CC SR 20150901 01 - Green Hills Memorial Park AppealCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: September 1, 2015
Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision Regarding Annual Compliance Review (Case No. ZON-
20030086)
Subject Property: 27501 Western Avenue
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Knight
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: City Attorney Carol Lynch
4. Public Testimony:
Appellant: Green Hills Memorial Park
Applicant: Green Hills Memorial Park
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Council Deliberation:
8, Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight
9, Council Action:
Public Hearing
Cover Page
CITY OFA�RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CAROLYNN PETRU, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER &®
CAROL LYNCH, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2015
SUBJECT: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ANNUAL COMPLIANCE
REVIEW (CASE ZON-20030086); LOCATION: 27501 WESTERN
AVENUE
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Conduct the duly noticed public hearing; and 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_;
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REGARDING THE APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF GREEN
HILLS MEMORIAL PARK UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO SEEK
APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE EXISTING PACIFIC TERRACE/MEMORIAL TERRACE
MAUSOLEUM BUILDING IN AREA 11 TO REMAIN ENCROACHING 32 -FEET INTO
THE REQUIRED 40 -FOOT SETBACK; UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO ALLOW 13
EXISTING BELOW -GROUND INTERMENTS AND 6 ADDITIONAL BELOW -GROUND
COMPANION INTERMENTS TO ENCROACH INTO THE 16 -FOOT SETBACK IN THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF GREEN HILLS CEMETERY, PARTIALLY GRANTING THE
APPEAL BY REVISING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND AMENDING
THE GREEN HILLS CEMETERY MASTER PLAN, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
27501 WESTERN AVENUE (GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK).
FISCAL IMPACT
Conducting the appeal hearing will have no fiscal impact. However, if the City Council
partially upholds the appeal regarding modifications to the conditions of approval
requested by Green Hills, the cemetery will be entitled to a 50% refund of the appeal fee.
1
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
The Site Description and Background discussion are contained in the attached Staff
Report presented to the City Council on January 20, 2015. To summarize, tonight's
hearing is the result of an appeal filed by Green Hills Memorial Park on November 25,
2014 objecting to modifications made by the Planning Commission to the Green Hills
Master Plan following the completion of an operational review of the cemetery in 2014.
The Planning Commission's review was prompted by numerous inquiries and
complaints the City began receiving prior to and following the completion of the Pacific
Terrace/ Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 of the Master Plan. On November
11, 2014, after conducting a series of public hearings on the matter, the Planning
Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29 which:
1) Directed Green Hills to submit a variance application within 30 -days to seek
approval to: a) allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line
setback; b) allow the existing 13 below -ground burials and 6 additional below -
ground burials in companion spaces that are located within the 16 -foot setback in
the northwest corner of the cemetery site between the west property line and the
maintenance yard; and, c) allow existing structures and above -ground burials
within the 5 -foot setback area along the western property line in the area south of
the Pacifica Mausoleum building;
2) Imposed a number of conditions on the cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to
the adjoining neighbors from burial activity on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/
Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan
(Condition 1.3);
3) Imposed a moratorium on ground burials/interments and sales of burial plots
on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building
located in Area 11 of the Master Plan, and imposed a moratorium on above-
ground burials and placement of other large structures within the 5 -foot setback
area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum
building, which was to remain in effect until final City Council action is taken
regarding the appeal on the issue of said interments and structures in the
required setbacks; and,
4) Allowed Green Hills to proceed with submittal of construction plans into
Building and Safety plan check for the administration building addition that was
approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 2014.
Within the 15 -day appeal period following the Planning Commission's decision, Ms.
Ellen Berkowitz submitted an appeal letter dated November 25, 2014 on behalf of
Green Hills appealing the Planning Commission's decision to City Council (see attached
appeal letter). Green Hills' primary objection to the Planning Commission's decision
051
Green Hills Memorial Park —Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 3
was the requirement to apply for an after -the -fact Variance for the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and the moratorium on rooftop burials. Ms.
Berkowitz submitted a subsequent letter dated January 15, 2015 alleging due process
violations (see attached letter).
The appeal hearing was initially scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January
20, 2015. However, based on the amount of late correspondence received prior to the
meeting and an ongoing City investigation regarding this matter, the City Council
continued, and directed staff to re -notice, the public hearing for a future date.
Since the appeal was filed, there have been several burials on the roof of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, as the filing of the appeal stayed the moratorium
imposed by the Planning Commission. However, during the time that the appeal has
been pending, Green Hills has voluntarily complied with the operational conditions
included in the Planning Commission's decision to mitigate the impacts of the rooftop
burials. In addition, Green Hills has modified the interments located along the western
property line to move them outside the required 5 -foot setback area, although final
verification of setback compliance is still pending. And finally, Ms. Berkowitz has
recently submitted requested modifications to the Conditions of Approval that were
added or modified by the Planning Commission on November 11, 2014 (see attached
document), which will be discussed in more detail later in this report.
DISCUSSION
The Discussion section is divided into two parts: 1) the after -the -fact Variance for the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and the ground burials in the northwest
corner of Area 11; and, 2) modifications to the Master Plan's operational Conditions of
Approval. Each of these areas are discussed in detail below.
A Variance is Required to Legalize the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
and the Interments in the Northwest Corner of the Cemetery
Green Hills' appeal challenges the City Council's ability to require Green Hills to obtain
a variance for the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. Green Hills'
arguments are rejected for the following reasons:
A. The conditions of approval that were imposed in 1991 do not support Green Hills'
interpretation. As set forth in Resolution No. 91-7, which approved the Green Hills
Master Plan, the 1991 approval included a conditional use permit, a variance and a
grading permit. Condition No. 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." (Emphasis added.)
3
Green Hills Memorial Park —Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 4
Condition No. 1, which is specifically referred to in Condition 4 regarding the conditional
use permit revision, addresses the "master plan of development and site grading."
However, Condition No. 2 of the 1991.approval 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 Nos. 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 in 1991 to reduce some of those setbacks, which was memorialized in
Condition No. 2. Thus, Conditions Nos. 1 and 4, by their own terms, were not intended
to apply to the variance from the setbacks, which was articulated in Condition No. 2, nor
could they supersede all of the other provisions or requirements of the Municipal Code
that are applicable to Green Hills.
B. The Municipal Code does not support Green Hills' interpretation. In support of its
argument, Green Hills cites to Municipal Code Section 17.60.050 B, which states: "B.
Conditional use permits may be granted for such period of time and upon such
conditions and limitations as may be required to protect the health, safety and general
welfare. Such conditions shall take precedence over development standards otherwise
required by the underlying zoning of the subject site." Green Hills contends that this
Section allows the City to decrease setback and other requirements of an underlying
zoning district simply by granting a conditional use permit.
Section 17.60.050 B allows the City to impose, as part of an approval of a conditional
use permit, more stringent development requirements than otherwise are established by
an underlying zoning district. That Section does not allow lesser requirements to be
imposed without the approval of a variance, as contended by Green Hills.
Green Hills' interpretation of the Municipal Code essentially would nullify all of the
requirements of Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code regarding variances, including the
findings that must be made to grant a variance in any case where a conditional use
permit also is granted for a project. However, the rules of statutory construction, which
require sections of a code to be read in harmony so as to give meaning to all of their
provisions and not to nullify the provisions of one or more sections, do not support
Green Hills' interpretation of the Municipal Code. (See, Ingredient Communications
Council, Inc. v. Lungren, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1480, 1492, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 216, 224 (3d Dist.
1992), rev. denied (April 23, 1992).)
C. The filing of an application for a variance would not be a futile act. Green Hills
contends that the filing of an application for a variance would be a futile act, because
the City is required by the principles of estoppel, laches and vested rights to grant the
variance. These are legal principles and determinations that ultimately would be made
by a court, if a lawsuit were filed challenging this decision. However, If Green Hills'
arguments are correct, which the City Council does not concede, its own arguments
undermine its contention that the filing of the variance application would be futile. As
al
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 5
stated by the California courts: "The futility exception is extremely narrow: '[T]he mere
possibility, or even the probability, that the responsible agency may deny the permit
should not be enough to trigger the excuse. [Citations.] To come within the exception, a
sort of inevitability is required: the prospect of refusal must be certain (or nearly so).'
(Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.AppAth 309, 327, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 649 (Toigo),
quoting Milagra Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 108, 117,
72 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 (Milagra).)" Calprop Corp. v. City of San Diego, 77 Cal.AppAth 582
(2000). Because Green Hills' arguments demonstrate that the application for the
variance could result in the variance being granted by the City, those arguments
contravene its contention that the variance application would be futile.
Accordingly, Staff recommends that the City Council finds that Green Hills must submit
an application for a variance to address the below -ground interments within the setback
in the northwest corner of the cemetery and for the 8 -foot setback from the northern
property line for Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, as set forth in Section 6
of this Resolution.
2. Modifications to Conditions of Approval
With the adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29 on November 11, 2014, the Planning
Commission added and modified a number of Conditions of Approval to the Green Hills
Master Plan to minimize the impacts to the adjacent residents in the Vista Verde
Condominium complex resulting from burials, services and other activities on the roof of
the Pacific/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 (Conditions of Approval 1.3.a
through 1.3.o). In addition to requesting further modifications to Conditions 1.3.a
through 1.3.o, Green Hills has requested modifications to some of the other conditions
of approval in the Master Plan and City Staff has identified a few other changes to the
Conditions for clarification, which are discussed below. As a general note, references to
the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement found throughout the
document have been updated to refer to the Director of Community Development.
Condition No. 1.f
Staff recommends removal of the last sentence of this condition because the issue of
future additions to the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is addressed in
Condition No. 1.3.e. In addition, future construction of any new mausoleums in Area 11
is addressed in Condition No. 1.k. While staff agrees that no further expansion of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum should be allowed, there are other
portions of Area 11, such as the area immediately south and east of the maintenance
yard where further construction, subject to review by the Planning Commission at a
noticed public hearing, may be acceptable if found to not adversely impact adjacent
residential properties.
Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum): Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, a
5
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 6
Variance application shall be submitted for the 10,366 square foot Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building already constructed pursuant to
BLD2011-00799. FurtheF no new mai cele n; or additions to the existing
mauseleurn aro allowed in Area 44-.
Condition Nos. 1.i and 1.j
Staff recommends to bifurcating Condition No. 1.i (as it appears in PC Resolution No.
2014-29) into two separate conditions as follows:
1.i Except for reauired setback areas and Area 4 where above around structures
are not allowed pursuant to Condition No. 7 below. For the areas in the Master Plan
Revision called out for family estates may include low ground buFials, the ground
burials may inoli de family estates that are evident by garden walls less than 36 -
inches in overall height around their perimeters to enclose these family trial
estates, or more elaborate headstones that are built above -ground that are no taller
than 6 -feet high., except fer /area 4 where above gFO ind StF inti roc aro not allowed
. These garden walls and headstones are allowed
shall not be used to contain above -ground interments. Family estates shall not be
allowed on the rooftops of any mausoleum building.
1.j Preparing these ground burial sites includes grading an area by excavating up to
8 -feet below existing grade (depending, if these are single or double depth lawn
crypts), filling a layer of sand for erosion control purposes, constructing concrete
encasements where coffins are ultimately placed, then a layer of the previously
excavated dirt is filled to match pre -excavated grade. Excess earth material
resulting from the burial sites will be transported to Areas 5 and 6 of the Master Plan
Revision. It is approximated that 137,000 cubic yards of fill will be necessary for
these areas to raise the grade to accommodate mausoleum buildings and ground
burials, and appropriate drainage to the roadways. This quantity includes ground
spoils from throughout the cemetery site, excess cut material from mausoleum
projects in other areas, and import of additional fill material.
Condition No. 1.1k
Staff recommends re -numbering Condition No. 1.j as it appears in PC Resolution No.
2014-29 to Condition No. 1.k and amending it as follows to clarify its provisions:
Prior to submittal of plans into the Building and Safety Division, all mausoleum
buildings in the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision shall first be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development
duly netiGed public; he . Notice of the Director's decision said review hearing
shall be published a provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to
persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the
property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
no
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 7
Section 17.80.090. Further, a temporary frame silhouette must be constructed for
each mausoleum building at least 30 -days prior the Director's Planning
Gonirnffissm consideration of the building. Once the silhouette is constructed, a
licensed engineer, land surveyor or architect must certify that the silhouette
accurately depicts the location, height and outline of the proposed building. The
certification must be submitted to Staff at least 30 -days prior to the Director's
decision Planning Gemmission heaFinn
Condition Nos. 1.1 and 1.m
Staff recommends adding the following two new conditions to address the addition of
small accessory buildings and customary cemetery -related features on the site:
1.1 Except for mausoleum buildings addressed in Condition 1.k, all other buildings
less than 120 square feet in size, less than 12 feet in height, located outside
required setback areas and not on the roof of a mausoleum buildinq shall be subject
to review and approval by the Director of Community Development through a Site
Plan Review.
1.m Construction of customary cemetery -related features, including but not limited
to water features, bridges, benches, upright memorial features, statuary and
cenotaph walls, that are less than 6' in height shall be allowed, except in required
setback areas and on the roof of a mausoleum. Cemetery features that exceed 6' in
height and are outside required setback areas and not on the roof of a mausoleum
buildinq shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development through a Site Plan Review or other City approval process.
Condition No. 1.3.c
With the exception of ground cover, no other vegetation shall be planted on the roof
of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. Elsewhere, with the exception
of ground cover, shrubs and other vegetation less than 4' in height, and the vines on
the northern wall of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building
which shall not exceed the solid building parapet) be allowed with the n„nn„rrenGe
of the abutting Vista Verde Condominium , no vegetation shall be
planted in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007.
Green Hills requests, and staff agrees, that this condition should be modified to clarify
the types of vegetation allowed in Area 11. As currently written, the condition only
allows ground cover and a vine on the rear fagade of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum in this area, which is overly restrictive, as some additional
vegetation would be beneficial to soften the appearance of the building and beautify the
area. Therefore, Staff has modified the condition to clarify that only groundcover is
allowed on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, but that
7
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 8
modest shrubs and other vegetation, which won't significantly impact views over the
property, are allowed elsewhere within this portion of the site.
Condition No. 1.3.e
No new mausoleum e additions or expansion shall be allowed to the existing
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. No new mausoleum
building shall be constructed within Area 11 without first obtaining . Prior to
submittal ef gFading plans andior building plans to the Building and Safety Divi
"plan check" for any -i�ver�on+�.Area 11 (i.e., the northwest area of+he
Gemetery site between the western property line and the maintenanGe yard,
Community Development foF review by the Planning Commission approval at a duly
noticed public hearing following the process set forth in Condition 1.k.
publiG heaFing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a
feet radius, to persons Fequesting notice, to all affeGted homeowners aSSGGaat*o
Code SeGtion 17.80.090-.
Staff recommends modifying this condition to clarify that no future expansion of the
existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum will be permitted. However, it
removes redundancy by referencing back to an earlier condition regarding the process
that must be followed for any new mausoleum buildings that may be proposed in this
portion of the property in the future, consistent with the Planning Commission's action
on November 11, 2014.
Introduction to Condition Nos. 1.3.f through 1.3.o
Because the Planning Commission's moratorium regarding burials on the roof of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum was rendered moot by Green Hills'
appeal, staff recommends the following modification to the introductory paragraph in this
section of the Resolution:
The following conditions are applicable 1f the rnerat- ;,,r„ . - .,,v,ended or repealed to
allow burials to resume on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building, the following additional Genditions shall apply:
Condition No. 1.3.f
Currently, burial preparation on the roof of the mausoleum is only permitted between
10:00am and 3:00pm. Green Hills is requesting to accommodation to prepare burial
sites at 9:00 am or the day before in cases when the memorial service scheduled at
10:00am. Staff agrees with the proposed amendment and recommends the following
changes to the condition:
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 9
Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop
ground interments on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building
shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm, Monday through
Sunday, except for burial services scheduled to occur at 10:00am, in which case
burial preparation may take place at 9:00 am or between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm on
the day prior to the service.
Condition No. 1.3.h
The wording of this condition was slightly modified in this condition to be clearer:
mit The use of the mini -haul vehicle (which is illustrated in Green Hills' power point
presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014) shall be limited to pre -
service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground
interments between the hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm, Monday through Sunday.
Condition No. 1.3.1
Green Hills has requested modification of this condition required by the Planning
Commission on November 11, 2014, as they indicate it is not possible to assure 7 days
advanced flagging of burial sites on the roof of the mausoleum, given that many
services are held fewer than 7 days after an individual's passing. Staff agrees with this
request and recommends the following changes to the condition:
Every week Small flags shall be placed on any burial site located on the rooftop of
the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within 24 hours after a burial
service has been that scheduled for that site to be utilized fee an interment wothin
7 days, thereby providing neighboring property owners with advanced notice of
scheduled interments and burial services. Green Hills shall also post on its publicly
accessible website (www.greenhilismemorial.com) additional details concerning the
anticipated time and date of scheduled burial services.
Old Condition No.1.3.n
Staff recommends that this condition be removed entirely for the same reason that the
Planning Commission's moratorium regarding burials on the roof of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum was rendered moot by Green Hills' appeal.
A
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 10
Re -numbered Condition No. 1.3.n
The wording of this condition was slightly modified in this condition to be clearer:
In no event shall below -grade interments sha be allowed on the roof of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building that are within 16 -feet from the
northern property line. Specifically, plots illustrated in sections 540 through 553, as
depicted in the attached Exhibit C of this Resolution, are hereby eliminated.
New Condition No. 1.3.0
Staff recommends adding this new condition to clarify that the density of interments on
the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum cannot be increased,
thereby increasing the impacts of burials on the adjacent Vista Verde Condominium
complex:
For any burial plot on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum,
either one casket or one urn (or other container for cremated remains) burial shall
be placed in each burial plot, and where there are companion plots, one casket or
one urn (or other container for cremated remains) shall be placed in each
companion plot.
Condition No. 2
Staff added a reference to this condition to include this evening's potential action by the
City Council:
Construction and build -out of the Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery shall be in
substantial compliance with the Master Plan Revision approved by the Planning
Commission on April 24, 2007, July 22, 2014, and August 26, 2014, and November
11, 2014, and the City Council on September 1, 2015, as indicated in these
conditions of approval.
Condition No. 6
Staff added language to this condition to clarify the situation with the existing below
ground interments and future companion interments within the 16' setback in the
northwest corner of the cemetery:
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",
and as addressed in Condition No. 53)
10
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 11
East and West: 0'-0"
Condition No. 7
Staff added language to this condition to clarify the situation with the:
Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums
(except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan, which are addressed in Condition
8 and 8.a) and crypts shall be as follows:
North:
80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road,
whichever is greater from the north property line that is north
of the maintenance yard, and 40'-0" from the north property line
that abuts the Vista Verde Condominium complex in the City of
Lomita.
South:
40'-0"
East:
25'-0"
West:
5'-0"
Condition No. 37
Green Hills has recently requested to include a retaining wall in conjunction with the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, the first phase of which is currently under construction.
The Planning Staff have reviewed the proposal and found that will redirect the natural
flow of drainage away from the mausoleum and will be cut into an existing slope,
thereby minimizing view impacts. Therefore, staff recommends the following addition to
Condition No. 37:
The family mausoleum on Inspiration Slope shall be located as shown on the
Master Plan Revision so as not to impair views from the Peninsula Verde
neighborhood. The Director of Community Development shall approve the exact
location and height of this mausoleum building. The Director may review and
aaarove a retainina wall that contains niches for cremated remains extendina from
the mausoleum building and not exceeding 8'-0" in height and a maximum 42" high
guardrail and pilasters on top. The top of the retaining wall shall not exceed the
height of the adjacent road level (other than a small curb).
Condition No. 38
Based on the issues with determining the height of the mausoleum buildings included in
the Lilley Planning Group's 2014 compliance review of the Green Hills Master Plan
Revision, Staff recommends amending this condition to clarify how height should be
measured for mausoleum buildings:
11
Green Hills Memorial Park —Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 12
With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum
buildings shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the highest finish
.grade elevation covered by structure the average elevation of the finished gFa de a+
the front of the building to the highest point of the structure, and shall not exceed an
overall height of 30 -feet as when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent
to the building to the highest point of the structure.
Condition No. 52
Green Hills requests that this condition be removed, but provided no justification for the
request. Based on the recent experience with the 2014 compliance review, Staff agrees
with the Planning Commission's decision to include this condition and recommends no
change.
Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit maps depicting the locations of the current and proposed interments within
the cemetery property.
Condition No. 53
Green Hills requests that this condition be removed. Based on the earlier discussion in
this report regarding the Variance and vesting rights, Staff agrees with the Planning
Commission's decision to include this condition:
Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance application to allow, within the 16 -foot setback area 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 below -
ground companion spaces identified in Exhibit B of this Resolution.
Condition No. 54
Green Hills requests that this condition be deleted, as they moved the pre-existing
above ground interments and trellis structures out of the required 5' setback area prior
to the November 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. However, was Staff
conducted a visual inspection at the time, it is appropriate to verify and document the
facts through a property line survey. Therefore, Staff recommends amending the
conditions as follows:
Within 30 -days from the date of the approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a certified property line survey to the Director of Community Development
VaFiaRGe appliGation to allow only verifying that the existing above ground
interments and structures exceeding 6 -feet in height to Femain within are located
outside of the required five foot setback along the west property line in the area
12
Green Hills Memorial Park — Appeal
September 1, 2015
Page 13
south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building, unless sand ennreaGhrnents are removed
frommthe setbaGk with 30 days of this approval.
Condition No. 55
Green Hills requests that this condition be removed. Based on the earlier discussion in
this report regarding the Variance and vesting rights, Staff agrees with the Planning
Commission's decision to include this condition:
Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance application to allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot
property line setback.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the 1 -year compliance review with
great care and imposed appropriate conditions, including the requirement to for Green
Hills to apply for a variance. Other than some minor revisions to the conditions of
approval requested by Green Hills, staff recommends that the City Council affirm the
Planning Commission's decision, subject to the changes to the conditions of approval
discussed in this report.
ALTERNATIVES
Uphold the appeal and agree to all of Green Hills proposed changes to the
conditions of approval.
2. Reject the appeal and reject all Green Hills proposed changes to the conditions of
approval.
Attachments
Draft Resolution No. 2015- ; (page 14)
Appeal Letter dated November 25, 2014 and additional correspondence from appellant (page 42)
Appellants suggested modifications to Conditions of Approval (page 51)
Public Correspondence submitted since January 20, 2015 (Public Correspondence 1)
Late correspondence for January 20, 2015 public hearing (Late Correspondence 1)
Delivered Under Separate Cover
January 20, 2015 staff report and attachments (Item No. 1)
13
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES REGARDING THE APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF
THE OPERATION OF GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK, UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION REQUIRING THE
SUBMISSION OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO SEEK APPROVAL
TO ALLOW THE EXISTING PACIFIC TERRACE/MEMORIAL TERRACE
MAUSOLEUM BUILDING IN AREA 11 TO REMAIN ENCROACHING 32 -
FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 40 -FOOT SETBACK, UPHOLDING THE
DECISION TO ALLOW 13 EXISTING BELOW -GROUND INTERMENTS
AND 6 ADDITIONAL BELOW -GROUND COMPANION INTERMENTS
TO ENCROACH INTO THE 16 -FOOT SETBACK IN THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF GREEN HILLS CEMETERY, PARTIALLY GRANTING THE
APPEAL BY REVISING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND
AMENDING THE GREEN HILLS CEMETERY MASTER PLAN, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE (GREEN HILLS
MEMORIAL PARK).
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2007-32, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2007-33, approving amendments to the Green Hills Master Plan, which
called for development of the Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") over the next 30
to 50 years, and allowed grading and mausoleum buildings to be constructed at various
specified locations throughout Green Hills cemetery; and,
WHEREAS, Condition of Approval Nos. AQ -14 and N-3 in P.C. Resolution No.
2008-47 state that: "The project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
annually, commencing on the date of final approval, to review the applicant's
compliance with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master
Plan Revision. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the
conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as well as increase the
time between review periods. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and
provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all
affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.", thereby affording the
Planning Commission the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as
deemed necessary and appropriate; and,
WHEREAS, after review of the plans for consistency with the Green Hills Master
Plan, Planning Division approval was granted on November 11, 2011, for the first phase
of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11; and,
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Building and Safety Division issued a
building permit for the construction of the first phase of the Memorial Terrace
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 1 of 914
Mausoleum building, which is also known as the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum, in Area 11 ("Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum" or "the
Mausoleum"); and,
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2013, the Building and Safety Division finaled the
building permit for the 10,366 square foot Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building per BLD2011-00799, meaning that the construction of the Mausoleum had
been completed; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of the construction of the new Mausoleum building, Staff
received numerous inquiries and complaints from residents in the adjacent Vista Verde
condominium complex in the City of Lomita regarding the Mausoleum's visual and view
impacts, in addition to the proximity of the burial preparation and ceremonial activities
on the roof of the Mausoleum building; and,
WHEREAS, in response to resident inquiries and complaints, and after notice
was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 25,
2014, to conduct an operational review of the Green Hills Cemetery to address the
concerns about the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building along with
any other concerns raised by the public regarding the Green Hills Master Plan, at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
and,
WHEREAS, at the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the
Planning Commission tentatively agreed to impose a 90 -day moratorium on all ground
burials and interments on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building in Area 11 while Staff identified new or revised conditions to
address specific noise, visual and privacy impacts identified by the Planning
Commission based on public testimony, and continued the public hearing to the March
11, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to April 22, 2014, to allow Green Hills and the Vista Verde Condominium
Association to come to an agreement on mitigation measures to address impacts
associated with the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11;
and,
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing again to May 13, 2014, to allow additional time for the parties to resolve the
remaining issues; and,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, after hearing a presentation from Green Hills
regarding possible methods to address concerns raised by the Vista Verde
Condominium owners, the Planning Commission continued the item to the August 12,
2014, to allow the parties to continue their discussions and directed Staff to include a
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 2 of 9 15
Resolution for consideration that could impose a temporary 90 -day moratorium on roof-
top burials on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building; and,
WHEREAS, at its August 12, 2014, meeting, the Planning Commission held the
continued public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard and present additional evidence; and,
WHEREAS, at the August 12, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission directed Green Hills to apply for an after -the -fact Variance to seek approval
to allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain
encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line setback and directed Staff to
review Green Hills' existing conditional use permit to make sure that they are in
compliance with all of the conditions of approval, closed the public hearing and directed
Staff to bring back a Resolution on the consent calendar at the August 26, 2014
Planning Commission meeting to impose a number of conditions on the cemetery to
avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining neighbors from burial activity on the roof of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 of the Green Hills
Master Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, a Resolution implementing the August 12th
directive was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration, and although the
Resolution was placed on the Consent Calendar for the August 26, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting, it was removed from the Consent Calendar. Since the public
hearing was closed, the discussion on August 26th was limited to the language in the
draft Resolution and whether it accurately reflected the motion passed on August 12th
Since the public hearing was previously closed, the Planning Commission agreed to
continue the item to October 28, 2014, and directed staff to re -notice the public hearing
to allow for continued discussion and for the City to conduct an operational review of
Green Hills' compliance with the Master Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at its October 28, 2014, meeting, the Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and further present evidence, and to fulfill the requirements of
the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission directed Green Hills to submit a Variance
application within 30 -days to seek approval to: a) allow the existing Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the
required 40 -foot property line setback; b) allow certain existing below ground burials
within the 16 -foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery site between the west
property line and the maintenance yard to remain and to allow six additional interments
in companion plots where individuals already are interred; and c) allow existing
structures and certain existing above -ground interments to remain within the 5 -foot
setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica
Mausoleum building; and,
WHEREAS, at the October 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the
Planning Commission agreed to impose a moratorium on ground burials/interments and
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 3 of 91 6
sales of burial plots on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building located in Area 11 of the Master Plan, and imposed a moratorium on above-
ground burials within the 5 -foot setback area along the western property line in the area
south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building, which would remain in effect until final City
action or further determination by the City Council is taken regarding these interments
and structures in the required setbacks, and imposed a number of conditions on the
cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining residential properties from burials
and activities on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in
Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan, and directed Staff to bring back a Resolution
memorializing its decision for consideration at the November 11, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting, and continued the public hearing to November 11, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted the
continued public hearing and reviewed and revised the resolution that was presented by
Staff and adopted the revised resolution; and,
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2014, Ellen Berkowitz of Gresham
Savage Nolan & Tilden filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the
City Council on behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park seeking to overturn the entirety of
the Planning Commission's decision; and,
WHEREAS, Staff mailed out notices to property owners within a 500 -foot radius
of the cemetery property, and published the notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News
on December 25, 2014 and on January 1, 2015, regarding the public hearing on the
appeal, which was to be held on January 20, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, the City Council opened the public hearing on
the appeal; however, due to a substantial amount of information and materials that were
submitted to the City Council just prior to the commencement of the public hearing and
the City's ongoing investigation, the City Council continued the public hearing so the
City Council would be able to review and consider all of the additional materials that had
been submitted; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2015, Staff mailed out notices to property owners
within a 500 -foot radius of the cemetery property and published the notice in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News on August 13, 2014, regarding the public hearing, which was to
be held on September 1, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
this decision by the City Council, which imposes restrictions on the existing operations
of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum to reduce the impacts of those
operations on adjacent properties and requires Green Hills Memorial Park to apply for a
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 4 of 91 7
variance for approval of structures and interments that are already present on the
Property (which will be subject to environmental review when the variance application is
filed) will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this decision is not
subject to CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3). In
addition, this decision applies to the operation of an existing private structure (the
Mausoleum), which does not involve the expansion of the Mausoleum from its current
size and configuration, to reduce impacts from its operations on neighboring properties.
Accordingly, this decision is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to California
Code of Regulations 15301.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Each of the recitals set forth above is true and correct and is
incorporated as part of this decision.
Section 2: Pursuant to Conditions of Approval Nos. AQ -14 and N-3 contained
in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33, which state that: "The project shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date of final approval, to review the
applicant's compliance with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan
and Master Plan Revision. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or
modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as well as
increase the time between review periods. Notice of said review hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting
notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in
accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.", during
the annual review, the Planning Commission has the ability to add, delete, or modify the
conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning
Commission. Pursuant to Chapter 17.80 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission's decision has been appealed to the City Council. Section
17.80.080 A 2 and the aforementioned conditions allow the City Council to add, delete,
or modify the conditions of approval that have been imposed by the Planning
Commission. Accordingly, the conditions of approval that are approved by this
Resolution, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this
reference, are hereby added to the Green Hills Master Plan.
Section 3: In its decision, the Planning Commission imposed a moratorium on
further interments within the required setbacks and on the burials and sale of plots on
the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 during the
period between the Planning Commission's decision and the City Council's
determination on this appeal. Mr. Friedman, counsel for the Vista Verde Homeowners'
Association, has stated that the moratorium should have been enforced during the
pendency of the appeal by Green Hills. However, Section 17.80.020 states that: "The
filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to this chapter stays all activity on the project until a
final decision on the appeal." The City Council and City Staff construe this provision as
being applicable to apply to all aspects of the Planning Commission's decision, which is
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 5 of 91 8
being appealed. Accordingly, the filing of the appeal by counsel for Green Hills stayed
the effect of the moratorium that was imposed by the Planning Commission.
Section 4: Because the Planning Commission's decision imposing the
moratorium was stayed pending the appeal, the contentions raised by Green Hills
regarding the effect of the moratorium are moot. In addition, the contentions regarding
the moratorium that were raised by Green Hills' appeal are hereby rejected for the
following additional reasons:
Green Hills asserts that Government Code Section 65858 prohibited the imposition of a
moratorium by the Planning Commission. However, that Section pertains to a
moratorium that enacts an urgency zoning ordinance while a new zoning ordinance is
being prepared and adopted. No new ordinance, interim or permanent, that regulates
the development or operation of cemeteries is being proposed by the City. Accordingly,
Government Code Section 65858 is not applicable to the Planning Commission's
determination and the imposition of the moratorium.
Green Hills also cites to Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal.App.4t" 263
(2008) in support of its assertion that the Planning Commission's moratorium, which
was stayed pending the appeal, is invalid and causes a taking of Green Hills' right to
inter individuals on the roof of the Mausoleum. The Monks case, however, addressed
issues regarding the City's landslide moratorium, which has been in effect since 1978,
and other regulations affecting development in the landslide area. That decision is not
applicable to a brief hiatus on burials on the roof of the Mausoleum while this appeal is
heard and determined. Several courts, including the United States Supreme Court,
have held that reasonable delays that are caused by the time that it takes for a
governmental entity to process development applications, some of which lasted more
than a year, do not constitute a taking of private property for which compensation is
required to be paid. (See, Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency 535 U.S. 302, 332 (2002).)
Section 5: Green Hills' appeal challenges the City Council's ability to require
Green Hills to obtain a variance for the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum.
Green Hills' arguments are rejected for the following reasons:
A. The conditions of approval that were imposed in 1991 do not support Green Hills'
interpretation. As set forth in Resolution 91-7, which approved the Green Hills Master
Plan, the 1991 approval included a conditional use permit, a variance and a grading
permit. Condition 4 of the 1991 Conditions of Approval states:
"Any development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition
No. 1 shall require submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision. A noticed
public hearing and review and approval by the Planning Commission shall be required."
(Emphasis added.)
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 6 of 9 19
Condition 1, which is specifically referred to in Condition 4 regarding the conditional use
permit revision, addresses the "master plan of development and site grading."
However, Condition 2 of the 1991 approval 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 in 1991 to reduce some of those setbacks, which was memorialized in
Condition 2. Thus, Conditions 1 and 4, by their own terms, were not intended to apply
to the variance from the setbacks, which was articulated in Condition 2, nor could they
supersede all of the other provisions or requirements of the Municipal Code that are
applicable to Green Hills.
B. The Municipal Code does not support Green Hills' interpretation. In support of its
argument, Green Hills cites to Municipal Code Section 17.60.050 B, which states: "B.
Conditional use permits may be granted for such period of time and upon such
conditions and limitations as may be required to protect the health, safety and general
welfare. Such conditions shall take precedence over development standards otherwise
required by the underlying zoning of the subject site." Green Hills contends that this
Section allows the City to decrease setback and other requirements of an underlying
zoning district simply by granting a conditional use permit.
Section 17.60.050 B allows the City to impose, as part of an approval of a conditional
use permit, more stringent development requirements than otherwise are established by
an underlying zoning district. That Section does not allow lesser requirements to be
imposed without the approval of a variance, as contended by Green Hills.
Green Hills' interpretation of the Municipal Code essentially would nullify all of the
requirements of Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code regarding variances, including the
findings that must be made to grant a variance in any case where a conditional use
permit also is granted for a project. However, the rules of statutory construction, which
require sections of a code to be read in harmony so as to give meaning to all of their
provisions and not to nullify the provisions of one or more sections, do not support
Green Hills' interpretation of the Municipal Code. (See, Ingredient Communications
Council, Inc. v. Lungren, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1480, 1492, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 216, 224 (3d Dist.
1992), rev. denied (April 23, 1992).)
C. The filinq of an application for a variance would not be a futile act. Green Hills
contends that the filing of an application for a variance would be a futile act, because
the City is required by the principles of estoppel, laches and vested rights to grant the
variance. These are legal principles and determinations that ultimately would be made
by a court, if a lawsuit were filed challenging this decision. However, If Green Hills'
arguments are correct, which the City Council does not concede, its own arguments
undermine its contention that the filing of the variance application would be futile. As
stated by the California courts: "The futility exception is extremely narrow: '[T]he mere
possibility, or even the probability, that the responsible agency may deny the permit
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 7 of 920
should not be enough to trigger the excuse. [Citations.] To come within the exception, a
sort of inevitability is required: the prospect of refusal must be certain (or nearly so).'
(Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.AppAth 309, 327, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 649 (Toigo),
quoting Milagra Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 108, 117,
72 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 (Milagra).)" Calprop Corp. v. City of San Diego, 77 Cal.AppAth 582
(2000). Because Green Hills' arguments demonstrate that the application for the
variance could result in the variance being granted by the City, those arguments
contravene its contention that the variance application would be futile.
Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds that Green Hills must submit an application
for a variance to address the below -ground interments within the setback in the
northwest corner of the cemetery and for the 8 -foot setback from the northern property
line for Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, as set forth in Section 6 of this
Resolution.
Section 6: Within 30 -days of adoption of this Resolution (by October 1, 2015),
Green Hills shall submit a variance application to the City to seek approval to allow the
existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 of the
approved Green Hills Master Plan to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -
foot setback, to allow the 13 existing below ground burials and 6 companion spaces to
remain within the 16 -foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery site between
the west property line and the maintenance yard, depicted in the illustration in the
attached Exhibit B of this Resolution, specifically plots 401 A -C, plots 402A and C, plot
404D, plot 405A, plot 407C, plot 408D, plot 409B, plot 41 OD, plots 411 B and C; and to
provide a survey within 30 -days documenting that the structures that were improperly
constructed within the 5 -foot setback area along the western property line in the area
south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building have been relocated by Green Hills, so that a
variance is not required for those structures along the west property line. Further, in
conjunction with the variance application, a conditional use permit application shall also
be submitted within 30 -days of adoption of this Resolution (by October 1, 2015) to
modify the conditions of approval associated with the Green Hills Master Plan to include
these revisions to the Master Plan and conditional use permit. In addition, Green Hills
shall submit modified maps to the County of Los Angeles Recorder's Office that
accurately reflect the final action by the City.
Section 7: Mr. Friedman contends on behalf of the Vista Verde HOA, and
residents of Vista Verde contend, that the conditional use permit for the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum should be revoked. However, the revocation
process would need to occur at a duly noticed public hearing specifically pertaining to
the revocation process. (See, Municipal Code Section 17.86.060.) Furthermore, the
Municipal Code allows property owners to file applications that will bring properties into
compliance with the Municipal Code (See Municipal Code Section 17.86.050), which
would be the objective of the variance application. For these reasons, this hearing,
which is an appeal by Green Hills from the Planning Commission's decision on the
operation of Green Hills and Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of approval, is
not the appropriate venue for consideration of the issues raised by the HOA and the
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 8 of 921
Vista Verde residents, who did not file an appeal from the Planning Commission's
decision.
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of proceedings in this
matter, 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 (and the City Council on
appeal) the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed
necessary and appropriate, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
amends the decision of the Planning Commission and adds to the 2007 Green Hills
Cemetery Master Plan, the conditions that are set forth within the attached Exhibit "A"
and Exhibits "B" and "C" depicting the interment plots in the northwest corner of the
cemetery (Pacific Gardens) and the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum, respectively, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 9: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of September 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Jim Knight
Mayor
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 9 of 922
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
27501 Western Avenue (Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan)
This approval is a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be consistent
with the "Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package" booklet dated January 29,
2007, prepared by J. Stuart Todd Inc. Specifically, Revision "D" allows the
following:
a. 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 original Master Plan
approved in 1991 through City Council Resolution No. 91-7;
b. Allow a total of 643,259 cubic yards of additional grading, which includes
97,964 cubic yards of import for all the various proposed mausoleum buildings,
and all cut and fill associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery site
for the life of the Master Plan. The imported fill material will be conducted in
phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over an extended period of
time over the next 30- to 50 -years, which will be phased as follows:
Inspiration Slope (Area 2) will be constructed in a minimum of three phases
over a period of 5- to 10 -years (as funding and budgeting become
available), with the initial phase commencing in 2007. The construction will
require adequate backfill to keep the adjacent ground burial section at a
consistent level. Cumulatively, upon completion, the project will have
produced 53,000 cubic yards of grading; however, each phase will require
between 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of import. Thus, it is estimated that
40,000 cubic yards of import fill will be required for construction of the entire
Inspiration Slope project.
Reflection Mausoleum expansion (Area 3), which would not commence until
completion of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, will include large
excavations. Since the project will be phased and there will again be a need
to import backfill for construction purposes, it is estimated that 14,000 cubic
yards of imported fill will be required for this project.
iii. Areas 7 and 11 will not require import of fill since the amount of excavation
far exceed the amount of backfill necessary for these mausoleum buildings,
and the excess dirt will be placed and compacted in Areas 5 and 6 of the
Master Plan (i.e., the southern and southwestern portions of the cemetery
site), which is not expected to be developed for another 30 -years.
iv. The final project that would require substantial imported fill would be the
mausoleums proposed for construction in Area 6. The project will not be
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 1 of 1923
constructed for at least 30 years into the future, and excess dirt from the
ground burials and other mausoleum buildings will have been placed and
compacted at this location. Thus, it is anticipated that approximately 34,000
cubic yards will be imported for construction purposes and backfill.
c. Clarify that the number of additional ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorial
Park is 14,000 Double Depth Burials (28,000 interments), 400 Single Depth
Burials (400 interments), and 408 family estates (9,792 interments);
d. Area 6 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Southwest Mausoleum): allow 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
measuring 23,653 square feet at a location that is approximately 300 -feet
farther west than approved in the original Master Plan;
e. Area 3 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Garden of Reflections
Mausoleum): allow a new 75,131 square foot mausoleum building to the west
of the existing mortuary, whereby 9,871 square feet will be above grade and
65,260 square feet will be below grade;
f. Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum): Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this
Resolution, a Variance application shall be submitted for the 10,366 square foot
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building already constructed
pursuant to BLD2011-00799;
(AMMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014
AND PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPETEMBER 1, 2015)
g. Area 7 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Southwest Terrace Mausoleum):
reduce 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;
h. Area 4 of the Master Plan Revision: Only ground burials are allowed between
the north perimeter road and the 8'-0" setback from the north property line. No
garden walls for family estate burials, or other built-up structures are allowed in
this Area, and the grade/topography of this Area shall not be raised except by
written permission of the Director of Community Development. The applicant
shall provide the City with a "wet -stamped" topographical survey that illustrates
the existing topography prior to any grading to prepare this Area for ground
burials, and the applicant shall provide the City with a "wet -stamped"
topographical survey that illustrates the finish topography of Area 4 after the
Area has been prepared for ground burials;
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 2 of 1924
Except for required setback areas and Area 4, where above ground structures
are not allowed pursuant to Condition No. 7 below, areas in the Master Plan
Revision called out for family estates may include low garden walls less than
36 -inches in overall height around their perimeters to enclose these family
estates, or more elaborate headstones that are built above -ground that are no
taller than 6 -feet high. These garden walls and headstones are allowed to
contain above -ground interments. Family estates shall not be allowed on the
rooftops of any mausoleum building. (MODIFIED PER RESOLUTION NO.
2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
j. Preparing ground burial sites includes grading an area by excavating up to 8 -
feet below existing grade (depending, if these are single or double depth lawn
crypts), filling a layer of sand for erosion control purposes, constructing
concrete encasements where coffins are ultimately placed, then a layer of the
previously excavated dirt is filled to match pre -excavated grade. Excess earth
material resulting from the burial sites will be transported to Areas 5 and 6 of
the Master Plan Revision. It is approximated that 137,000 cubic yards of fill will
be necessary for these areas to raise the grade to accommodate mausoleum
buildings and ground burials, and appropriate drainage to the roadways. This
quantity includes ground spoils from throughout the cemetery site, excess cut
material from mausoleum projects in other areas, and import of additional fill
material.
k. Prior to submittal of plans into the Building and Safety Division, all mausoleum
buildings in the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision shall first be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Community Development. Notice of the
Director's decision shall be provided to owners of property within a 500' radius,
to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to
the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code Section 17.80.090. Further, a temporary frame silhouette must be
constructed for each mausoleum building at least 30 -days prior the Director's
consideration of the building. Once the silhouette is constructed, a licensed
engineer, land surveyor or architect must certify that the silhouette accurately
depicts the location, height and outline of the proposed building. The
certification must be submitted to Staff at least 30 -days prior to the Director's
decision. (MODIFIED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1,
2015)
Except for mausoleum buildings addressed in Condition 1.k, all other buildings
less than 120 square feet in size, less than 12 feet in height, located outside
required setbacks and not on the roof of a mausoleum building shall be subject
to review and approval by the Director of Community Development through a
Site Plan Review. (ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON
SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 3 of 1925
m. Construction of customary cemetery -related features, including but not limited
to water features, bridges, benches, upright memorial features, statuary and
cenotaph walls, that are less than 6' in height shall be allowed, except in
required setback areas and on the roof of a mausoleum. Cemetery features
that exceed 6' in height and are outside required setback areas and not on the
roof of a mausoleum building shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development through a Site Plan Review or other City approval
process. (ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1,
2015)
1.A. Revision "D" to conditional use permit of the Green Hills Master Plan allows the
placement of an historic church building that is currently located in the San Pedro
community of the City of Los Angeles, onto the cemetery property. The church
building will be located in Area 5 of the Master Plan, southwest of the existing duck
pond. The church building measures less than 1,100 square feet in area, and has
a steeple at the front of the building that is 7 -feet wide, 7 -feet deep, and 38 -feet
tall.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.B. All appropriate permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division prior
to relocating the historic church building to the cemetery.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.C. Prior to the relocation of the historic church building, the Green Hills Cemetery
personnel shall inform City Staff of the date and time in which the historic church
building will be transported, along with a plan illustrating the route.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.D. The church building may be used for funeral services only, and is not allowed to be
used for congregational church services. Further, the existing bell may remain as
a decorative feature only, and the bell or bell recordings are not allowed to be used
in conjunction with the church building.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.E. Major additions to the church building or relocation of the church building to
another location on the property are not allowed without prior Planning
Commission approval.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
11. All approvals necessary to relocate the church from the San Pedro community of
the City of Los Angeles to the Green Hills Cemetery shall be obtained and
submitted to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Public Works Department and
Community Development Department prior to relocation of the church.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 4 of 1926
1.1 This approval is Revision "E" to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be
consistent with the approved plans prepared by Anthony Frank Inferrera, dated
June 10, 2014, that allows the following:
a. Construction of 3,323ft2 of single -story office additions and a 693.5ft2 covered
walkway extension to the administrative building;
b. Allowing the temporary modular buildings to remain on site, but be removed prior
to July 22, 2016 or Building Permit Final, whichever comes first. Any extension
requests shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to January 22,
2016. Failure to remove said structures will constitute as a violation and deem
the Conditional Use Permit Revision null and void; and
c. Reconfiguration of the parking area to add 23 new parking spaces.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
1.2 Revision "E" shall be subject to the following specific conditions:
a. The following setback provisions shall apply: 25' front and street -side;
b. 40' interior and side if abutting a residential zoning district and 25' if abutting a
nonresidential zoning district.
c. Parking areas shall provide for a 25' outside turning radius within the facility.
d. All parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic or cement concrete paving
which is at least 3" thick.
e. All parking stalls shall be clearly marked with lines, and access lanes shall be
clearly defined with directional arrows to guide traffic. Except for parallel parking
stalls, standard parking stalls shall be of a minimum 9' width by 20' depth in area.
Parallel parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26' in depth.
f. Disabled parking spaces shall be in accordance with the dimensions and
specifications of the state amended Uniform Building Code.
g. A minimum of 5% of the paved parking area shall be devoted to interior planting
areas. All planting areas shall be at least 3' wide. Perimeter planting shall not be
considered part of this required interior planting.
h. Wherever a center divider separates parking stalls facing each other, tree wells
shall be established not more than 50' apart for larger trees, or not more than 30'
for small and medium sized trees.
All plantings shall be maintained free of debris and in conformity with the
accepted practices for landscape maintenance.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 5 of 1927
j. A 6" high cement concrete curb shall be constructed at the edge of all
landscaped areas.
k. The temporary modular buildings on site shall be removed prior to July 22, 2016
or Building Permit Final, whichever comes first. Failure to remove said structures
will constitute a violation and deem the Conditional Use Permit Revision null and
void.
If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the
approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in
Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code by July 22, 2015, approval of the
project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written
request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and
approved by the Director. (AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON
NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
m. Prior to plan check submittal to the Building & Safety Division, the applicant shall
provide an updated Master Plan reflecting the modifications to the administrative
building and related parking area to the Planning Division.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
1.3 The following conditions are applicable to the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building and Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan and shall
supersede any inconsistent conditions that govern other areas of the Green Hills
property:
a. The entire length of the tractor ramp shall be left clear at all times when
not in use. No vehicles, landscaping equipment, construction equipment,
storage containers, etc. are allowed to be parked, stored or allowed to be
left on the tractor ramp.
b. The Northern (rear) wall of the mausoleum building shall be screened by a
type of wall vine landscaping. Said landscaping shall be planted and
allowed to grow on the wall only, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development and shall not grow above the wall.
c. With the exception of ground cover, no other vegetation shall be planted
on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum.
Elsewhere, with the exception of ground cover. shrubs and other
vegetation less than 4' in height, and the vines on the northern wall of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building (which shall not
exceed the solid building parapet), no vegetation shall be planted in Area
11 of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007. (AMENDED PER
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 6 of 1928
d. The guardrail along the tractor ramp and along the top of the mausoleum
building along the north (rear) shall not be a solid wall and shall be
maintained as a wrought iron guardrail.
e. No additions or expansion shall be allowed to the existing Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. No new mausoleum
building shall be constructed within Area 11 without first obtaining
Planning Commission approval at a duly noticed public hearing following
the process set forth in Condition 1.k. (AMENDED PER RESOLUTION
NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
The following conditions are applicable to all burials on the roof of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building:
Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the
rooftop ground interments on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00am
and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday, except for burial services
scheduled to occur at 10:00am, in which case burial preparation may take
place at 9:00am on the day of the service, or the day prior to the service
between 10:00 am and 3:00pm.
g. Burials and all associated services on the roof top ground interments of
the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be
allowed between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through
Sunday.
h. The use of the mini -haul vehicle (which is illustrated in Green Hills' power
point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014) shall be
limited to pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot
backfilling of the rooftop ground interments between the hours of 10:00am
and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday. (MINOR CHANGE TO MAKE
CONSISTENT WITH VERBIAGE USED IN CONDITION 1.3J)
The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. This prohibition shall not
apply to the amplified sound for the playing of "taps" as part of funeral
services for military personnel and for police, fire and other first
responders.
All services on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building shall be conducted within temporary covered tenting
that is enclosed on a minimum of 2 sides, as illustrated in Green Hills'
power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014.
One of the two covered sides shall be the north side facing the Vista
Verde Condominium complex. Said temporary tenting shall be erected no
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 7 of 1929
earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within
2 hours after the burial service.
k. Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof -top ground
interments plots on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building in Area 11, only between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm
Monday through Sunday.
Small flags shall be placed on any burial site located on the rooftop of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within 24 hours after a
burial service has been scheduled for that site, thereby providing
neighboring property owners with advanced notice of scheduled
interments and burial services. Green Hills shall also post on its publicly
accessible website (www.greenhillsmemorial.com) additional details
concerning the anticipated time and date of scheduled burial services.
(AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1,
2015)
m. At least one employee of Green Hills shall attend and monitor every
service occurring on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum for the entirety of all burial services to ensure that the services
are orderly and comply with these conditions of approval.
n. In no event shall below -grade interments be allowed on the roof of the
Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building that are within 16 -feet from the
northern property line. Specifically, plots illustrated in sections 540
through 553, as depicted in the attached Exhibit C of this Resolution, are
hereby eliminated. (RENUMBERED DUE TO THE DELETION OF THE
ORIGINAL CONDITION 1.3.n IN PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29)
o. For any burial plot on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum, either one casket or one urn (or other container for cremated
remains) shall be placed in each burial plot, and where there are
companion plots, one casket or one urn (or other container for cremated
remains) shall be placed in each companion plot. (ADDED PER
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.3.a THROUGH 1.3.o ADDED AND AMENDED PER
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014 AND RESOLUTION NO.
2015- , ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
2. Construction and build -out of the Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery shall be in
substantial compliance with the Master Plan Revision approved by the Planning
Commission on April 24, 2007, July 22, 2014, and August 26, 2014, and November
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 8 of 1930
11, 2014, and the City Council on September 1, 2015, as indicated in these
conditions of approval. Deviation from the conditions of approval shall only occur if
first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission through a subsequent
Master Plan Revision at a noticed 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 affected homeowners associations, and to the
property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
Section 17.80.090. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or
modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008;
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014, PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
3. Prior to grading operations to prepare Area 4 for ground burials, the applicant shall
submit a grading permit application, signed by an individual designated by the
Green Hills Memorial Park Board of Directors for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development to ensure consistency with the approved
Master Plan Revision. If it is found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan
Revision, the grading permit will be approved administratively, without further
public notice, review or hearings. However, if the Director of Community
Development finds that the project is not consistent with the approved Master Plan
Revision, then it shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Notice of said Planning Commission review hearing shall be published and
provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice,
to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance
with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.
4. The applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing,
that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained
in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
5. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program
contained in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-32 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
shall be incorporated into the implementation of the proposed project and adhered
to. The mitigation measures are as follows:
A-1: No new light poles, light standards, or other form of lighting is allowed along
the roadways within the cemetery without prior written approval by the Director of
Community Development.
A-2: No exterior, building -mounted lighting is allowed on the fagade elevations
that are closest to and oriented towards residences. All other lighting shall be
arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of surrounding property.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 9 of 19 31
A-3: All pedestrian -oriented lights along the exterior of the mausoleum buildings
shall be in the form of lights that are inset into the adjoining walls. Further, the
lighting shall be arranged and/or shielded as to prevent direct illumination of
surrounding property and prevent visibility of the light source.
AQ -1: Prior to construction of each building contained in the approved Master
Plan and Master Plan Revision, the applicant shall submit a grading permit
application, signed by an individual designated by the Green Hills Memorial Park
Board of Directors, for review and approval by the Planning Commission to
ensure consistency with the approved Master Plan, which shall include, but not
be limited to, grading quantities, height, area and location of buildings and that
the buildings will not have adverse impacts upon adjacent properties. Notice of
said Planning Commission review hearing shall be published and provided to
owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all
affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
AQ -2: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that all unpaved construction areas shall be watered at
least twice a day during excavation and construction to reduce dust emissions
and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond
the project site boundaries.
AQ -3: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that all clearing, grading, earth moving or demolition
activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15
mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
AQ -4: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that General contractors shall maintain and operate
construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.
AQ -5: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that on-site construction vehicle speeds are limited to a
maximum of 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
AQ -6: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that all on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic will
be watered periodically as necessary for dust suppression.
AQ -7: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that street sweeping will be initiated if visible dust is
deposited upon public paved roadways due to the project.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 10 of 19 32
AQ -8: During the daily cemetery operations, the owner shall ensure that all
clearing and earth moving will be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e.,
greater than 25 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. This shall not
apply to excavations for individual burial plots prior to a service, or to filling of
individual burial plots after a service.
AQ -9: During the daily cemetery operations, the owner shall ensure that on-site
vehicle speeds associated with the transporting of earth materials are limited to
15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
AQ -10: The owner shall ensure that grave spoils are placed in Area 5 and/or
Area 6 of the Master Plan, which will be placed to fill the areas. A minimum 8 -
foot high chain link fence with a mesh material to reasonably screen the fill area
from neighbors shall enclose and confine said area.
AQ -11: The confined fill locations described in mitigation measure AQ -10 above,
shall be regularly watered to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule
403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site boundaries.
AQ -12: A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s)
responsible for the daily dirt movement to these confined fill locations and a
phone number(s) to be called in the event that dust is visible from the confined fill
locations described in mitigation measure AQ -10 above, shall be posted and
displayed on the fencing.
AQ -13: If stockpiling of earth material becomes necessary for ultimate use as
backfill, stockpiling shall only be located in Area 5 and/or Area 6 of the Master
Plan, and shall be subject to conditions AQ -10, AQ -11 and AQ -12 above.
AQ -14: The project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission annually,
commencing on the date of final approval, to review the applicant's compliance
with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan
Revision. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the
conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as well as
increase the time between review periods. Notice of said review hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons
requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17.80.090.
GS -1: The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report for review and approval
by the City Geologist prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
mausoleum building or grading permit for any earth movement beyond that
associated with ground interment sites, unless the City Geologist deems that a
geotechnical report is not warranted. Further, prior to any additional placement
of fill in Area 5, a detailed grading plan with relevant geotechnical reports
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 11 of 1933
supporting recommendations for grading in Areas 5 and 6 shall be submitted by
the applicant to the City for review and approval by the Building and Safety
Division and the City Geologist prior to issuance of a building permit for any
mausoleum.
GS -2: The applicant shall ensure that all applicable conditions as specified
within the geotechnical report and all measures required by the City Geologist
are incorporated into the project.
HW -1: The applicant shall prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer. The SUSMP and
related information shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development, or his/her designee prior to the issuance of grading and building
permits for any mausoleum building.
N-1: Construction activity of the mausoleum buildings and grading operations
shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
There shall be no construction on Saturdays, Sundays or federally observed
holidays unless a Special Construction Permit is obtained prior to work on a
Federally observed holiday.
N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not
park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way
before 7:00 am Monday through Friday and before 9:00 am on Saturday, in
accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas
on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment.
These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities
and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
N-3: As indicated in mitigation measure AQ -13 above, the project shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date of final
approval, to review the applicant's compliance with all conditions of approval
associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that time, the
Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as
deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons
requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17.80.090.
6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garden" burial sites and roads shall
be as follows:
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 12 of 1934
North and South: 8'-0" (except the northwest corner between the western
property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16'-0"
and as addressed in Condition No. 53)
East and West: 0'-0"
(AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums
(except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan, which are addressed in
Condition 8 and 8.a) and crypts shall be as follows:
North: 80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is
greater from the north property line that is north of the maintenance
yard, and 40'-0" from the north property line that abuts the Vista
Verde Condominium complex in the City of Lomita.
South: 40'-0"
East: 25'-0"
West: 5'-0"
(AMMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29, ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014
AND RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPETMBER 1, 2015)
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)
8.a Setbacks for the existing Pacific Terrance/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building
in Area 11 shall be as follows:
North: 40'-0", unless a Variance is approved by the City for a reduced
setback.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29, ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
9. Any live and/or amplified music shall occur only during funeral services, community
events, or visits. Funeral services music and community event music shall be
limited to the duration of the service or event. In no case shall the live and/or
amplified music exceed 65 dba at the common property lines abutting a
Residential Zoning District. The noise level shall be enforced by the neighbors
through civil means.
10. The Director of Community Development is authorized to approve minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans
and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 13 of 19 35
approval by the Planning Commission.
11. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are
in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
12. The applicant shall supply the abutting neighbors with the name and contact
information for the Green Hills Cemetery personnel that can be contacted about
excessive noise or other activities that result in impacts to the immediate
neighborhood.
13. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
14. When not being used in the daily operations of the cemetery, equipment and
supplies shall be stored in areas with minimal visual impact to adjacent
homeowners or in the maintenance yard if possible. Equipment and supplies shall
be neatly stacked so they do not pose a safety hazard or become a property
maintenance issue. All landscaping equipment and vehicles, and all vehicles used
for maintenance and/or burial preparation shall be stored in the maintenance yard.
15. The road in Area 5 and Area 6 (of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24,
2007) that parallels the south property line shall be paved and maintained by the
applicant.
16. All landscape pruning, including but not limited to grass, leaves, branches,
fertilizer, etc., shall be properly stored in areas with minimal visual impact to
adjacent homeowners, and shall be stored in appropriate containers and disposed
of in a proper manner.
17. With the exception of ground cover, no vegetation shall be planted in Area 2
(Inspiration Slope) of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007.
18. The applicant shall install and maintain signage at various locations throughout the
Cemetery to inform visitors of rules that prohibit on-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages, prohibit excessive noise and amplified music, and disruptive behavior.
The applicant shall submit a signage plan for review and approval by Staff prior to
installation of any signage. The signage plan shall illustrate the locations, height,
design and content of the signs.
19. Temporary trailers are only allowed during construction of the mausoleum
buildings. The location of any such trailers shall be illustrated on plans for the
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 14 of 1936
Grading Permit as described and required in condition AQ -1 above, and shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development. Further, the trailer shall be
removed prior to building/grading permit final.
20. Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm up,
geologic investigations, interment excavation for placement of vaults and
installation or removal of large landscape materials shall be limited to daytime
working hours (7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) on weekdays only.
21. 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
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and Federally observed
Holidays.
22. No construction or grading, including grading operations to prepare sites for
ground burials, shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. within 120 feet of
any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District. All equipment shall be
equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels.
23. All existing and proposed landscaping between the north property line and the
northern perimeter road shall not significantly impair any near or far view as
defined by the Development Code. A landscape plan limited to plants, trees and
foliage that are 48 -inches or taller for this Area shall be submitted to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval prior to grading operations to
prepare Area 4 for ground burials.
24. All existing and future landscaping shall be properly maintained in a healthy and
trimmed manner at all times.
25. The existing 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
Community Development from a certified arborist supporting removal.
26. When Inspiration Slope is developed, the existing hedge that separates Crescent
Lawn and Vista Del Pointe from this area shall be removed.
27. The existing hedge located on the applicant's property on the south property line
adjacent to the rear yards on residential lots located on Avenida Feliciano shall be
pruned and maintained so it does not exceed the height of the chain link fence,
which is 8'-0" high. The existing and future screen planting in the 8'-0" setback
along the northern property line shall be maintained no higher than the fence
height unless specifically requested in writing by the appropriate adjacent property
owner.
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 15 of 1937
28. Any new sewer and water facilities must tie into local main lines. The usage of the
site may be limited by the size and type of sewage and water systems that can
legally be installed
29. The site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities as determined
by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All Los Angeles County Fire
Department requirements shall be satisfied prior to building permit issuance for the
mausoleum building.
30. 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.
31. The owner shall submit a title report within 90 -days of final approval of this Master
Plan Revision. All easements shown on the title report shall be clearly delineated
on an accompanying site plan.
32. The existing chain link fence and wrought iron fence, which surrounds the
perimeter of the cemetery site, shall be maintained. On those areas of the fence
specifically owned by the cemetery, and where not directed otherwise by the
adjacent water authority, no barbed wire on the top of these fences is allowed, and
any existing barbed wire shall be removed within 90 -days of final approval of this
Master Plan Revision.
33. Hours of public operation for the flower shop are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Monday through Sunday. The Administration Building public hours are limited to
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The Chapel may be open to the
public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The cemetery
grounds for visits shall be open from 7:00 a.m. to dusk.
34. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities
and agencies that provide public services to the site.
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 shall 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 affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17.80.090.
36. The overall building heights for the buildings are limited to the heights approved by
the Planning Commission. The heights of each building shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Community Development
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 16 of 1938
Department prior to building permit final. (AMMEDNED PER PC RESOLUTION
NO. 2014-29, ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
37. The family mausoleum on Inspiration Slope shall be located as shown on the
Master Plan Revision so as not to impair views from the Peninsula Verde
neighborhood. The Director of Community Development shall approve the exact
location and height of this mausoleum building. The Director may review and
approve a retaining wall that contains niches for cremated remains extending from
the mausoleum building not exceeding 8'-0" in height and a maximum 42" high
guardrail and pilasters on top. The top of the retaining wall shall not exceed the
height of the adjacent road level (other than a small curb). (AMENDED PER
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBERI, 2015)
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 highest finish
grade elevation covered by structure to the highest point of the structure, and shall
not exceed an overall height of 30 -feet as measured from the lowest finished grade
adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure. (AMMENDED PER
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
39. Temporary storage (up to 72 -hours) of interment excavations is allowed provided
that such excavation is stored within an appropriate container.
40. Finish slopes and grades shall not exceed 3:1.
41. On 4:1 or steeper slopes, erosion controlling plant material and other erosion
control methods, such as jute netting, shall be required and installed.
42. Drought tolerant, low maintenance and erosion controlling landscaping is required
in the western setback adjacent to the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion.
43. Landscaping and irrigation in all setbacks require review and approval by the
Director of Community Development prior to installation. Irrigation systems shall
be designed to provide adequate coverage with no over -spray, runoff, or excessive
quantities of water output. Use of drip irrigation systems is required wherever
possible. A low water use turf shall be used in all new lawn areas. Such
landscape and irrigation plan for the setback areas shall be submitted to the
Community Development for review and approval within 180 days of final approval
of the Master Plan Revision.
44. On an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the City with copies of permits from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Los Angeles County Fire
Prevention Bureau for storage of fuel. The applicant shall also provide copies of
permits from the Los Angeles 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
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 17 of 19 39
Quality Management District for the crematory must also be provided.
45. The applicant shall continue to provide for new employees, training programs on a
regular basis, in accordance with Cal OSHA recommendations on the proper
handling and safety requirements of equipment and material in the mortuary and
crematory.
46. On an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of permits
and/or licenses from the State Cemetery and Funeral Board.
47. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
48. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
49. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the Cemetery development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but
not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
50. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
51. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste
and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be
removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or
temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable
bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
52. Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit maps depicting the locations of the current and proposed interments within
the cemetery property. (ADDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON
NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 18 of 19
40
53. Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance application to allow, within the 16 -foot setback area 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 below -
ground companion spaces identified in Exhibit B of this Resolution. (ADDED PER
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
54. Within 30 -days from the date of the approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a certified property line survey to the Director of Community Development
verifying that the existing above ground interments and structures exceeding 6 -feet
in height are located outside of the required five foot setback along the west
property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building. (ADDED PER
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014 AND AMENDED PER
RESOLUTION NO. 2015- ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
55. Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance application to allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -
foot property line setback. (ADDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON
NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
Resolution No. 2015 -
Page 19 of 1941
NEWIMMEVA
Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com • Los Angeles
(213) 213-7249 • fax (213) 213-7391
November 25, 2014
VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Green Hills Appeal of the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014
Decision, issued in connection with the Annual Review of Case No.
ZON2003-00086 (Green Hills Master Plan)
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") and pursuant to City of
Rancho Palos Verdes (the "City") Municipal Code (the "Code") Section 17.80.070, this
letter appeals the November 11, 2014 decision of the City's Planning Commission (the
"Commission") as set forth in: (i) P.C. Resolution 2014-29 and (ii) the Commission's
Notice of Decision dated November 12, 2014 (collectively, the "PC Decision"), issued
in connection with the Commissions annual review of Green Hills' 2007 Master Plan
Major Conditional Use Permit Revision (the "2007 Major CUP Revision").
While we recognize- the Commission's interest in responding to the complaints of
neighbors in the adjacent City of Lomita (which was the original and underlying
impetus for the Commission's annual review), the PC Decision overreached by
purporting to: (i) impose a moratorium on burials and plot sales on the roof of the
Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum") and (ii) require Green Hills to apply
for a variance to allow the Mausoleum to exist in its current location (notwithstanding
that the City legally approved the Mausoleum's current location nearly eight years
ago and continued to approve plans for its current location up to the building's
construction in 2013). In adopting the PC Decision, the Commission has violated well-
established legal principles, contravened doctrines of fairness and equity, and has
taken positions that are squarely at odds with state law and provisions of the City's
own Code.
550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 + San Bernardino, California 92408
3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 ® Riverside, California 92501
550 West C Street, Suite 1810o San Diego, California 92101
333 South Hope Street, 35`x' Floor e Los Angeles, California 90071
Gres h a ins a v age, coin 42
G583-000-- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 2
Regrettably, much of the PC Decision appears to stem from staff's and the
Commissions interest in shirking responsibility for past City actions - actions they
apparently now believe were committed in error - by casting Green Hills in the role of
provocateur and by requiring Green Hills to "pay" for its alleged misdeeds through
the imposition of unreasonable and punitive measures. This attempt to rewrite the
past, however, is completely improper, and the Commission's actions as set forth in
the PC Decision are not only illegal and misguided, but also have the potential for
sending the City down a path that endeavors to correct past perceived missteps by
committing new and even more egregious mistakes.
Accordingly, we request that the City Council overturn/reverse the PC Decision in its
entirety. While there are certain provisions of the PC Decision that are acceptable to
Green Hills (notably, certain operational measures designed to reduce potential
impacts on the Lomita neighbors, many of which were in fact proposed by Green Hills
itself), we believe that a de novo review of the entire PC Decision is in order.
The grounds upon which this appeal is based are numerous. Many of them have been
articulated in detailed letters to staff, the Commission, and the City Attorney over the
past 10 months, and we hereby incorporate these letters by reference. Green Hills'
main arguments are summarized below. Additionally, Green Hills reserves the right
to submit additional evidence, information, and arguments in support of this appeal as
the matter moves closer to hearing.
The "Moratorium" Allegedly Adopted by the PC Decision is Invalid and
Inappropriate.
The PC Decision's "immediate" moratorium failed to satisfy statutory
requirements for an urgency measure and is thus void. The Commission is
under the mistaken belief that it can adopt a resolution that: (i) cites a few
alleged "impacts" to privacy and views, (ii) makes some veiled assertions
about inconsistencies between the conditions of approval and the constructed
building, (iii) claims the need for relief is "immediate" - and voila - declare
that it has enacted a valid moratorium. Not so fast. Not only is this
"immediate" moratorium inconsistent with statutory mandates and the City's
own Code, but it is wholly inappropriate given the nature of the conduct at
issue.
Because moratoria often walk a narrow line between a legitimate governmental
action and constitutionally prohibited taking of private property, California
43
G583-000 -- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 3
state law establishes specific statutory guidelines to protect against the
improper use of moratoria. Specifically, California Government Code §65858,
mandates that a "legislative body shall not adopt ... any interim ordinance
[(i.e., a moratorium)] unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that
there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare...." State law imposes additional statutory requirements to ensure
that moratoria — an extreme legislative action that can have serious economic
and other consequences on property owners — are not to be imposed except
under carefully articulated and defined circumstances, and for specifically
proscribed time periods. These requirements were not followed here. Thus, on
statutory grounds alone, the moratorium is illegal and void
Even if the moratorium were valid, it is not effective immediately. The PC
Decision purports to make the moratorium effective immediately by essentially
stating that it is so, and by citing to an inapplicable Code provision related to
the effect of appeals on development projects. However, the PC Decision
expressly states that the PC Decision is not final if it is appealed. Accordingly,
even if the moratorium were valid, once this appeal is filed, the PC Decision —
including the moratorium — is not in effect.
➢ Even if the moratorium were valid and effective, it is inappropriate to stop a
lawfully approved use, particularly when other far less draconian measures
could address the alleged harms. If effective, the moratorium would have a
sweeping impact: it would not only stop all sales of Mausoleum rooftop plots,
but it would prohibit burials of individuals who purchased plots with the
expectation that the Mausoleum would be their eternal place of rest. Such a
result would completely undermine and disregard the expectations and
interests of those individuals who purchased plots that were approved and
constructed pursuant to the authority of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. If
the PC Decision is allowed to stand, it would signal to the community that the
City's word is meaningless.
As discussed above, Green Hills is not insensitive to the complaints of its
Lomita neighbors. Not only did Green Hills voluntarily suggest most of the
operational conditions adopted by the PC Decision, but Green Hills has also
voluntarily implemented the majority of them even though it has not yet been
formally required to do so. The Commission should have allowed for
additional time to determine the effectiveness of the conditions before
declaring the need for such a catastrophic remedy. Moreover, the moratorium
44
G583:-000 -- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 4
is completely inappropriate as there is nothing illegal, harmful, or
unreasonable about Green Hills' use of its property for typical cemetery uses,
especially where such uses are specifically designated for the property under
state law, the City's zoning code and Green Hills' Master Plan.' Accordingly,
the PC Decision's efforts to impose a moratorium are invalid, arbitrary and
discriminatory.
➢ The PC Decision's Effort to Impose a Moratorium and Require Green Hills to
Apply for a Variance for a Lawfully Approved Building Violates Green Hills'
Constitutionally Protected Vested Rights.
➢ More than seven years after approving the 2007 Major CUP Revision, the
Commission may not insist that Green Hills obtain a variance for the
Mausoleum. After working with City staff, Green Hills submitted an
application for its 2007 Major CUP Revision to the City in late 2006. The
application included the proposed expansion of the Mausoleum and clearly
depicted the proposed eight foot setback of the building. Staff determined that
the application contained all necessary entitlement requests, and accepted it for
presentation to the Commission. Staff never mentioned that the request
necessitated a "variance. 112 After two properly noticed and lengthy public
hearings, at which the project was described using large maps and drawings,
all of which clearly depicted the Mausoleum's layout on the property, the
Commission approved the 2007 Major CUP Revision. Neither the Commission
nor the City Attorney ever mentioned that the approval necessitated a
"variance." As discussed further below, we believe the variance was not
mentioned for the simple reason that no one — not staff, not the Commission,
and not the City Attorney — believed at the time that a variance was necessary.
In any event, based on the presumed validity of the Commission's approval of
1 To put the Lomita neighbors' complaints into perspective, we note that there are on average
about 3 burial services per month on the Mausoleum roof, which last (including pre and post
preparation) approximately 1 hour. This means that on average, for about 3 hours each month,
the neighbors hear some noise and observe activity on Green Hills' property across the way.
Given the many intrusions most people residing in cities experience, the relative "disturbance"
for a few hours a month is not substantial and not significantly different from those
disturbances common to all residential neighborhoods. In truth, the extent of the disturbance
is no greater than a neighboring park hosting baseball games a few times a month.
2 Had a variance been required, a failure to so advise Green Hills would constitute a breach of a
mandatory duty owed to Green Hills by the City pursuant to Code §17.60.020.
45
G583-000 -- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 5
the 2007 Major CUP Revision (including the approval of the Mausoleum) and
the subsequent issuance of building permits by the City's Building
Department, Green Hills constructed the Mausoleum.
➢ The PC Decision violates Green Hills' vested rights. California law
recognizes that after a property owner has performed substantial work and
incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a validly issued
permit, that property owner acquires a vested right to construct and use the
development in accordance with the terms of that permit .3 Here, Green Hills'
construction and operation of the Mausoleum, performed in clear reliance on
its validly issued CUP, establishes a vested right to use and operate the
Mausoleum in accordance with the CUP as previously issued (including for
rooftop burials). The PC Decision, which purports to prohibit Green Hills from
using the Mausoleum roof as approved, as designed, and as constructed,
violates Green Hills' constitutionally guaranteed vested rights .4
➢ The PC Decision constitutes a taking of private property without just
compensation. Given that Green Hills has a vested right to reasonably
operate, maintain and sell plots on the Mausoleum roof, the PC Decision to
prohibit further use or sales constitutes the illegal taking of private property
without just compensation in violation of both the Federal and California
constitutions. A California Court of Appeal ruled against the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes in connection with a similar moratorium, advising the City that
"by implementing the moratorium and continuing to prevent [the property
owners] from building on their properties, [the City] 'deprive[d] [the property
owners'] land of all economically beneficial use."' Monks v. City of Rancho Palos
Verdes (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 270. For the City to enact a similar
moratorium in this instance would be to repeat the nearly identical action that
3 See Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 791-799.
See also Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 359, 367
(the granting of a CUP, with subsequent reliance on that CUP, creates a vested right to
continue the use authorized by the CUP); Stanson v. San Diego Coast Regional Commission (1980),
101 Cal. App. 3d 38, 49 (an owner of property acquires a vested right to construct a building
where the conduct of the government amounts to a representation that such construction is
fully approved and legal, and in reliance on such representation the owner materially changes
position).
4 Such protections also apply to the use of all burial plots, both sold and unsold. See City of W.
Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1189.
46
G583-000 -- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 6
was the subject of a multi-year legal battle, one that the City ultimately lost; in
that case, the court required the City to pay the property owners $4.25 million
in damages and allow them to go forward with the construction that had been
the subject of the moratorium. The PC Decision threatens to put the City on a
similar course.
➢ The PC Decision's Effort to Require Green Hills to Apply for a Variance
Violates the City's Municipal Code and Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion.
When Green Hills originally applied for the 2007 Major CUP Revision, the
City did not mention the need for a variance because none was required
based on the express terms of Green Hills' existing variance and the City's
Municipal Code. Although largely ignored by the Commission, the fact is that
Green Hills has already received a variance which explained how Green Hills
was to process further revisions to the Master Plan. Variance No. 262, which
was approved in connection with Green Hills' original Master Plan and its 1991
Conditional Use Permit plainly states that "La]ny development beyond that
depicted in the Master Site Plan... shall require submittal of a major
Conditional Use Permit Revision." Throughout the Commission's approval of
the 2007 Major CUP Revision, this mandated procedure was strictly followed,
and the CUP was properly processed and approved consistent with those
mandates. As Green Hills' existing variance did not require it, no new or
additional variance was necessary.
This procedure is also consistent with the express terms of the City's Code,
which provides that a variance is not required to modify setbacks for
properties that are subject to a CUP. (See Code §17.60.50(A)(6)(a) " Conditions
of a CUP] shall take precedence over development standards otherwise
required by the underlying zoning of the subject site. ") Thus, conditions
granted or imposed by CUP, including those relating to setbacks, take
precedence over the "development standards otherwise required by the
underlying zoning," confirming that no additional variance was required for
the Commission to approve Green Hills's 2007 Major CUP Revision.
The City Attorney now claims neither of these provisions is applicable to Green
Hills' situation, and that a variance is required for the reduced setback. If so,
then someone at the City — whether staff, the Commission or the City Attorney
— should have mentioned that requirement at some point during the approval
47
G583-000 -- 1496149. t
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 7
process for the 2007 Major CUP Revision. For these individuals to sit silently
and acquiesce to the processing of the 2007 Major CUP Revision without ever
once even suggesting the alleged need for a variance, particularly if the need
was as plainly obvious as they now claim, only to fault Green Hills for not
obtaining a variance, is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
➢ If the City nonetheless insists it erred by not requiring a variance, the City
may process one pursuant to Code Section 17.64.050(B). The Commission
may not re -write history by simply "erasing" its prior approval of the
reduced setback and pretending it never took any such action. If the City
believes it erred in not requiring a variance in connection with the 2007 Major
CUP Revision, it has the ability to process one on its own accord pursuant to
Code Section 17.64.050(B).5 This Code section is plainly intended to address
instances and issues of this exact nature. Instead of pursuing this option,
however, the Commission has tried to re -write history, by effectively "erasing"
its approval of the reduced eight foot setback for the Mausoleum in the PC
Decision, and substituting a new 40 feet setback requirement. This effort to
close its eyes and pretend its prior approval never existed defies logics and
constitutes an abuse of discretion.
➢ The PC Decision is Improper and Unenforceable Based on Equitable Principals
of Estoppel and Laches.
➢ The City is estopped from enforcing the PC Decision. As a fundamental
matter, it is understood that "[w]hen the government tells you something, you
should be able to rely on it, and if the government changes the applicable rules
after its representation to you and your reliance in good faith to your
detriment, you should not be subject to the changed rules, and instead should
be held only to the rules applicable when the government's representation and
your reliance occurred."' Here, consistent with the Code, the City approved
the 2007 Major CUP Revision for the Mausoleum and issued building permits
s See Code §17.64.050(B) — Findings. A variance may also be granted if the applicant
demonstrates significant error in any order, requirement, permit, decision or determination
made in the administration or enforcement of this title or any ordinance adopted pursuant to it
and the applicant has commenced construction in reliance upon the error. If a variance is
granted under this subsection B, required filing fees may be waived pursuant to the fee waiver
provisions described in Section 17.78.010 (Miscellaneous) of this title.
6 3 Local Government Law § 16:64.
I •
•
G583-000 -- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 8
after multiple public hearings and plan checks. For seven years, the City has
treated the 2007 Major CUP Revision as validly issued, fully approved and
operative; the City knew and intended that Green Hills would rely on
subsequent approvals and permits granted in relation to the CUP. Based on
these principles, the City is estopped from enforcing the PC Decision and
requiring Green Hills to apply for a variance.
➢ In the event Green Hills were to seek a variance, the City also would be
estopped from denying it. Because of the City's prior actions approving the
2007 Major CUP Revision and the Mausoleum, the City could not now deny a
variance to allow the Mausoleum even if Green Hills were to file such an
application. In other words, based on the principles articulated above relative
to vested rights, estoppel and laches, if Green Hills applied for a variance, the
City would have no choice but to approve it.' For that reason, any efforts
related to a consideration of a variance by the City would be idle. It is a well-
settled maxim of jurisprudence that that the law does not require idle acts;
likewise, equity does not require idle gestures.8 In view of the City's inability
to deny the variance under these circumstances, it makes little sense to require
Green Hills to apply for one.
➢ The PC Decision is barred and unenforceable based on the equitable
principle of laches. After being approved more than seven years ago, the
principle of laches bars the PC Decision and its requirement that a variance be
sought in connection with the modified setbacks. The law recognizes that
laches will apply to prohibit a City's enforcement action where there has been
an "unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which [the
City now] complains or prejudice to the [property owner] resulting from the
delay." Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 CalAth 61, 68.9 Here, the City's
delay in "enforcing" what it now believes it should have done seven years ago
(i.e., require a variance) is unreasonable to both Green Hills and its patrons.
' See Anderson v. City of La Mesa (1981) 118 CA.3d 657 (local government estopped from
denying after the fact variance).
' California Civil Code § 3532; See also Murphy v. Nezv Milford Zoning Com'n (2d Cir. 2005) 402
F.3d 342, 350Citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1012 n. 3 (stating
that an application for a variance is not required when it would be "pointless").
9 See also City and County of San Francisco v. Pacello (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 637 (court deemed
zoning administrator's eight year delay in pursuing enforcement action unreasonable and
prejudicial and as such, barred by laches).
49
G583-000 -- 1496149.1
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
November 25, 2014
Page 9
After approving Green Hills' 2007 Major CUP Revision, and after subsequently
issuing several building and grading permits, CUP revisions, and other
approvals, all in reliance on the seven year old CUP, the City may not now
undermine the validity of the 2007 Major CUP Revision by requiring Green
Hills to apply for a variance.
>E >F >F >E
As noted, Green Hills expressly reserves the right to augment the record of this appeal
with additional information prior to the City Council hearing. We look forward to the
opportunity to present Green Hills' entire position on the issues in a new forum that
endeavors to find positive and productive solutions to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Ellen Berkowitz, of
GRESHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN & TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
EB:DFF
50
G583-000 -- 1496149.1
GRESHAM SAVAGE
January 15, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com • Los Angeles
(213) 213-7249 • fax (213) 213-7391
Re: Due Process Violations
Green Hills' Appeal (Annual Review of Case No. ZON2003-00086)
Dear Honorable City Councilmembers:
As we advance closer to Green Hills Memorial Park's appeal hearing scheduled for
next week, I wanted to bring to your attention a troubling development which has
compromised the City Council's ability to render a fair and enforceable decision at the
upcoming appeal hearing. Specifically, as of the date of this letter, it is our
understanding that the City Council continues to be advised with respect to Green
Hills' upcoming appeal by the same City Attorney and City Staff as participated in the
matter at the original approval and Planning Commission stage, even though doing so
is — as we have previously advised — a violation of due process protections established
by the Constitution.
As we noted in previous correspondence to the City Attorney, due process mandates
that appellate proceedings such as these shall be heard and ruled upon by a neutral
decision -maker. Such protections also require that the advisors to the decision -
makers, including the City Attorney and City Staff, also maintain a neutral and
disinterested disposition. These legal protections were clearly detailed in Nightlife
Partners Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills, (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 81, where the California
Court of Appeals found that a City Attorney cannot represent a City as both the
"prosecutor" in a matter, while simultaneously serving the function of the City's
"advisor." The Court in that case specifically ruled that the City Attorney should not
have served in an advisory capacity during the appeal hearing after having played an
active role in the prior permit renewal request process, the very process that was being
contested on appeal. As a result of this conflict of interest, the Court found that the
business' due process rights had been violated.
550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408
3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 • Riverside, California 92501
550 West C Street, Suite 1810 • San Diego, California 92101
Flow • Los Angeles, California 90071
333 South Hope Street, 35" Flo
G583-000 -- 1521652.1
Honorable City Councilmembers
January 15, 2015
Page 2
The situation is particularly problematic here, where the City Staff now purporting to
act as independent advisors to the City Council on issues pertaining to Green Hills are
the very same individuals responsible for the original approval process and for any
errors or failures that occurred during that process (such as, for example, their failure
to request a variance, if indeed one was required). Additionally, these are the same
City Staff members now trying to cover their own mistakes by pointing the finger at
Green Hills. And these are the very same City Staff members who are responsible for
the alleged "internal investigation" into their own deeds and misdeeds. Clearly, these
are no longer impartial governmental officials; as such they cannot and should not be
advising the City Council.
We therefore request that the appeal hearing be continued to a later date to allow the
City an opportunity to obtain new legal counsel and advisors relative to this matter,
and to allow said counsel to become apprised on the issues involved in this appeal.
Should the City Council hear this matter as scheduled, be advised that it does so at the
risk that its decision may be set aside by a reviewing Court.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this issue.
Very tq4N yours,
Ellen Btrk itz, of
GRESHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN & TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
EB:dff
cc: City Attorney, Carol Lynch
52
G583-000 -- 1521652.1
The following conditions of approval to Green Hills Memorial Park's Master
Plan CUP as modified or added by the Rancho Palos Verdes' Planning
Commission at its November 11, 2014 hearing, are acceptable:
ACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
Condition 1.3: Operations and maintenance conditions relating to the Mausoleum.
Condition Text: The following conditions are applicable to the Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum building and Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan and
shall supersede any conflicting conditions that govern other areas of the Green
Hills property:
Condition 1.3.a: Tractor ramp must be left clear when not in use.
Condition Text: The entire length of the tractor ramp shall be left clear at all
times when not in use. No vehicles, landscaping equipment, construction
equipment, storage containers, etc. are allowed to be parked, stored or allowed to
be left on the tractor ramp.
Condition 1.3.b: Mausoleum wall facing property line must be screened with vines.
Condition Text: The Northern (rear) wall of the mausoleum building shall be
screened by a type of wall vine landscaping. Said landscaping shall be planted
and allowed to grow on the wall only, to the satisfaction of the Director, and
shall not grow above the wall.
Condition 1.3.d: Tractor ramp guardrail must be maintained as guardrail and may not be
solid.
Condition Text: 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.
Condition 1.3.g: Burials and services only allowed between 10:OOam to 3:OOpm on
Mausoleum.
Condition Text: Burials and all associated services on the roof top ground
interments of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall
only be allowed between the hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm, Monday through
Sunday.
Condition 1.3.h: Mini -haul on Mausoleum limited to between hours of 10:OOam and 3:OOpm.
Condition Text: Limit the use of the mini -haul vehicle (which is illustrated in
Green Hills' power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13,
2014) for pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of
1 53
the rooftop ground interments to between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Sunday.
Condition 1.3.i: Amplified sound prohibited on Mausoleum, except for taps.
Condition Text: The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop
of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. This prohibition
shall not apply to the amplified sound for the playing of "taps" as part of
funeral services for military personnel and for police, fire and other first
responders.
Condition 1.3.j: Services must be conducted within tenting that is removed within 2 hours
after service.
Condition Text: All services on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum building shall be conducted within temporary covered
tenting that is enclosed on a minimum of 2 sides, as illustrated in Green Hills'
power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014. One of
the two covered sides shall be the north side facing the Vista Verde
condominium complex. Said temporary tenting shall be erected no earlier than 2
hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within 2 hours after the
burial service.
Condition 1.3.k: Sales visits on Mausoleum allowed between hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm.
Condition Text: Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof -top
ground interment plots on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building in Area 11, only between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm Monday
through Sunday.
Condition 1.3.m: At least one Green Hills employee must monitor Mausoleum services.
Condition Text: At least one employee of Green Hills shall attend and monitor
every service occurring on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum for the entirety of all burial services to ensure that the services are
orderly and comply with these conditions of approval.
ACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS WITH MODIFICATIONS
The following conditions of approval to Green Hills Memorial Park's Master Plan CUP as
modified or added by the Rancho Palos Verdes' Planning Commission at its November 11, 2014
hearing, are acceptable with modifications as indicated:
Condition 1.i: 36 -Inch height limitations on "garden walls" and prohibition against above-
ground interments (i.e., cremated remains) in garden walls and tombstones.
Objection: The condition as drafted includes excessive limitations and
restrictions that do not substantially advance any legitimate goal. As garden
walls and headstones are allowed, neither the City nor the neighbors achieve any
benefit from the prohibition against incorporating cremated remains within
2 54
G583-000 -- 1724284,1
them. Moreover, as described in detail in Green Hills' June 29, 2015 letter to the
City Attorney, the 2007 Master Plan Revision expressly recognizes that the
number of cremated remains within the cemetery may increase so as to prolong
the life of the cemetery over the next 30-50 years. Specifically, the Plan provided
as follows: "If percentages increase, the square footage impact is relatively small,
and the Master Plan provides ample ability to retrofit most mausoleum buildings
and garden areas with additional niche and niche vault inventory. Additionally,
visitation associated with inurnments is less intensive and assumed to be a minor
impact on the overall development plan. The Master Plan will be implemented
in multiple phases over many years and 'area numbers' indicated on the plan are
for reference only and do not denote a hierarchy or priority of development."
Further, as explained in detail in the June 29t1, letter to the City Attorney,
California State Law does not permit a municipal entity such as the City from
treating cremated remains differently than any other type of remains (such as
deceased bodies). A prohibition such as envisioned here potentially limits Green
Hills' ability to provide for certain religious burial needs and/or preferences. It
also prohibits Green Hills from meeting the needs of the families it serves, which
are asking for cremation in increasing numbers. In fact, the Cremation
Association of North America reports a steady increase in the number of
individuals that are choosing cremation as their final disposition; in California
the number of cremations is expected to rise to 63.6% by 2019 (up from 58% in
2013).
Condition Text: For the areas in the Master Plan Revision called out for ground
burials, the ground burials may include family estates that are evident by garden
walls less than 36- inches in overall height around their perimeters to enclose
these burial estates, or more elaborate headstones that are built above -ground
that are no taller than 6- feet high, except for Area 4 where above ground
structures are not allowed pursuant to condition no. 7 below. Garden Walls an
headstones shall not be tised to contain above gfound intefments. PfePafifig
below existing gfade (depending, if these afe single or- double depth lawn
er-ypts), filling a layer- of sand fe-r erosion central pufpeses, constfueting eenefet-e
. Excess earth material
resulting from the burial sites will be transported to Areas 5 and 6 of the Master
Plan Revision. it is appr-oximated that 437;000 cubie yafds of fill will
material.quantity includes gr-etind spoils ff em thfoughout the cemetery site, exeess eu
fnater-ial from mauseleum pf ojects iR othef areas, and import of additional fil
Condition 1.j: All new buildings require Planning Commission Approval.
Objection: Although Green Hills would be amenable to the condition's
Silhouetting requirement, it cannot accept the condition's requirement that it
seek Planning Commission approval before submitting plans to the Building and
Safety Division with respect to those buildings already authorized and approved
3 55
G583-000 -- 1724284.1
pursuant to the Master Plan. The requirement is excessive, given that such
buildings were already approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the
Master Plan approval process, and any further approvals would not only
undermine this process, but would be a waste of public resources as it would
require Green Hills to seek multiple approvals from the same body, for the same
development(s).
Condition Text: Prior to submittal of plans into the Building and Safety
Division, all buildings shall first be approved by ffie Planning Commissien at -a
duly nefieed publie hearing. Notiee of said feview heafing shall be published
aeeofdanee wiffi Raneho Palos Ver -des Development Code Seetion 17.80.090.
€maker, a temporary frame silhouette must be constructed for each building at
least 30 -days prior the Building and Safety Division's Planning Conmnission's
consideration of the building. Once the silhouette is constructed, a licensed
engineer, land surveyor or architect must certify that the silhouette accurately
depicts the location, height and outline of the proposed building. The
cerfifieation must be submitted to Staff at least 30 days pr4of to the Planning
Commission hearing.
Condition 1.3.c: No vegetation shall be planted in on or around the Mausoleum in Area 11.
Objection: Although Green Hills would be willing to agree to this condition as it
pertains to the Mausoleum's rooftop terrace, the condition as drafted is too broad
as there is no valid justification for prohibiting vegetation in the whole of Area
11, especially where these plants will have no impact on any neighboring
properties. Given that this is a cemetery, plants and other vegetation provide an
ambience that visitors come to expect; they also give needed shade to mourners
and guests. Moreover, it is unrealistic to expect Green Hills to obtain the
concurrence of the Vista Verde Condominium Association for the particular vine
cover it wishes to plant. Should the City wish to have a City representative meet
with the Association to review varies types of vine cover and then notify Green
Hills of the approved selection, Green Hills would have no objection.
Condition Text: With the exception of ground cover, and the vines on the
northern wall of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building
whieh shall be alleived Nvith the eeneurfence of the abutting Vista Verde
Condominium Association no vegetation shall be planted on the rooftop of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 of the Master-
.
Condition 1.3.e: All grading/building applications for Area 11 require Planning Commission
review.
Objection: Green Hills would be willing to agree that any new mausoleum or
addition to the existing mausoleum be required to obtain Planning Commission
approval. The remainder of the paragraph is unnecessary, as if Planning
Commission approval is required, notice will be sent to all property owners
within the applicable radius per City Code requirements. Finally, as discussed
4 56
G583-000 -- 1724284.1
above with respect to Condition 1.j, a requirement that Green Hills once again
obtain Planning Commission approval for buildings that already went through
the approval process is excessive.
Condition Text: No new mausoleum or addition to the existing mausoleum
shall be constructed within Area 11 without obtaining Planning Commission
approval. Prior- to submittal of grading -plans and/of buiiding plains to the
Building and Safety Division "plan eheek" fo-r an., i I ents in Area 11 .,
the ner-4Rvest aFea of the eemetefy site between the ivestefn pfepefty line and
plans to the Director- of Community Development fef r-eiview by the Planning,
Commission at a duly notieed publie hear-ing. Nefiee of said public hearing shal
be published and provided to ownefs of property wiffiki a 500 foot r-aditts, to
Vista Vey -de Condominium Assoeiation loeated in the City of Lomita), and to the
p-roper-ty owner- in accer-danee iviffi Ranehe Palos Vefdes Development Code
Sectio 17.80.090.
Condition 1.3.f: Burial preparation only allowed between 10:00am to 3:00pm on Mausoleum.
Objection: As Condition 1.3.g allows for burial services to begin at 10:00am,
Condition 1.3.f must be modified to allow burial preparation to begin prior to
10:00am (i.e., either at 9:00am or the day before, if preparation cannot take place
within one hour prior to service) so as to accommodate a 10:00am service.
Condition Text: Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot
backfilling of the rooftop ground interments on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00am
9:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday. For burial services occurring at
10:00am, preDaration the day prior to the service is permissible, provided the
interment site is shielded with temporary covered tenting.
Condition 1.3.1: Seven (7) days advanced flagging of burial sites on Mausoleum before
burials.
Objection: While Green Hills is willing to flag burial sites, it is not possible to
assure seven (7) days advanced flagging given that many services are held fewer
than seven (7) days after an individual's passing. Green Hills will, however,
endeavor to place a flag on the burial site within a reasonable time after the
burial is scheduled.
Condition Text: Every week, small flags shall be placed on any burial site
located on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within 24 hours
after the applicant schedules a burial service that is seheduled to be „filizea fo
thereby providing neighboring property owners
with advanced notice of scheduled interments and burial services. Green Hills
shall also post on its publicly accessible website (www.greenhillsmemorial.com)
additional details concerning the anticipated time and date of scheduled burial
services.
5 57
G583-000 -- 1724284.1
Condition 2: Compliance with November 11, 2014 Master Plan Revision required.
Objection: Green Hills objects to the reference to the Master Plan Revision approved by
the Planning Commission on November 11, 2014, as those revisions are the subject of
this appeal. Further, Green Hills proposes to add language to this condition to make
clear that "substantial compliance" with the Master Plan Revision allows Green Hills to
build out the cemetery with customary cemetery -related features such as niches, water
features, columbaria, family estates, garden walls and the like. Language to this effect
has been added to the condition.
Condition Text: Construction and build -out of the Green Hills Memorial Park
Cemetery shall be in substantial compliance with the Master Plan Revision approved by
the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, and July 22, 2014, August 26, 2014, and
Nov,,, +be , 11, 2014, as indicated in these conditions of approval. Construction that shall
be _deemed to be in "substantial compliance" with the Master Plan Revision shall consist
of customary cemetery -related features, including but not limited to niches, water
features, garden walls, columbaria, bench memorials, walls, gardens, upright memorial
features, status, cenotaph walls, cremation burials, gazebos, ossuaries, bridges,
cremation benches and above ground vaults. Substantial Ddeviation from the
conditions of approval shall only occur if first reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission through a subsequent Master Plan Revision at a noticed 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 affected homeowners
associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code Section 17.80.090. At that time, the Planning Commission may add,
delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate.
UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS
The following conditions of approval to Green Hills Memorial Park's Master Plan CUP as
modified or added by the Rancho Palos Verdes' Planning Commission at its November 11, 2014
hearing, are unacceptable:
Condition 1.f: Variance application required for Pacific Terrace Mausoleum ("Mausoleum")
Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum): Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, a
Variance application shall be submitted for the 10,366 square foot Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building already constructed pursuant to
BLD2011 -00799. Further, no new mausoleums or additions to the existing
mausoleum are allowed in Area 11.
Condition 1.3.n: Future sales of Mausoleum plots prohibited until variance approved.
Green Hills shall not sell any additional plots on the roof of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Mausoleum until it has submitted an application and received
approval for a variance for the location of the mausoleum in its current location
6 58
G583-000 -- 1724284.1
and shall disclose this restriction to prospective buyers of plots on the rooftop of
the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building.
Condition 1.3.o: Burials on Mausoleum in plots located 16 ft from property line prohibited.
No interments shall be allowed on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum building that are within 16 -feet from the northern property
line. Specifically, plots illustrated in sections 540 through 553, as depicted in the
attached Exhibit C of this Resolution, are hereby eliminated.
Condition AQ -1: Planning Commission approval required before constructing buildings
contained in Master Plan.
Prior to construction of each building contained in the approved Master Plan and
Master Plan Revision, the applicant shall submit a grading permit application,
signed by an individual designated by the Green Hills Memorial Park Board of
Directors, for review and approval by the Planning Commission to ensure
consistency with the approved Master Plan, which shall include, but not be
limited to, grading quantities, height, area and location of buildings and that the
buildings will not have adverse impacts upon adjacent properties. Notice of said
Planning Commission review hearing shall be published and provided to owners
of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected
homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.
Condition 7: Modified required setback from Vista Verde Condominium to 40 ft.
Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums
(except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
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
from the north property line that is north of the maintenance yard, and 40'-0"
from the north property line that abuts the Vista Verde Condominium complex
in the City of Lomita.
South: 40'-0"
East: 25'-0"
West: 5'-0"
Condition 8: Setback for existing Mausoleum shall be 40ft, unless a variance is approved.
Setbacks for the Pacifica Mausoleum are as follows: West: North: 15'-0" (existing)
15'-0" for the northwestern addition 40'-0" (expansion northerly along the eastern
edge of the existing building shall be offset 8'-0" to the west from the existing
7 59
G583-000 -- 1724284.1
eastern edge of the building) 8.a: Setbacks for the existing Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 shall be as follows:
North: 40'-0", unless a Variance is approved by the City for a reduced setback.
Condition 36: Building heights must be approved by the Planning Commission.
The overall building heights for buildings are limited to the heights approved by
the Planning Commission. The heights of each building shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement Department prior to building permit final.
Condition 52: Within 30 days, Green Hills must submit maps of all current and proposed
burial sites.
Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit maps depicting the locations of the current and proposed interments
within the cemetery property.
Condition 53: Within 30 days, Green Hills must submit a variance application for the burial
plots within the northwest setback area.
Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance application to allow, within the 16 -foot setback area 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 this Resolution.
Condition 54: Within 30 days, Green Hills must submit a variance application structures
located in west property line setback area.
Within 30 -days from the date of the approval of this Resolution, the applicant
shall submit a Variance application to allow only the existing above ground
interments and structures exceeding 6 -feet in height to remain within the
required five foot setback along the west property line in the area south of the
Pacifica mausoleum building, unless said encroachments are removed from the
setback within 30 -days of this approval.
Condition 55: Within 30 days, Green Hills must submit a variance application for the
Mausoleum.
Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance application to allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot
property line setback.
8 60
G583-000 -- 17242841