scenario has caused irreparable damage to our psyches as owners as well as to our property values. The decisions made at Green Hills by the powers that be went way beyond all standards of what is right and decent. The decisions to place this outrageous burial mound of ugly concrete has no regard for morality and it is certainly well beyond the bounds of good taste. First of all, it is my understanding that the plans called for a 40 foot setback, not just a little separation for a drainage ditch between the mausoleum and our swimming pool/ barbeque area. Secondly, the building's height exceeds their plans by 8 feet and shades our pool area. And with all the trees and vegetation being planted on top of this ugly concrete block, where do they think the leaves and vegetation/cut grass are going to wind up? I mean did anyone think about the horrid inconvenience of this ludicrous scenario. Certainly not to our way of thinking as owners who will have unintended visitation/viewing of funerals directly from our units!! What kind of impact did Green Hills Memorial Park Owners think this would have on its neighbors?? Did they completely disavow our rights to privacy and to our ocean view? And in place they give us a funeral view??? I mean what is the underlying message here? What are they trying to tell us?? Think about it!! We have endured months of huge inconveniences and intrusions of the digging, the drilling, the noise, the dirt and the dust blowing our way. Why the very construction of this dastardly mausoleum has caused dirt and dust to be blown thru our screens into our houses for many months!! Did they offer to pay our house cleaning bills, our carpet cleaning and window cleaning bills? Certainly not! This construction has dirtied our windows, our property, our cars in our carports, etc. Further, the construEtEMMM pent SEP 16 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, a 68 DEPARTMENT g Pub. Corr - Page 399 house mausoleum has caused many new cracks to appear in our building's facades, our driveways and is some units' walls. This has yet to be addressed. I think that the Green Hills President may be considering paying for a new swimming pool filter as it got clogged with their dirt! !! Really? Please!! Too little, too late! Rei SPry Qyc-CIl(2_)G .COVYq Page 69 Pub. Corr - Page 400 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. 1 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 1.01 st 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. I 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 Jconcrete mo strosity. Signed Dated N RECEIVE® SEP 16*2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. ............ . Pub. Corr - Page 401 RECEIVED SEP 17 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Statement of Linda Spears 9/14/13 To Whom it May Concern: I, Linda Spears, owner of unit #202, in the Vista Verde Condos, 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N., Lomita, CA. 90717, agree with the owners who are displeased and unhappy with the construction of the high rise mausoleum. I believe that the Green Hills Memorial Park acted in bad faith. They willfully and unlawfully violated the set distance of 40 feet from our property line. Signed Dated 9 -1 �4-/3 Pub. Corr - Page 402 Statement of Carl and Linda Eichart: We, Carl and Linda Eichart, are owners of unit #103 in the Vista Verde condos, 2110 Paos verdes Dr. N., Lomita, 90717. We are totally in agreement with the statement of Mrs. Jones -Reed, owner of #204. We agree with the sentiments and the points made. The blocked view is even especially worse for us as we reside on the lower level of the complex. We have no balconey, but view the outside thru large windows from our living room and dining room. Now our view of the Mira Monte green hill is replaced with an abomination! Had we known this was going to be built we would have been more active in stopping it in any way we could. Had we known that the structure built would be so large, so imposing and towering, we certainly would have made great effort to stop it any way we could. Not only does it block our ocean view from the pool and jacuzzi area, but this obscene structure blocks our view of the lovely Palos Verdes homes. We will no longer be able to enjoy their lovely Christmas lights during the holidays. We will no longer be able to see the fireworks from our home, or our recreation room, the pool and jacuzzzi area, as our harbor view is wiped out by this horrible musoleum. We feel duped and deceived as this was never explained to us. Green Hills made little effort to accurately describe their intentions to the owners of Vista Verde. We never received a notice of Green Hills Parks' intentions and we haven't received a letter of the planning commissions meeting on Sept 24th at Hess park Community Center. We were just informed of the meeting by our neighbor two days ago. We are perplexed as to their rationale. How could they put up a mauasoleum right next to our recreation room, our pool area and jacuzzi areas as these are reserved for parties and celebratory events? When owners do not want to disturb their immediate neighbors these are the facilities they use to party; I assure you loud noise, loud music,amid cries from the pool activity is not conducive to funeral services. As a matter of fact the noise that is generated from various condos, the barking of the many owners'dogs is not to be dismissed lightly. We hear it all the time. This noise is expected from the living. The disregardfor the living is what is so obnoxious. How did this horrible building get approved with no regard for those of us who are living in its shadow? Signed Dated a o 13 rIECEIvEo SEP 16 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _ Page 71 Pub. Corr - Page 403 I am - owner of i in the vista Verde Condos,i Palos VerdesDLomita, 90717. 1 am very upsetabout constructionof - Green Hills Pacific11 obstructs my view of .. ii personal ..' connection Green ae Memorial Park as my dear sister interred there.She •• would e been very upset with this thoughtlessness of the Green Hills Planning Board. N . - 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. I 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 moXistrosity. Signed J, MI Dated—9 t RECEIVED SEP 16 2013 COMMUNCiv DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Page 70 Pub. Corr - Page 404 So Kim From: Rich Martin <rmartin@unifiedgrocers.com> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:49 AM To: So Kim Cc: Matt Martin Subject: Re: Proposed changes to 1975 General Plan Land Use Map (Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue Ms. Kim, Thanks for the update. Rich Martin Sent from my iPhone On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:42 AM, "So Kim" <SoK@rpv.com> wrote: Hi Mr. Martin, Earlier in our telephone conversation, I referred you to Senior Planner, Mr. Eduardo Schonborn for questions/concerns regarding Green Hills Memorial. The project recently was transferred to Associate Planner, Ms. Leza Mikhail. Her contact information is lezam@rpv.com. You may also forward your emaiIs to planning@rpv.com should you prefer that the Directors are made aware of your concerns. Sincerely, 06 O (.& Associate Planner <image003. jpg>City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 / sok@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/ From: Rich Martin [mailto:rmartinga unifiedgrocers.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:26 AM To: So Kim Cc: Matt Martin Subject: Proposed changes to 1975 General Plan Land Use Map (Green Hills Memorial Park, 27501 S. Western Avenue Ms. Kim, My son and I are owners of Unit 208 at 2110 PV Drive North. The recent construction that occurred there has severely impacted our property and we believe has caused a substantial loss of value. I gather from your notice that additional modifications are being planned. We are therefore interested parties. Are the plans viewable on line, or must one go to City Hall? Page 72 Pub. Corr - Page 405 Thank you. Richard J. Martin Executive Vice President Finance & Administration, and Chief Financial Officer Unified Grocers 5200 Sheila Street Commerce, Ca. 90040 Tel (323) 881-4281 Fax(323)729-6601 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. 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. 2 Page 73 Pub. Corr - Page 406 z Q w U) Q Q zea d0U 0J U wlio W J Q' ❑ J_ � Of _ (n F Z O LLJ awa O T- L) O Z Q z C x F- u: 0) m a - Pub. Corr - Page 407