RPVCCA_SR_2011_05_17_21_Appeal_Of_Special_Use_Permit
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 17, 2011
Subject: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2010-00366
(SPECIAL USE PERMIT): REQUEST TO OVERTURN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL TO ALLOW TWO (2)
TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE
USED AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK FOR AN
ADDITIONAL NINE (9) YEARS, UNTIL THE YEAR 2020.
Subject Property: Green Hills Memorial Park
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Long
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Assistant Planner Harwell
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: John J. Resich
Applicant: John J. Resich
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Long
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
21-1
CfTYOF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR &MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNI
MAY 17,2011
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010-00366
(SPECIAL USE PERMIT):REQUEST TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL TO ALLOW TWO (2)TEMPORARY
MODULAR BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE USED AT GREEN
HILLS MEMORIAL PARK FOR AN ADDITIONAL NINE (9)YEARS,
UNTIL THE YEAR 2020.
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 09--
Staff Coordinator:Abigail Harwell,Assistant Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.2011-_,denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's
denial-of a Special Use Permit to allow two temporary modular bUildings to continue to be used at
Green Hills Memorial Park for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020 (Planning Case No.
ZON2010-00366).
BACKGROUND
The attached March 22nd Planning Commission Staff Report details the history of the permits and
decisions regarding the existing two temporary modular buildings at Green Hills Memorial Park.As
a reference,Staff has provided an abbreviated version of this history:
•April 2005 -Community Development Director approves Special Use Permit (SUP)to allow
2 temporary modular buildings to be used as temporary offices during the remodeling of the
Administration building.
•April 2007 -A 1-time,1-year extension of the SUP for the modular office buildings is
granted by the Director,as the Administration building remodeling project is not completed
by the SUP expiration date.
21-2
Memorandum:Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2010-00366)
May 17,2011
•June 2007 -The bUilding permit for the Administration Building remodel is finaled by the
Building and Safety Division.
•April 2008 -The SUP extension period expires,and the applicant is notified to remove the
temporary modular buildings;
•October 2008 -Rather than remove the modular buildings,the applicant requests a CUP
revision to allow the modular buildings to remain as permanent office space.
•November 2008 -The Planning Commission denies the applicant's request to revise CUP
No.115,to allow the permanent use of the 2 modular buildings to be used for permanent
office space.The applicant does not appeal the decision.The applicant is subsequently
notified to remove the modular buildings.
•February 2009 -The applicant files a new SUP application to allow the 2 modular buildings
to remain on the site for use as temporary office space for an additional 6 years.
•July 2009 -The Community Development Director approves the SUP,but only for 3 months
to allow the applicant some time to remove the temporary modular bUildings.The applicant
appeals the Director's decision to the Planning Commission.
•September 2009 -The Planning Commission denies the appeal,upholding the Director's
approval,but modifying the temporary approval period for one year with one opportunity for a
6-month extension to allow additional time for the applicant to submit the necessary CUP
revision application for new office space.The applicant does not appeal the decision.
•October 2010 -The Planning Commission's approval expires on September 22,2010
without a CUP revision application for a new office space or an extension request submitted
by the applicant.The applicant is notified to remove the unpermitted modular buildings from
the site.The applicant files a new SUP application request to allow the 2 modular buildings
to remain on the site for an additional 9 years.
•January 2011 -The Community Development Director denies the application.The
applicant appeals the Director's decision to the Planning Commission.
•March 22,2011 -The Planning Commission denies the appeal on a 5-1 vote,upholding the
Director's denial.
On March 30,2011,before the expiration of the 15-day appeal period,the applicant,John J.Resich,
Jr.,filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.The applicant
requests "that the original application [to allow the modular buildings to remain on the site for an
additional 9 years]be granted."On April 26,2011,notice of the pending public hearing was sent to
all property owners within 500 feet of the subject site.Additionally,the notice was published in the
Peninsula News on April 28,2011.Staff has received 2 letters in response to the notice.
21-3
Memorandum:Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2010-00366)
May 17,2011
DISCUSSION
As noted in the background history,the two tempo~ary modular buildings have been located and
used on the site since 2005 including over 3 years after completion of the Administration Buildings.
Rather than apply for a Conditional Use Permit amendment to construct additional needed
administration office space,the applicant has sought to continue using the temporary modular
buildings as office space through repeated Special Use Permit application attempts.The applicant's
last Special Use Permit application was denied by the Director and the denial upheld by the
Planning Commission because Staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make findings
NO.3 and 4 of the following four required findings for approval of a Special Use Permit:
1.That.the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed special use
and/or development;
2.That the proposed special use and/or development would not adversely interfere with
existing uses on the subject property;and would not impede or adversely impact pedestrian
access ways and/or vehicular circulation patterns;
3.That the proposed special use and/or development would not result in a significant adverse
effect on adjacent property;and
4.That by requiring certain safeguards as conditions of approval,the proposed special use
and/or development would not be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare.
While the attached July 5,2011 Staff Report to the Director and attached March 22,2011 Staff
Report to the Planning Commission explain the reasons for Staff and the Planning Commission not
being able to make these two findings,a summary of the reasons is provided as follows.Staff and
the Planning Commission were unable to make the finding that allowing the two temporary modular
buildings for an additional nine years "would not result in a significant adverse effect on adjacent
property"because Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that there would be a significant
effect because the two temporary modular buildings are visible from the residential neighborhood to
the south and have not gone through the appropriate compatibility review process for permanent
structures.Staff and the Planning Commission were unable to make the finding that "the proposed
special use would not be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare"because the two
temporary modular buildings have far exceeded their original purpose and continued long-term use
of modular buildings which are designed for temporary use is detrimental to the public welfare.
Additionally,Staff and the Planning Commission agreed that the applicant has been afforded ample
time in which to submit the necessary CUP revision applications that would allow the construction of
permanent bUildings to replace these two temporary modular buildings.
In the appeal letter to the City Council submitted by the applicant on March 30,2011,as well as in
the previously submitted appeal letters,several points are raised regarding the grounds of the
appeal.To summarize,the appellant is attesting:
•that "said appeal is based upon the fact that the existing buildings are built pursuant to state
code requirements of modular buildings and meet all such requirements;"
•"that the buildings are necessary for the continual employment of members of the sales staff
and administrators of the park;"
•that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on its own property has numerous modular bUildings;"
•and that the only grounds for denial are based upon that the building "are not permanently
attached to the ground"or "that the roof is not a sloped roof."
21-4
Memorandum:Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON201 0-00366)
May 17,2011
On pages 3 through 5 of the March 22,2011 Planning Commission Staff Report,Staff comments on
each of these statements,stating the two temporary modular buildings had been previously
approved and treated as temporary facilities,not long-term permanent structures,and the applicant
has been given multiple approvals for continued use of the two temporary modular buildings in order
to provide the applicant time to apply for construction or modification of permanent facilities or to find
other means to re-Iocate the employees.The fact remains that while the City has provided the
applicant ample opportunities to provide time in order to apply for permanent structures which would
be compliant with the Development Code,the applicant has not submitted plans or indicated any
plan of applying for any type of application other than a Special Use Permit.
Below,Staff has identified additional applicant issues raised in the current appeal (bold text),which
is followed by a response by Staff (normal text).
The denial by the Director and thereafter by the Planning Commission is creating an undue
burden upon the applicant to remove the building and build permanent "stick"buildings as
opposed to keeping the modular buildings that meet all State Building Code requirements for
temporary buildings.
As stated in previous reports,Staff is not asserting that the temporary modular buildings are in
violation of any State codes.Upon inspection by the Building and Safety Division,these two
buildings comply with all State regulations regarding "temporary"structures.However,previous
approvals for use of these structures was solely based upon their temporary nature and as such
have never gone through the appropriate development review process for permanent structures,in
which aesthetics,compatibility,adequate parking,and other factors are reviewed for compliance
with the subject site and the City's Development Code requirements.In the past,Staff's review of
these two temporary structures was focused on minimizing temporary impacts during the time in
which these structures were used as temporary office space during construction of the permanent
Administration office building.Thus,Staff's approval of the previous Special Use Permits was to
allow the applicant time in which to submit an application for the construction of permanent facilities.
Both Staff as well as the Planning Commission believe that an additional Special Use Permit
possibly could be approved if the applicant were to apply and process an application to construct
permanent buildings that comply with the City's Development Code.However,despite the ample
time provided to the applicant,no such application has been submitted.
If the fact of the Planning Commissions denial [...]is that Rancho Palos Verdes does not
have other modular bUildings with the City except for those allowed for a temporary time
period and there are no code provisions that are within the Code of Rancho Palos Verdes
pertaining to the erection of modular buildings,then the Code should be modified to allow
buildings that meet State Building Code requirements for modular buildings.
There are no provisions in the City's Development Code that dictate the appropriate use or time
period for modular buildings.However,one of the purposes of a Special Use Permit is to allow
activities conducted for a temporary period either outdoors,within temporary structures or within
residential zones that have the potential to result in an adverse effect on surrounding properties.As
such,historically the City has permitted the use of modular buildings through a Special Use Permit
for temporary time periods in association with construction of permanent structures.Typically,
modular buildings have been approved through the Special Use Permit process because an
21-5
Memorandum:Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2010-00366)
May 17,2011
applicant needed such structures for only a temporary time period while awaiting the construction of
permanent facilities.Examples where this has occurred include but are not limited to Trump
National,Terranea,and the current Palos Verdes Senior's offices at Upper Point Vicente.
While there are no specific Development Code regulations for the use of modular buildings as
permanent office space on private property,there is also no prohibition on an applicant from
requesting that modular building be approved as permanent office space through a Conditional Use
Permit application.If such an application is submitted,Staff would assess the compliance of such
structures with the Development Code as well as compliance with the Building Code.This would
likely mean that conditions of approval would be imposed that would require the modular buildings to
be modified to meet the Conditional Use Permit findings of approval as well as the Building Code.In
other words the modular buildings would likely have to be substantially modified to function as a
permanent office building.As such,there is a difference between allowing modular structures for
their intended temporary use and attempting to use modular buildings as permanent structures.
As the appeal raises no new issues and provides no information or evidence that warrants
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission,Staff believes that the appeal is unwarranted
and should be denied.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
On April 26,2011,public notices were mailed to the applicant/appellant,all property owners within a
500-foot radius of the subject site,the Peninsula Verde Homeowners Association,and the two (2)
interested parties.Public notice of this appeal was also published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News on April 28,2011.As of the date that this report was completed,Staff had received two items
in response to the notice sent.First,Rich and Waynel Walker,residents of the City of Lomita,write
that they enjoy the view of the cemetery and have no issue with the presence of the two temporary.
modular buildings on the site.The second item was a letter submitted by Roger Metzler,of 1921
Avenida Feliciano.Mr.Metzler writes that the City Council should support the Planning
Commission's denial of the appeal and uphold the Community Director's original decision to deny
the Special Use Permit,stating that "Green Hills chooses to seek extensions for these buildings in
order to avoid the scrutiny,formality,public hearing,and permit process that is required for
permanent structures in Rancho Palos Verdes."He goes on to rebut several of the appellant's
previously made claims.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above,Staff believes that there is no basis to overturn the Planning Commission's
decision in this case.Therefore,Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Special Use Permit application,with
prejudice (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366).
FISCAL IMPACT
The appellant paid the required $2,275.00 appeal fee at the time that the appeal was filed.Pursuant
to Section 17.80.120 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,"[all]appeal fees shall be
21-6
Memorandum:Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2010-00366)
May 17,2011
refunded to a successful appellant"and "[if]an appeal results in modifications to the project,other
than the changes specifically requested in the appeal,then one-half of the appeal fee shall be
refunded to the successful appellant."If this appeal is upheld in full or in part,then the appellant
shall be entitled to a full or partial refund of the appeal fee.The cost of any such refund shall be
borne by the City's General Fund.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,below are alternatives for the City Council to consider:
1.)Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Special
Use Permit for the continued use of two existing temporary modular buildings for an
additional nine (9)years,and direct Staff to prepare a revised resolution for adoption at the
next City Council meeting.
2.)Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Special
Use Permit for the continued use of two existing temporary modular buildings for a modified
time period,and direct Staff to prepare a revised resolution for adoption at the next City
Council meeting.
3.)Identify any issues of concern with the request,provide direction to Staff and/or the
applicant/appellant,and continue this matter to a date certain.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2011-_
•Appeal letter received from John J.Resich,dated March 30,2011
•E-mails and correspondence received from the public
•Minutes from the March 22,2011 Planning Commission meeting
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated March 22,2011
21-7
RESOLUTION NO.2011-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010-366),WITH PREJUDICE,FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF TWO (2)TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS
AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK,LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN
AVENUE.
WHEREAS,on April 7,2005,the Community Development Director approved a
Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00217),thereby allowing for two (2)
temporary modular buildings of six hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine
hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)to be used while the main Administration Building
was being remodeled at Green Hills Memorial Park;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2007,the Community Development Director granted
a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use Permit in order to allow additional
time for the Administration Building to finish construction;and
WHEREAS,on June 2007,the Building Administration building permit was
finaled by the Building and Safety Division;and,
WHEREAS,on November 11,2008,the Planning Commission denied a request
to allow the two (2)temporary modular buildings to remain permanently on the subject
site;and,
WHEREAS,on February 9,2009,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a request
for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)to allow for continued
use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years,from 2009
through 2015;and,
WHEREAS,on July 9,2009,the Community Development Director approved the
Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)for continued use of the two
(2)temporary modular buildings for an additional three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on July 24,2009,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Director's approval,requesting that the Planning Commission revise the Conditions of
Approval to allow the temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years instead
of the approved three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on September 22,2009,the Planning Commission denied the
appeal,upholding the Director's decision,but modifying the conditions to allow the
temporary modular buildings to remain for one (1)year from the date of the decision;
and,
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 1 of 4
21-8
WHEREAS,on September 22,2010,approval of the Special Use Permit expired
(Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033);and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2010,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a new
request for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366)to allow for
continued use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)
years,until the year 2020;and,
WHEREAS,on January 5,2011,the Community Development Director denied
the Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366)for continued use of the
two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020;
and,
WHEREAS,on January 18,2011,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of
the Director's denial,requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's
decision to deny the Special Use Permit application for the continued use of the two
temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years;and,
WHEREAS,on March 22,2011,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2011-15,thereby denying the appeal,upholding the Director's decision
of denial of the Special Use Permit request;and,
WHEREAS,on March 30,2011,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of the request for a Special Use Permit to the City
Council,requesting that the original application be granted;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to
consider the project applicant's appeal on May 17,2011,at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council finds that the applicant's appeal is unwarranted
and is,therefore,denied ..The appeal raises no new issues and provides no information
or evidence that warrants overturning the decision of the Planning Commission in
denying the requested Special Use Permit for continued use of the existing two
temporary modular buildings.While the appeal requests for an additional nine (9)years
of continued use,the applicant does not indicate any intention of filing an application to
revise the Conditional Use Permit to provide permanent structures to accommodate
needed office space for the function of the business nor any intention to remove the
structures from the site,as was conditioned in previously granted Special Use Permits
for the two temporary modular buildings.
Section 2:The Special Use Permit grants approval for temporary uses of land
involving the erection of temporary structure ...or any other similar activity conducted for
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 2 of 4
21-9
a temporary period,as stated in Section 17.62.020 of the Municipal Code.The
requested nine (9)years of continued use of these two temporary modular buildings is
not a temporary time period request and as such the Special Use Permit is the not the
appropriate application for such a request,without application for a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit for permanent structures.
Section 3:The purpose of the Special Use Permit is for temporary special
uses and developments which.may result in an adverse effect on surrounding
properties.An additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020,of continued use of the
temporary modular buildings would have a significant adverse impact on surrounding
properties because the two temporary modular buildings look temporary and do not
appear compatible with the other buildings on the subject site,nor the buildings on the
surrounding properties.Any modification or alteration to the two temporary modular
buildings that would be appropriate for long-term use would need to be reviewed
through a revision to the Conditional Use Permit,not through application of a Special
Use Permit.
Section 4:The two temporary modular buildings will be detrimental to the
public health,safety and welfare because the request is for long-term use of temporary
structures that have far exceeded the scope of the special use permits that were
approved by the City.The temporary structures have not been reviewed and permitted
for long-term use.There are no proposed plans to construct permanent facilities in
place of these two temporary modular buildings,an<;.i there is no pending application to
convert these ·structures to permanent use,by which necessary conditions wbuld be
implemented to appropriately modify the structures for permanent use and to address
aesthetic issues.Under these circumstances,allowing them to reside long-term in their
current location without the appropriate development,building and geologic review that
would address long-term or permanent use would be detrimental to the public welfare.
Section 5:For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information and
findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes and other records of proceedings,the City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the
Planning Commission's denial,with prejudice,of a Special Use Permit (Planning Case
No.ZON2010-00366)to allow two (2)temporary modular buildings to continue to be
used at Green Hills Memorial Park for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020.
Section 6:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought if governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 1yth day of May 2011.
Tom Long,Mayor
ATTEST:
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 3 of 4
21-10
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby
certify that the whole numbers of the City Council of said City is five;that the foregoing
Ordinance No._was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting thereof held on May 17th ,2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
City Clerk
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 4 of 4
21-11
Appeal letter received from
John J.Resich,
dated March 30,2011
ATTACHMENT -1
JOHN J.RESleH,JR.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTOIU'lEY AT LAW
840 West 9th Street
San Pedro,California 90731
Telephone:(310)832·2618
Tel~~fdfi129 ~2f\-Pr88
Mr.Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Planning,Building
and Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275
Re:27501 Western Avenue,Rancho Palos Verdes Ca
Notice of Decision
Dear Mr.Rojas:
RECEIVED
MAR 30 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park,I do hereby appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission for the Special use Permit,for the use of two temporary modular buildings of
approximately Six Hundred and seventy two square feet and nine hundred and sixty square feet
to continue to be used in association with the existing Administration Building and the
administration of the Park.Said Appeal is being made to the City Council.The Appeal is based
upon the previous letter submitted and the denial by the Planning Commission of the appeal of
the Director of Planning Decision to deny the special use permit for the two temporary buildings.
Green Hills appeals the denial of a permit to use the building for a period of an additional 9
years.The denial by the Director and thereafter by the Planning Commission is creating an
undue burden upon the applicant to remove the building and build permanent "stick"buildings as
opposed to keeping the Modular Building that meet all State Building Code requirements for
temporary buildings.In the alternative,Green Hills requests that the City Council allows the
building to remain as they meet the Building Code requirements of the State of California and all
other code requirements for Modular Buildings.
This Letter acts as an appeal of the Denial by the Planning Commission of the Request by Green
Hills and requests that this matter be presented to the City Council.In Addition to the above this
appeal is based upon the fact that the existing buildings are built pursuant to state code
requirements of modular buildings and meet all such requirements,that such buildings were
placed and connected to the sewer system and water systems ofthe park.That such buildings
have permanent walks that meet the handicap access requirements to the buildings.That the
buildings meet all required code sections of the building codes that were in effect when they were
placed on the property.That the buildings are visually pleasing and blend with the other
buildings located in the park.That the building are necessary for the continual employment of
members of the sales staff and administrators ofthe park.That the removal of such buildings
ATTACHMENT -2
Page Two
Joel Rojas
March 29,2011
would lead to the possible temlination of over 25 individuals because there is insufficient room
in the administration building to house such individuals and will lead to the building of other
building on the property as the individuals need to be located on the premises and can't be
located off site.That these individuals provide services to families that have suffered a death.
That the loss ofjobs in the poor economic conditions of the State of California and the United
States would only continue to compound the recession and further hurt the economy.
That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has other modular buildings which have been located on
City property that appear to be temporaty in nature and very unsightly but have been located on
City property for in excess of 10 years.That such buildings at Green Hills Memorial Park do not
cause any burden upon the city and do not detract or impact any residents in the city.That the
original staff report set forth the fact that the proposed use of the temporary buildings on page 7
of that report "are consistent with the General Plan's Commercial Retail Land use designation of
the site."And there again at page II,wherein the staff stated"There will be no significant
adverse effect on adjacent property or the pem1itted use because additional conditions have been
incorporated that reduce potential impacts.Further the modular buildings will continue to be
located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be
located along the perimeter of the cemetery and will not reduce established setbacks."
The fact that these buildings are modular in design should not have an adverse effect on their
approval.The fact that the buildings are modular and are approved by the State of California for
use as housing and for co=ercial uses should allow the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to allow
their use and continuation of their use at Green Hills Memorial Park.If the Park were to request
pem1anent building at this location,nothing in the current conditional use pem1it would allow the
Commission or Department to deny such a request as the pad coverage does not exceed that
which is allowed for the amount of land owned and operated by Green Hills Memorial Park.To
deny the approval of these buildings based upon the mere fact that they are modular appears to
run contrary to the laws of the State of California,the rules and regulations and Federal
guidelines and requirements for modular buildings and has no basis in fact.To deny the
modular building based upon the fact that an amendment to the Conditional Use Pem1it is
required can be rectified by Green Hills requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
which Green Hills will do if this Special Use Permit is not approved.The Building were
inspected when placed upon the property by the Department of Building and Safety and the
permit for their placement was signed off by that department.They meet or exceed the codes in
effect at the time of placement.That they are allowed in other jurisdictions on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula and not unsightly.That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on its own property has
numerous modular buildings that have been located on that property without the requirements of
pem1anent footings and such building have been located on such property for period of time in
excess of the Green Hills Modular buildings.That the Green Hills Modular buildings do not
appear to be modular in nature and Green Hills has taken the necessary steps to make the
buildings blend with other building and has landscaped around the buildings so that they do not
ATTACHMENT -3
Page Three
Joel Rojas
March 29,2011
appear to be just placed on the property but appear to be an integral part of the property as
compared to modular buildings on City of Rancho Palos Verdes properties.Which modular
buildings appear to be placed on the property without the concern of the visual impact of such
buildings,especially those building which are in plain view over the cliffs of Palos Verdes Drive
South and Hawthorne Blvd.
lithe only reason for the denial is that the buildings are not permanently attached to the ground,
Green Hills will take the necessary to have them permanently attached.If the objection is that
the roof is not a sloped roof then Green Hills will look to making the roof appearance modified to
be a sloped roof.
If the fact ofthe Planning Commissions denial and the Directors denial of the special use permit
is that Rancho Palos Verdes does not have other modular buildings within the city except for
those allowed for a temporary time period and there are no code provisions that are within the
Code of Rancho Palos Verdes pertaining to the erection of modular buildings,then the Code
should be modified to allow buildings that meet State Building Code requirements for Modular
Buildings.To deny Green Hills from the erection of Modular Building when there are no City
Code requirements is a violation of Green Hills right to erect modular buildings when they are
permitted by the State Codes pertaining to Modular Building and don't violate any other
provisions of City requirements pertaining to land usage at Green Hills Memorial Park.
For these reasons,Green Hills Memorial Park is appealing the decisions and requesting that the
original application be granted or in the alternative that the buildings be deemed permanent in
nature and allowed permanently to remain at their location at Green Hills or for so long as Green
Hills determines that they are needed for the business that is so vital to our community and
families within the community,that is caring for the burial of members of our City and
Community.Green Hills requests that the City Council made a determination and grant the
application of Green Hills to keep these buildings or in the alternative deem that these building
be permanent in nature and allow them to remain in their location until that period of time that
Green Hills Determines that they are no longer necessary.Thank you for hearing this Appeal.
J n J.Resich,Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Green Hills Memorial Park
JJR.
ATTACHMENT -4
E-mails and
correspondence received
from the public
ATTACHMENT -5
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
>
Waynel Walker [rich_and_waynel@att.net]
Wednesday,April 27,2011 2:34 PM
abigailh@rpv.com
We have no problem
>with the special use permit for Green Hills to use the two temporary modular buildings.
Our view of the cemetery is wonderful.They probably need the buildings.Fine with us.If
there's something we should do to help them please let us know.
>Rich and Wayne 1 Carol Walker
>1984 Rolling Vista Dr #7
>Lomita,CA 90717
>Sent from my iPhone
1 ATTACHMENT -6
City Council of Rancho Palos Vcrdcs
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275
1921 !\venida Feliciano
Rancho Palos.Verdes 90275
May 6.2011
RECEIVED
MAY 05 2011
Dear City Council Members.PLANNING,BUIlDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
I urge you to uphold the decision orthe Community Development Director.1v1r.Rojas.and the 5 to 1
decision of the Planning Commission.in denying the Special Usc Permit to Green Hills Memorial
Park (Case ZON20 I 0-00366)Il)r the continued usc of two temporary modular buildings for an
auditionalninc years.
Green Ilills has already used these tempOral)'buildings for a period of six years.As the stalrrepnl1
states.their original purpose.as temporary quarters while the administration building \Vas remodeled
in 2005-2006.has long since expired.Green Hills chooses to seck extensions for these buildings in
order to avoid the scrutiny.formality.public hearing.and penn it process that is required for
permanent structures in Rancho Palos Verdes.In addition they avoid the cost that would be incurred
to replace the buildings or to upgrade them to meet the standards that apply to permanent structures.
Green IIills has demonstrated repeatedly that they have no intention oC upgrading or removing the
buildings voluntarily.
In the appeal of the Community Development Direetor's decision to the Planning Commission.
Green Ifill,representative.Mr.Resich.stated that removal of the buildings would result in the
termination of over 25 employees.But in the public hearing before the commission.he admitted that
the buildings arc predominantly used as conference space.and tbat few employees have permanent
otliees in tbe buildings.Mr.Resich also cited the poor economic climate as a lactor in their choosing
not to upgrade or rcplace tbe buildings.Yet.the cemetery is currently building at least one additional
mausoleum.Thc stall'report adequately rebuts other issues contained in Green Hills'appeal.
II'the existing buildings do not meet the same standards that pcrmancm structures in Rancho Palos
Verdes arc required to meet.then they should be upgraded to meet those standards or sbould be
removed.Tbe Community Dcvelopment Director and the Planning Commission have made this
detcrmination on multiplc occasions.I urge the City Council to uphold thcir decision.
Thank you I,)r the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely.
'1lJ '(l'-"-Yv\x'l'~
Ruger Melzkr
ATTACHMENT -7
Minutes from
March 22,2011
Planning Commission
Meeting
ATTACHMENT -8
Commissioner G tner stated that he was able to make the findin
proposal.
mmissioner Knight stated he had trouble making finding NO.5 and that there is s e
lee in the design.He also stated that he would look towards the sixteen foo eight,
but wou e open to something over sixteen feet.
Vice Chairman Tetreault state e does not have a ha nd fast sixteen foot rule in
regards to this project,but felt at t ed project could be lowered a bit
more.
redo the silhouette at the site to r
Director Rojas responde at staff has done so much anal .on this site that they feel
they can base any c ges on the current silhouette.
The Commis . n agreed that the project did not need a new silhouette.
tion to continue the public hearing to the April 26 th meeting was app
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.Appeal of Director's denial for a Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2010-
00366):27501 Western Avenue
Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report,explaining the Director denied the
Special Use Permit request for the continued use of two temporary modular buildings
currently being used at Green Hills to the year 2020,and the applicant is appealing this
decision.She gave a brief timeline of the use for the two temporary buildings at the
site,and the reasons given for the appeal.She explained that staff feels the points of
the appeal are not warranted,as staff is of the opinion that the structures are temporary
in purpose and appearance and are no longer necessary for the purpose in which they
were originally approved to be located at the site.Further,because the temporary
structures have never gone through the typical developmental review process for
permanent structures staff believes the further long term use of these structures is
detrimental to the public health and welfare.As such,staff is recommending the
Planning Commission uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal.
Commissioner Leon asked staff if the City prohibits the use of modular buildings in the
General Retail and Commercial zones within the City.
Assistant Planner Harwell answered that modular buildings are not prohibited in the
General Retail or Commercial zones.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22,2011
Page 9ATTACHMENT -9
Commissioner Leon asked how far the modular buildings are from the neighborhood to
the north.
Assistant Planner Harwell answered the modular buildings are over 300 feet from the
neighborhood to the south.
Commissioner Leon commented that he went out to the area and the modular buildings
were actually hard to find.He felt that there is quite a bit of landscaping in the area and
they look consistent with a parking area or utility work yard area.
Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.
John Resich (appellant)explained that Green Hills has used these buildings for a long
period of time and the buildings are shielded by landscaping on all sides so that they
are not visible to the surrounding neighborhoods.He noted that the buildings house the
sales staff,who absolutely have to be on the site.The buildings also have offices for
the administrative officers as well as a conference room.He explained the conference
room is used for families to meet and for various grief seminars for the public.He felt to
lose these buildings and take them off site would be impossible,as the employees
would not have the ability to come back and forth and serve the families in any manner.
He is asking that these buildings not be looked at as modular buildings but rather as
pre-fab buildings.He stated he is more than willing to do whatever it takes to make
them look more attractive.He also noted that he believes these buildings meet all code
requirements for modular buildings and comply with all California codes.He added that
if there is any code they do not comply with they will be brought up to standards.He
also noted there is a permanent handicapped ramp and handicapped restrooms in both
buildings.He asked that the Commission allow Green Hills to maintain these buildings
for the time period requested.
Roger Metzler stated he lives on Avenida Feliciano.He referred to the appeal letter
submitted and questioned the accuracy of the point regarding the possibility of
termination of twenty five employees.He felt that the number was exaggerated.He
also referred to the point made that the modular buildings do not look like modular
buildings and fit in with the rest of the architecture on site.He disagreed and stated
these buildings very much look like modular buildings.
John Resich (in rebuttal)explained that the twenty five individuals referenced are not
permanently housed in these buildings,but rather they come and go from the site.In
regards to the buildings themselves,Green Hills will do whatever is reasonable to help
shield them from the neighborhood and to change their appearance.
Vice Chairman Tetreault noted this issue has been before the Planning Commission
several times before with the same buildings and the same request,with an outcome
being a limited amount of time that Green Hills can continue operating with those
buildings in place.He asked Mr.Resich how this application is any different from the
previous ones which resulted in a denial.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22,2011
Page 10ATTACHMENT -10
Mr.Resich answered that the difference is the economy has not substantially changed,
that Green Hills is willing to change the look of these buildings,and the State Code as
well as the Municipal Code does not prohibit these types of pre-fab or modular buildings
in commercial areas.
Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if there has been any effort on the part of Green Hills to
have a permanent solution other than just maintaining thee buildings.
Mr.Resich answered that they have discussed numerous permanent solutions,one
being to convert the garage immediately to the east of the buildings to additional
spaces.He explained that they only have a limited amount of space that is non-
dedicated and they are trying to avoid taking dedicated space and converting it,as it is
a long arduous process with the State to change the use of the space.
Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Leon asked staff why the request is for nine years.
Director Rojas did not know why Green Hills was requesting nine years.
Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff to explain when modular buildings are permitted,
when they are not permitted,and when they can be a permanent structure.
Director Rojas explained that the Code does not address modular buildings.
Historically,the City has approved them through a Special Use Permit process.
Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there are currently any of these types of
structures within the City being used as a permanent structure.
Director Rojas answered that the only one being used without a Special Use Permit that
he is aware of is the one at City Hall being used by PV on the Net.
Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if they had a comment on Mr.Resich's statements
that these buildings comply with all applicable Building and Safety codes.
Director Rojas responded that the State governs these types of structures,and as far as
he is aware there are no violations with regards to these particular structures.
Commissioner Gerstner pointed out that the State guidelines for these structures are
significantly different from the construction guidelines for structures within the City.He
noted that these standards are a much lower set of standards because the use is
intended as temporary.
Commissioner Lewis moved to uphold the Director's decision and deny the
appeal,seconded by Commissioner Knight.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22,2011
Page 11ATTACHMENT -11
Commissioner Lewis stated that the circumstances giving rise to these buildings was
temporary in nature,and those circumstances no longer exist.He felt the City has
given the applicant ample time to find a permanent solution and the therefore supports
staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Knight agreed,noting the modular buildings have been in place for over
six years.He explained that the main purpose for the approval of the temporary
buildings was to have these in place while the administration building was being
constructed and were never intended to be permanent structures.
Commissioner Leon felt that these are difficult economic times and that this is a
business and the Commission should be reasonable with a business.He noted these
buildings are in a fairly out of the way position within the sight of the cemetery.He
agreed modular structures are meant to be temporary,but people live in modular
structures.He would therefore support the applicant keeping these structures for some
period of time,possibly four to five additional years.
Commissioner Lewis felt that putting a firm deadline on these modular buildings will help
the property owner make some permanent plans for the future,and it is the
Commission's responsibility to give them that guidance.
Vice Chairman Tetreault explained his difficulty with the history of these buildings and
doing anything other than supporting the Director's action brings into question why the
City didn't grant these applications earlier.He was not sure of what has really changed
at the site over time that would change the decision.He felt that the City should be
consistent with its decision.
The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's denial,thereby adopting
PC Resolution 2011-15 was approved,(5-1)with Commissioner Leon dissenting.
Commissioner Le'tated that,on the advice of the City Attor ,he will recuse
himself from item NO.4 s his property is located withi e of the areas that will be
discussed.He also noted tha ards to item N ,he minutes,he was not at the
February 22 nd meeting.Therefore,ated ould be leaving the meeting at this
time.
Deputy Director Pfost prese the staff report,noting Commission has finished
their review of the dra t of the General Plan update but seed to review the Land
Use Map.He s ed the Land Use Map adopted in 1975 that is c ntly being used
by the Cit well as the current Zoning Map.He explained how staff Ii een able to
use oning Map,which is parcel specific,to better identify where land use
undaries on the Zoning Map affect properties and where they do not affect prope I
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22,2011
Page 12ATTACHMENT -12
Planning Commission
Staff Report,
dated March 22,2011
ATTACHMENT -13
STAFF
REPORT
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
27501 WESTERN AVENUE
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,AlCP ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT 0 ECTOR
MARCH 22,2011
AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S
DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(CASE NO.ZON2010-00366)
TO:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANTI
LANDOWNER:GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
27501 WESTERN AVENUE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
APPELLANT:JOHN J.RESICH,JR.
840 WEST 9TH STREET
SAN PEDRO,CA 90731
FROM:
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 793 -H7 &J7
STAFF
COORDINATOR:ABIGAIL HARWELL 11 ~L
ASSISTANT PLANNER~L.---'
REQUESTED ACTION:A REQUEST TO OVERTURN THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2009-00033),TO ALLOW TWO (2)TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS TO
CONTINUE TO BE USED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL NINE (9)YEARS,UNTIL THE
YEAR 2020.
RECOMMENDATION:DENY THE APPEAL,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE USED
ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL NINE (9)YEARS,UNTIL THE YEAR 2020.
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
CEMETERY (CEM)
CEMETERY
CODE SECTIONS:17.29 &17.62
GENERAL PLAN:COMMERCIAL
TRAILS PLAN:N/A
SPECIFIC PLAN:N/A
CEQA:CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11)-ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard /Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Planning &Code Enforcement Divisions:(310)544·5228/Building Division:(310)265-7800/Department FAX:(310)544-5293
www.palosverdes.com/rpv ATTACHMENT -14
PLANNING COMMISSION :;TAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON201u-00366j
MARCH 22,2011
PAGE 2
ACTION DEADLINE:N/A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500'OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:NONE
BACKGROUND
On April 7,2005,the Community Development Director approved a Special Use Permit
(Planning Case No.ZON2007-00271)for two (2)temporary modular buildings of six hundred
seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)to be used while
the main Administration Building at Green Hills Memorial Park was being remodeled.The
Special Use Permit was issued for a two-year period expiring in April 2007.Since the
remodeling for the Administration Building was not completed at that time,Green Hills was
granted a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use Permit,allowing the modular
bUildings on-site until April 2008.The Building Permit for the Administration BUilding remodel
project was finaled in June 2007.Once the Special Use Permit for the modular buildings
expired in April 2008,Staff notified the applicant that the modular buildings needed to be
removed.On November 11,2008,the Planning Commission heard a request to revise
Conditional Use Permit No.115 to allow,among other things,the two modular buildings to
remain on the cemetery site permanently.This specific request was denied by the Planning
Commission.In doing so,several Planning Commissioners felt that allowing the modular
bUildings to remain on the site temporarily could be possible if the applicant were to propose to
the City plans to construct permanent buildings to replace the modular buildings on the site.
Given that the permit to temporarily allow the modular bUildings expired in April 2008 and the
Planning Commission denied the request to keep the modular bUildings permanently on site,on
January 22,2009 Green Hills was notified by Staff that the modular buildings needed to be
removed.In response,on February 9,2009,Green Hills submitted a request for a Special use
Permit to keep the existing two temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years,from
2009 through 2015.On July 9,2009,the Director conditionally approved the Special Use
Permit with a condition that the modular buildings only be allowed for a 3 month period.The
condition required the applicant to either completely remove the temporary modular buildings
from the site within 3 months,or submit a formal request for a Conditional Use Permit Revision
to construct permanent structures to replace the existing modular buildings.Before the end of
the 15-day appeal period,the applicant appealed the Director's decision to the Planning
Commission,requesting that the Planning Commission revise the Conditions of Approval to
allow the temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years instead of the approved
three (3)months.On September 22,2009,the Planning Commission denied the appeal,
upholding the Director's decision,but modifying the approved period for one (1)year from the
date of the decision to allow the applicant more time to submit an application for permanent
buildings based upon the economic climate at that time.The Planning Commission also
allowed a one-time ex1ension.
As an ex1ension was not filed,the permit expired on September 22,2010.On September 28,
2010,Staff notified Green Hills that the permit had expired and that the Director granted an
additional month for removal of the two temporary modular bUildings.In response to Staff's
letter,on October 18,2010,the applicant filed a new Special Use Permit requesting continued
use of the same two temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years,until the year
2020.The application was deemed complete on December 6,2010,and a notice was mailed
the same day to 345 property-owners located within 500 feet of the subject property,providing a
ATTACHMENT -15
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON201u-00366)
MARCH 22,2011
PAGE 3
15-day notice period.In response to this notice,two (2)comment letter were received from the
pUblic.
On January 5,2011,the Director denied the Special Use Permit request.Before the end of the
15-day appeal period,on January 18,2011,the project applicant,John J.Resich,Jr.,filed an
appeal to the Director's decision.The applicant requests "that the Planning Commission deem
that these buildings be permanent in nature and allow them to remain in their location until that
period of time that Green Hills determines that they are no longer necessary."On March 2,
2011,notice of the pending public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the
subject site.Additionally,the notice was published in the Peninsula News on March 3,2011.
Staff has received one letter in response to the notice.
DISCUSSION
The site and project description,Staff's analysis of the required findings,and additional
information.which was used by the Director in making a decision on the Special Use Permit
request,can be found in the attached Staff Report,dated January 5.2011.As noted in the
January 5th Staff Report,Staff determined that since the two temporary structures were
originally approved in 2005 in correlation with the remodeling of the existing Administration
Building,which was completed in June 2007,these temporary buildings are no longer
necessary for the purpose that they were originally intended to serve.As such,Staff was
unable to make two of the four required findings necessary for the approval of a Special Use
Permit.Specifically,Staff was unable to make the finding that allowing the temporary
structures for an additional nine years "would not result in a significant adverse effect on
adjacent property."Briefly,Staff felt there would be a significant effect because the two
temporary structures are visible from the residential neighborhood to the south and have not
gone through the appropriate compatibility review process for permanent structures.
Additionally,the Director could not find that "the proposed special use would not be detrimental
to the public health,safety and welfare"because the two temporary structures have far
exceeded their original purpose and no longer needed for the purpose in which they were
originally granted permission to temporarily be used.As such,the Director denied the request
for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020.
In the appeal filed by the applicant,Mr.Resich presents several points regarding the continued
use of the modular buildings.Below,Staff has identified the applicant's issues (bold text)
followed by a response (normal text)by Staff.
Said appeal is based upon the fact that the existing buildings are built pursuant to state
code requirements of modular buildings and meet all such requirement.
Staff is not asserting that the temporary modular buildings are in violation of any state codes.
Staff feels that the structures are temporary in purpose and appearance.and therefore should
not be treated as permanent structures.
That the buildings are necessary for the continual employment of members of the sales
staff and administrators of the park.
The temporary modular buildings were approved in correlation with the proposed remodeling of
the Administration Building in 2005.The Director approved the original Special Use Permit with
ATTACHMENT -16
PLANNING COMMISSION ~TAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON201u-00366)
MARCH 22,2011
PAGE 4
the understanding that the employees displaced from the remodeling project were to work in the
approved temporary structures,as was described in the original Staff Report,approved on April
7,2005.It is Staff's understanding that there are 25 additional people working in these
temporary structures,which were intended to only be used by the employees who were
displaced by the Administration Building construction.if that many additionai employees are
needed,Staff feels that efforts should be made by Green Hills to prOVide permanent structures
and/or lease other permanent office space in the vicinity.Furthermore,Staff feels that Green
Hills has had ample time to appiy for and build the additional space needed and/or lease space
in the vicinity.
That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on its own property has numerous modular
bUildings that have been located on that property without the requirements of permanent
footings and such buildings have been located on such property for period of time in
excess of the Green Hills Modular buildings.
Staff beiieves that the appeilant is referring to the two modular buildings located south-west of
the City Hall buildings that are being used by the Peninsuia Seniors,a non-profit organization.
A Special Use Permit was originally approved by the City to allow these temporary structures
from July 2006 through December 31,2008,while applications for a permanent facility for the
Peninsula Seniors as part of the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project were being
processed.An extension to the Special Use Permit was approved on August 7,2008,which
extended the continued use of the structures through December 31,2011.The extension was
approved because the location of a permanent senior center as part of the Crestridge Senior
Housing project fell through due to changes in the project scope and the organization had to
begin anew at finding a permanent location for their facilities.While these existing structures
can be seen from Palos Verdes Drive South and Hawthorne Boulevard,the agreement between
the organization and the City is to allow the temporary moduiar bUildings to remain for a
reasonable temporary time period and not that they become nor substitute for permanent
facilities.
That the original staff report is attached setting forth the fact that the proposed use of the
temporary buildings on page 7 of that report "are consistent with the General Plan's
Commercial Retail Land use designation of the site."
On November 11,2008,the Planning Commission conducted an Annual Review of the existing
Conditional Use Permit for the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan,in which a revision was
requested to allow the two modular buildings to remain permanently on site.Although Staff was
able to make the required findings,including the general plan consistency findings,associated
with the permanent placement of the two modular bUildings,the Planning Commission denied
the request as it was not abie to make all the required findings for the modular building
component of the application (see attached minutes from the November 11,2008 Pianning
Commission Meeting).Notwithstanding,the Commission did feel that if Green Hills Memorial
Park were to submit an application to build permanent structures on the site that the temporary
modular structures could remain on a temporary basis.Despite this discussion,the Special Use
Permit application submitted by Green Hills to allow the modular bUildings to remain for an
additionai 9 years did not provide any indication that plans were being prepared for additional
permanent administration buildings that wouid replace the two temporary modular buiidings.
Thus,the Community Development Director has denied the newest Special Use Permit due to a
lack of effort on the part of Green Hills to address the Planning Commissions previous
ATTACHMENT -17
PLANNING COMMISSION :HAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON201u-00366)
MARCH 22,2011
PAGE 5
recommendations and that the two temporary modular buildings are no longer necessary for the
purpose that they were originally intended to serve.
If the only reason for the denial is that the buildings are not permanently attached to the
ground,Green Hills will take the necessary to have them permanently attached.If the
objection is that the roof is not a sloped roof then Green Hills will look to make the roof
appearance be modified to be sloped roof.
As previously noted by Staff,the two temporary modular buildings have not gone through the
typical development review process for permanent structures as the approval was granted
through a Special Use Permit,which does not require development review of such construction
due to the temporary nature in which the Special Use Permits are granted.Any efforts by
Green Hills would have to be reviewed through the appropriate development review process
through the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit revision to the property's current Master Plan
program.In the past,Staff's review of these two temporary structures was to minimize
disturbances during the duration in which these structures were needed.As these structures
are no longer needed for the original purpose in which they were to serve,Staff feels that any
proposal to convert these modular structures into permanent buildings must go through a
Conditional Use Permit revision,in which the structures will be analyzed for developmental
compatibility in the context of the entire Green Hills operation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
In response to the appeal notice sent to property owners located within 500 feet of the subject
property,Staff received one letter from Mr.Roger A.Metzler,of 1921 Avenida Feliciano.Mr.
Metzler had previously submitted a letter and additional correspondence in response to the
original notice of the Special Use Permit application sent on December 6,2010.In his most
recent letter (attached),dated March 8,2011,Mr.Metzler continues to comment on how "Green
Hills chooses to seek extensions for these buildings in order to avoid the scrutiny,formality,
pUblic hearing,and permit process that would be required for permanent structures."Attached
to his letter are the previously submitted letters he has written regarding this subject,as was
included in the attached January 5,2010 Staff Report.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above,Staff believes that the appellant has provided no new
information to warrant a change to the Director's decision.Therefore,Staff recommends that
the appeal be denied and the Director's denial of allowing the two temporary modular buildings
to remain for an additional 9 years,until the year 2020,be upheld.
AL TE RNATIVES
In addition to staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for the Planning
Commission to act on:
1.Approve the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's denial of a Special Use Permit
(Case No.ZON2010-00366),allowing the two temporary modular bUildings to remain on
site for an additional 9 years,until March 22,2020,and direct Staff to return to the
ATTACHMENT -18
PLANNING COMMISSION ::;TAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON201u-00366)
MARCH 22,2011
PAGE 6
Planning Commission with the appropriate resolution;or
2.Approve the appeal,thereby overturning the Director's denial of a Special use Permit
(Case No.ZON2010-00366),allowing the two temporary modular buildings to remain on
site for another period of time as designated by the Planning Commission and direct
Staff to return to the Planning Commission with the appropriate resolution;or
3.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project,provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project,and continue the public hearing to a
date certain.
ATTACHMENTS
•P.C.Resolution No.2011-_,denying the appeal request and therefore upholding the Director's
Decision
•Appeal Letter from John J.Resich (dated January 18,2011)
•E-mail and attachments received from Roger A.Metzler (dated March 10,2011)
•Staff Report for Special Use Permit (dated January 5,201)
•Minutes from September 22,2009 Planning Commission Meeting
•Planning Commission Staff Report (dated September 22,2009)
•Appeal Letter from John J.Resich (dated July 24,2009)
•Minutes from November 11,2008 Planning Commission Meeting
•Original Staff Report for Special Use Permit (dated April 6,2005)
ATTACHMENT -19
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2011-00366,THEREBY UPHOLDING
THE DIRECTORS DENIAL TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE OF
TWO TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL NINE YEARS,UNTIL THE YEAR 2020,LOCATED
AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK (27501 WESTERN
AVENUE)
WHEREAS,on April 7,2005,the Community Development Director approved a
Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00217),thereby allowing for two (2)
temporary modular buildings of six hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine
hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)to be used while the main Administration Building
was being remodeled at Green Hills Memorial Park;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2007,the Community Development Director granted
a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use Permit in order to allow additional
time for the Administration Building to finish construction;and
WHEREAS,on June 2007,the Building Administration building permit was
finaled by the Building and Safety Division;and,
WHEREAS,on November 11,2008,the Planning Commission denied a request
to allow the two (2)temporary modular buildings to remain permanently on the subject
site;and,
WHEREAS,on February 9,2009,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a request
for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)to allow for continued
use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years,from 2009
through 2015;and,
WHEREAS,on July 9,2009,the Community Development Director approved the
Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)for continued use of the two
(2)temporary modular buildings for an additional three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on July 24,2009,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Director's approval,requesting that the Planning Commission revise the Conditions of
Approval to allow the temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years instead
of the approved three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on September 22,2009,the Planning Commission denied the
appeal,upholding the Director's decision,but modifying the conditions to allow the
temporary modular buildings to remain for one (1)year from the date of the decision;
and,
P.C.Resolution No.2011-15
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT -20
WHEREAS,on September 22,2010,approval of the Special Use Permit expired
(Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033);and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2010,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a new
request for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366)to allow for
continued use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)
years,until the year 2020;and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of additional information,the application was
deemed complete for processing on December 6,2010;and,
WHEREAS,after a duly noticed 15-day commenting period,on January 5,2011,
the Community Development Director denied the Special Use Permit (Planning Case
No.ZON2010-00366)for continued use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for
an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020;and,
WHEREAS,on January 18,2011,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of
the Director's denial,requesting that the Planning Commission deem the temporary
modular buildings to be permanent and allow them to remain in their current location
until Green Hills finds them no longer necessary;and,
WHEREAS,on March 22,2011,after notice was issued pursuant to the
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
continued use of the temporary modular buildings because the two modular buildings
are located in an area of the 121-acre park where there is currently no other
development,while providing sufficient access for the existing permanent structures,
parking areas and use of the site.
Section 2:The continued special use of the two temporary modular buildings
would not interfere with existing uses or vehicular circulation on the cemetery site
because there is sufficient space for the two modular buildings,which are located
adjacent to an existing parking lot,and not encroaching upon or restricting access to
any of the existing parking spaces,drive aisles or on-site roadways.
Section 3:An additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020,of continued use of
the temporary modular buildings would have a significant adverse impact on properties
located adjacent to and south of the subject site because the two modular buildings are
visible from the public right-of-way and residential properties,which would negatively
P.C.Resolution No.2011-15
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT -21
affect the property value of these properties for a longer period of time and the two
buildings are no longer necessary for the purpose in which they were originally
approved.
Section 4:The two temporary modular buildings will be detrimental to the
public health,safety and welfare because due to their visibility from the adjoining
residential neighborhood to the south and with no proposed plans to construct
permanent facilities in place of these temporary structures,allowing them to reside
permanently in their current location without any development review is detrimental to
the public welfare.
Section 5:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion
of this decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(g)
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the
City,in writing,setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions
requested by the appellant,and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee,no later
than fifteen (15)days following March 22,2011,the date of the Planning Commission's
final action.
Section 6:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Reports,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal request,thereby upholding the Director's denial
of Case No.ZON2010-00366 for a Special Use Permit,allowing the continued use of
two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22 nd day of March 2011,by the following
vote:
AYES:Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Knight,Lewis,Vice Chairman Tetreault
NOES:Commissioner Leon
.RECUSALS:None
ABSTENTIONS:None
ABSENT:Chairman Tomblin
/J()~r,~~mblin,
Chairman
-
P.C.Resolution No.2011-12.
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT -22
JOHN J.RESICH,JR.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
840 West 9th Street
San Pedro.California 90731
Telephone:(310)832-2618
Te~~t~q>~:q6H88
Mr.Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Planning,Building
and Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275
RECEiVED
JAN 18 2011
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Re:27501 Western Avenue,Rancho Palos Verdes Ca
Notice of Decision
Dear Mr.Rojas:
On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park,I do hereby appeal the denial of the Special use Permit
for the use of two temporary modular buildings of approximately Six Hundred and seventy two
square feet and nine hundred and sixty square feet to continue to be used in association with the
existing Administration Building and the administration of the Park.
As the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement you denied a special use permit for
the use of two temporary modular buildings to continued being used at Green Hills Memorial
Park for an additional 9 years.
At this time Green Hills Memorial Park does hereby appeal the denial and requests that this
matter be presented to the Planning Commission.Said appeal is based upon the fact that the
existing buildings are built pursuant to state code requirements of modular buildings and meet all
such requirements,that such buildings were placed and connected to the sewer system and water
systems of the park.That such buildings have permanent walks that meet the handicap access
requirements to the buildings.That the buildings meet all required code sections ofthe building
codes that were in effect when they were placed on the property.That the buildings are visually
pleasing and blend with the other buildings located in the park.That the building are necessary
for the continual employment of members of the sales staff and administrators of the park.That
the removal of such buildings would lead to the termination of over 25 individuals because there
is insufficient room in the administration building to house such individuals.That these
individuals provide revenue to the park in making sales and providing services to those
individuals who have suffered a loss.That the loss of jobs in the poor economic conditions of
the State of California and the United States would only continue to compound the recession that
we are in and further hurt the economy ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes,State of California
and the United States.
ATTACHMENT -23
Page Two
Joel Rojas
January 18,2011
That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has other modular buildings which have been located on
City property that appear to be temporary in nature but have been located on City property for in
excess of 10 years.That such buildings at Green Hills Memorial Park do not cause any burden
upon the city and do not detract or impact any residents in the city.That the original staff report
set forth the fact that the proposed use of the temporary buildings on page 7 of that report "are
consistent with the General Plan's Commercial Retail Land use designation of the site."And
there again at page II,wherein the staff stated"There will be no significant adverse effect on
adjacent property or the permitted use because additional conditions have been incorporated that
reduce potential impacts.Further the modular buildings will continue to be located within the
interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be located along the
perimeter of the cemetery and will not reduce established setbacks."
The fact that these buildings are modular in design should not have an adverse effect on their
approval.The fact that the buildings are modular and are approved by the State of California for
use as housing and for commercial uses should allow the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to allow
their use and continuation of their use at Green Hills Memorial Park.If the Park were to request
permanent building at this location,nothing in the current conditional use permit would allow the
Commission or Department to deny such a request as the pad coverage does not exceed that
which is allowed for the amount ofland owned and operated by Green Hills Memorial Park.To
deny the approval of these buildings based upon the mere fact that they are modular appears to
run contrary to the laws of the State of California,the rules and regulations and Federal
guidelines and requirements for modular buildings and has no basis in fact.To deny the
modular building based upon the fact that an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit is
required can be rectified by Green Hills requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
which Green Hills will do if this Special Use Permit is not approved.The Building were
inspected when placed upon the property by the Department of Building and Safety and the
permit for their placement was signed off by that department.They meet or exceed the codes in
effect at the time of placement.That they are allowed in other jurisdictions on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula and not unsightly.That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on its own property has
numerous modular buildings that have been located on that property without the requirements of
permanent footings and such building have been located on such property for period of time in
excess of the Green Hills Modular buildings.That the Green Hills Modular buildings do not
appear to be modular in nature and Green Hills has taken the necessary steps to make the
buildings blend with other building and has landscaped around the buildings so that they do not
appear to be just placed on the property but appear to be an integral part of the property as
compared to modular buildings on City of Rancho Palos Verdes properties.Which modular
buildings appear to be placed on the property without the concern of the visual impact of such
buildings,especially those building which are in plain view over the cliffs of Palos Verdes Drive
South and Hawthorne Blvd.
ATTACHMENT -24
Page Three
Joel Rojas
January 18,20 II
If the only reason for the denial is that the buildings are not permanently attached to the ground,
Green Hills will take the necessary to have them permanently attached.If the objection is that
the roof is not a sloped roof then Green Hills will look to making the rood appearance be
modified to be a sloped roof.
For these reasons,Green Hills Memorial Park is appealing the decisions and requesting that the
original application be granted or in the alternative that the buildings be deemed permanent in
nature and allowed for that amount of time that Green Hills determines that they are needed.In
fact Green Hills requests that the Planning Commission deem that these building be permanent in
nature and allow them to remain in their location until that period of time that Green Hills
Determines that they are no longer necessary.
Jo J.Resich,Jr.
liairman of the Board
Green Hills Memorial Park
]JR.
Ene!.
ATTACHMENT -25
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Roger A Metzler
Thursday,March 10,2011 2:36 PM
abigailh@rpv.com
Green Hills Planning Commission Appeal
GreenHills2011.pdf;GreenHills2010.pdf;GreenHills2009.pdf;GreenHills2008.PDF
GreenHills2011.pdf GreenHills2010.pdf GreenHills2009.pdf :JreenHills2008.PDF
(197 KB)(375 KB)(246 KB)(44 KB)
Dear Ms.Harwell,
I have attached a letter to the Planning Commission containing my comments regarding
Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366,the request by Green Hills Memorial Park to allow two
temporary modular buildings to remain on site.
My comments refer to previous correspondence to the Planning Commission and to Community
Development Director Rojas regarding previous similar requests by Green Hills.I have
also attached those letters,dated November 2008,September 2009,and December 2010.I
would appreciate it if you would include my comments to the Planning Commission in the
staff report.
Thank you.
Roger Metzler
Roger.Metzler@aero.org
Planning Commission letter:(See attached file:GreenHills2011.pdf)
Letter to Mr.Rojas,Dec.2010:(See attached file:GreenHills2010.pdf)
Planning Commission letter 2009:(See attached file:GreenHills2009.pdf)
Planning Commission letter 2008:(See attached file:GreenHills2008.PDF)
1 ATTACHMENT -26
1921 Avenida Fdieiano
Rancho Palos Verdes.C/\90275
March 8.20 J I
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275
Dcar Commissioners.
Once again I am writing to yOll concerning the two "temporary"modular buildings at Green Hills
Cemetery.I lise the 1crm "temporary"guardedly.sine.:those buildings arc now nearly six years old.
This time my corrcspondence is in reference to Grcen Hills'appeal of the Community Dewlopment
Director's dcnial of a special use pellllit (Casc No.ZON20 I 0-0(366)for continued usc of those
buildings for an additional nine (9)years.
I have submittcd commcnts to the Commission.or to the Planning Director.or to both.each time the
cemetery has requestcd an extension to the use of these buildings.This is noW'my fourth piece of
correspondcnce (sec attaehments/cnclosures).I will not bore you with a reprise of that
correspondcnce.I will merely summarize my contcntion that Green Hills chooses to seck extensions
Illr these buildings in order to avoid the scrutiny.formality.public hearing.and permit process that
would bc required for penn anent structures.In addition.they avoid the cost that would be required
to replace the buildings or to hring the buildings up 10 the standards which apply to permanent
structurcs.It is far cheaper to pay an annual appeal fce to the Planning Commission to request an
extension.If the modular buildiogs meet the building code standards and use requirements that apply
to pcrmanent structures in Rancho Palos Vcrdcs.thcn thcy need not be referred to as "temporary".If
the buildings do not mcet these standards.then they should bc upgraded to meet those standards or
they should bc rcmoved.
Grecn Hills has demonstrated repeatedly that thcy have no intention of upgrading or removing thc
buildings voluntarily.As long as thcy arc allowed to keep them as "temporary".they will continuc to
do so.Irtheir extension request fur nine additional years is granted.I'm willing to bel that tl1l.:y'li be
back before the Planning Depat1menl and the Planning Commission in 2020 with a similar request.
When that ,'ccurs.they will have extracted 15 years of life out of "temporary"buildings!Not had'
Thank you fl1r the opportunity to exprcss my views.
Sincerely.
Roger Metzler
ATTACHMENT -27
1921 Avenidn Feliciano
Rancho Pnlos.Verdes 90275
December 17.2010
iVlr.}ncl Rojns
Community Dl:vc!upmcnt Director
City of Rancho Pnlos Verdes
30940 Ilawthofile l3Ivd.
Rnneho Palos Verdes.C i\90275
Dear Mr.Rojns.
So Green Hills is hack again.ch'!This Yl.:ar lh~)nrc asking permission ror their t\\'o '"lCl11purnry"
modular buildings to remain on site Illr an additiunalnine (9)yenrs -unlil 2020?
Thes!.:art:the Sall11~"temporary"buildings that w~re first permitted in I\pril.2005.to Sl'rve as
quarters Juring the renovation of their main administration huilding.which was completed in June
2007.
These an:the same ·'temporary"buildings that Grecn flills requested oCthe Planning Commission.in
",,,,ember 2008.to be allowed l<1 remain in place pennnnently.This nppeal was part of a request to
revise CLIP ION2003-00086 to allow a church huilding to be relocated to the cemetery.The pem of
the revision n.:qucst to allow the builcJing.s to remain pcrmanCn1ly was denied by the Planning
Commission and subsequently withdrav.:n by Grccn Hill~.
Thl.:sc an:'the same "temporary"buildings that Green Hills appealed to thc Planning Commission.in
September.:!009.to be allowed 10 remain in place for an additional six (6)years.rather than the
additional three months that you.as the Director of Planning.I3uilding.and Code Enfllfcement.had
approvl.:u.The Planning Commission d~nied the request for an additional six ycars.but
compromised and allowed them to rcmain for 0111':additional :,car.The Planning Commission also
allowed Green Hills to request the Planning Director fiJr a one time cX1ension of the perini\.
It is 11111 clear 10 me whether the current request (Planning Case No.LO 20 I 0-003661 is a request Illr
this one lime extension of th..::current permit.or is a request for a J1I.:W Spccial Usc Permit.\Vhat is
c\ident.however.is that Green Hills is "shooting for the stars"\vith this latest request for al1oth~T
nine'(9)years of Iiti:Illr their ··temporary··modular buildings.But I must give them credit for their
persistency and audacity.Despite having.all previous requests to retain these buildings for various
kngths or lime consistently denied or shortened.they are making another request.and making the
time period their longest yet!
ATTACHMENT -28
t\.s I have expressed in my previous commems (enclosed)to the Planning Commission.tiS a neighbor
\\ith property adjoining Green Ililis.I do not have so much of an objection to the buildings
themselves.as to the rather surreptitious manncr in which Grecn Hills has attemptcd to add to their
administrative spaec.Thcsc relatively small modular buildings are much preferable to a large.multi-
~t(lry permanent structure.hulking ncar their prop~J1Y line.Ilowcvcr.although Gr~cn Hills'original
intent may have been to add otTice space while the main administrative building was renovated.they
IlHlnd that by proposing the buildings as "tcmporary"they could avoid the scrutiny.formality.publi"
hearing.and permit process that would have been required if the buildings '-ere proposed as
permanent structures.Similarly.by repcaledly asking for extensions.they avoid the scrutiny of the
planning.permitting.and upgrade process:and mon:importantly they avoid the cnst that would be
required to bring the huildings up to code as permanent structures or to replace.
You.Mr.Rojas.as Community Development Director.arc empll\\'ercd to make a detcrmination.If
the existing ..temporary"modular buildings meet all the building code standards and usc
rl.:quirclllents that apply to permanent structures in Rancho Palos Verdcs.then stop referring to thcm
as "temporary".They would be modular buildings.similar to those which exist at Rolling Ililis
Preparatory Sclllloi.and on the campuses or Palos Verdes High School and Palos Verdes Peninsula
High Schuol.If the existing huildings do nollllcct tht:same standards [IS permanent structures.then
they should be upgraded to meet those standards or should be removed.You and the Planning
Commission have already made this determination on mulliple occasiuns.Green Hills has
demonstrated that they have no intention of upgrading or removing the buildings vuluntarily.I\s
1~)Jlg as they arc allowed to keep them as "tcmporaryl1.thl.:Y will continue to do so.If their extcnsion
request for nine additional years is granted.l'm willing 10 bet that they'll be back bcron~the Planning
J)epartment in 2020 with a similar request.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my viev.'s.
Sincerely.
~6rr-\\A.~~
Roger Metzler
ATTACHMENT -29
1921 Avenidn Ft:liciano
Rancho Palos Verdes.C/\90275
Scptcmhcr I I.2009
Pl~lIliling <,'olllmisshm
('i(~('f Ranl:ho Palos Vl,.~rdcs
309-1O Ila\\'lhof!1e Blvd.
Ranch"Palos Verdes.C/\90275
(kar COlllmissioners.
I \\ould likt:tu suomit several coml1lt:nts r('g.ardillg Case :''In.ZON2009-0003.l.the appeal by ureen (Iills
Memorial Park of the Planning Director's nppronll of a Spl'l:ial Lise Permit for two temporary modular
building.s 011 tht:cemetery grounds.
:\s ~ou nrc .1\\aft:.these two buildings w('rc originully (in ~006?)approved and constructed as tt'mporary
buildings \\hill:the main administration building \\as rellovated.Although thm renovation was
~oll1pktcd in Junc or 2007.the buildings \\-cre 110t rl'lllovcd.III November 2008.Green Ilills requested
that tht:two buildings bl'allowed to n..'Jl1ain on the cemetery site permancnlly.This requcst was denied by
the Planning Commission.Green Ilills is no\\'requesting.that thc modular buildings hl'allo\\cd to rcnwin
ror another 6 \'l~ars.rathcr than the thn.;~lllonths permitted b:-the Director of Planning..13uilding.and
C(ll!C Ellforcemt:nt.
It appears that Gr~clJ Ilills keeps requesting ~xten~iuns for these modular buildings in ord~r to avoid the
..;t.:rutiny.formalily.and pemlit process that would be:required if the huildings wen:I'l.:quested tll be
pl.TJlWncnt stnlt.:lurcs,And ob\"iollsly.retaining the lllodular buildings is much t.:hcaper than construl:ting
a COI1\'cntioT1al permanent building.However.as a neighbor with property adjoining.Green Hills.these
n,.:lative!:slllulI ll10dular buildings arc much preferable to a large.multi-story permancnt :,Iructure that
(jr~~J1 IJills mig.ht seck if the lllodular structun:s wen:nnt allowed to remain.
;\compromise I would suggcst is that rather thall contilluing to c1assil)these modular building.s as
tClllpl)rar:.Grccn Ililis be allowed to undcrtake thc nl:cessary planning..pcnnitting.and upgrade process
that would brillg rhe buildings up to code as p~rlllallellt structures.As a result.they would still be
modular buildings but they \vould mect adequate ~tandards to dcem thcm pl:rtm1l1cnt.Sw.:h a cour;-;c of
action \\'(,luld he similar to tht?'modular building.s at Rolling Hills Prcparatof)Schoul.nnd the modular
da;-;SWlHll buildings at Palos Verdes High School <llld Palos Vl'rdcs P~llinslila Iligh School.
If this is !lot possible.and the modular buildings.by th~ir nature.must rcmain classified as tcmporary.
then I wl)uld suggest a compromise in the pt:riod for their approval.Six years is certainly too long.Thl'
dly would ha\'c limited visibility into their condilion and limited ahility to lbn:c their rt:l11oval should
tht:y not he adcquatdy maintained.t\shorler period or time.perhaps J 8 or :24 months.would allow the
dty the opponunity to rc\·icw the justilication fur and adequacy of the buildings on a mon:frcqucnt basis.
It would permit the city to act in a periud sooner than six years to allo\v or dcny continut:d approval for
the buildings.This shoneI'period would nlso impose some inclH1vcniencc Oil Green Ilills.Requiring.
thl:JlI to navigate th~appeal PT"lJCCSS more frcqw.:ntly mighl force theIll to consider whether the huildings
renlly \\-cre necessary or whether they could be f~lllo\"t:d.as originally promised in 2006.
Thnnk :OU for the opportunity to express 11l~\ic\\::;:.
Sincerely.
Roger Metzler
ATTACHMENT -30
1921 Avenida Feliciano
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
November 2,2008
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Commissioners,
I object to the modification of the Conditional Use Permit ZON2003-00086 to allow Green Hills
Memorial Park to make permanent the two existing modular buildings adjacent to the parking lot,
west of the Administration Building.My objection is not so much to the buildings themselves,but to
the rather devious manner in which,I perceive, Green Hills operated to try to make the buildings
permanent.
The original purpose of the buildings,when they were first permitted (in 2006?),was to allow the
Memorial Park to continue to provide service to their clients while the main administration building
was renovated.The buildings were to remain until no later than November 2008.If the buildings
were really intended to serve only as temporary quarters,they could have been disassembled after
June 2007,when,I understand from Mr.Schon born of the planning staff.the administration building
renovation was completed.
Rather,I suspect that the cemetery asked for permission to construct these buildings as temporary,
hoping to avoid the scrutiny,formality,and permit process that would have been required if the
buildings were requested to be permanent structures.Then once the buildings were constructed,the
controversy abated,and the neighbors had "gotten used to them",it would be easier to request they
be deemed permanent,again avoiding scrutiny and objection.It appears that we may now be at that
stage.
As for the buildings themselves,they are certainly preferable to a large.multi-story permanent
structure that Green Hills might seek if the modular structures were not allowed to become
permanent.In that respect,1 would favor allowing them to remain.However,the Planning
Commissioner should make it clear that it wasn't fooled by the Green Hills administration's
circumvention of standard procedures to make these buildings permanent.In fact,I would suggest
extracting some sort of additional fee or compensation from Green Hills to the City to penalize their
"devious methods"and allow their "temporary"structures to become permanent.Green Hills could
then make the choice to pay the penalty or remove the structures.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely,
Roger A.Metzler
ATTACHMENT -31
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDIRECTOR
ABIGAIL HARWELL,ASSISTANT PLANNER
JANUARY 5,2011
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010-
00366):REQUEST FOR CONTINUED USE OF TWO (2)
TEMPORARY MODULAR OFFICE BUILDINGS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL NINE (9)YEARS AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE
(GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK)
Deny the Special Use Permit application to allow the two (2)temporary modular office
buildings for an additional nine (9)years,until 2020 (Planning Case No.ZON2010-
00366).
BACKGROUND
On April 7,2005,the Community Development Director approved a Special Use Permit
(Planning Case No.ZON2007-00271)for two (2)temporary modular buildings of six
hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)
to be used while the main Administration Building at Green Hills Memorial Park was
being remodeled.The Special Use Permit was issued for a two-year period expiring in
April 2007.Since the remodeling for the Administration Building was not completed at
that time,Green Hills was granted a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use
Permit,allowing the modular buildings on-site until April 2008.The Building Permit for
the Administration Building construction was finaled in June 2007.On November 11,
2008,the Planning Commission heard a request to revise Conditional Use Permit No.
115 to allow among other things the two modular buildings to remain on the cemetery
site permanently.This specific request was denied by the Planning Commission,
although several of the Planning Commissioners felt that allowing the modular bUildings
to remain on the site temporarily could be possible if the applicant were to propose to the
City plans to construct permanent buildings to replace the modular buildings on the site.
On February 9,2009,Green Hills submitted a request for a Special Use Permit
(Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)to keep the existing two (2)temporary modular
buildings for an additional six (6)years,from 2009 through 2015.On July 9,2009,the
Director conditionally approved the Special Use Permit,with a condition that the modular
buildings be allowed for a 3 month period only.The condition required the applicant to
either completely remove the temporary modular buildings from the site within 3 months,
or submit a formal request for a Conditional Use Permit Revision to construct permanent
structures to replace the existing modular buildings.Before the end of the 15-day
appeal period,the applicant appealed the Director's Decision to the Planning
ATTACHMENT -32
Memorandum:Case No.ZON2010-00366 (SUP)
27501 Western Avenue -Green Hills Memorial Park
January 5,2010
Commission,requesting a revision to the Conditions of Approval to allow the temporary
modular buildings for an additional six (6)years instead of the approved three (3)
months.On September 22,2009,the Planning Commission denied the appeal,
upholding the Director's decision,but modifying the approved period for one (1)year
from the date of decision.The Planning Commission also allowed a one-time extension.
As an extension was not filed before the permit expiration,the permit expired on
September 22,2010.On September 28,2010,Staff notified Green Hills that the permit
had expired and that an additional month was granted for removal of the two temporary
modular buildings.In response to Staff's letter,on October 18,2010 the project
applicant, John J.Resich,Jr.,filed a new Special Use Permit requesting continued use
of these same two temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years,until the
year 2020.Due to missing information,the application was deemed incomplete on
November 1,2010.Additional information was submitted on November 17,2010,and
the application was subsequently deemed complete on December 6,2010.
On December 6,2010,Staff mailed notices to 345 property-owners located within 500
feet of the subject property,providing a 15-day notice period for the submittal of
comments and concerns that expired on December 21,2010.Two (2)comments were
received by Staff in response to the notice.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Green Hills Memorial Park cemetery is located off Western Avenue in the very northeast
corner of the City,bordering the City of Lomita,the City of Rolling Hills Estates,and an
un-incorporated area of the County of Los Angeles.The cemetery property measures
approximately 121-acres in area,and is a privately owned and operated cemetery
facility.The land use and zoning designations for the property are Commercial and
Cemetery (C),respectively.The cemetery operates Monday through Sunday,from
sunrise to sunset,and it consists of ground burials,mausoleum buildings,an office
building.mortuary,chapel,flower shop,and a maintenance yard and related bUildings.
The two existing 10'-8"tall modular office buildings are adjacent to the parking lot to the
northwest of the Administration Building,in the southeast corner of Green Hills Memorial
Park.One bUilding measures six hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)in area and
the other bUilding measures nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)in area.The
purpose of these modular buildings was originally to temporarily accommodate Green
Hills'office uses on the site while the Administration Building was undergoing
remodeling.Although the remodel of the Administration BUilding was completed in June
2007,the applicant requests approval of a Special Use Permit to continue using the
temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years.
CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
According to Development Code Section 17.29,temporary special uses and
developments may be allowed within a Cemetery (C)zoning district,through approval of
a Special Use Permit application.Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.62,the
Community Development Director must review a Special Use Permit application against
the following Criteria:
Page 2 ATTACHMENT -33
Memorandum:Case No.ZON2010-00366 (SUP)
27501 Western Avenue -Green Hills Memorial Park
January 5,2010
1.That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
special use and/or development;
The rectangular shaped subject site measures approximately 121-acres in area.
Despite the sloping topography of the site,the two modular buildings are located on a
pad area west of the parking lot for the Administration building where there currently is
no other development.The size of the lot provides enough space for the existing
temporary modular structures while providing sufficient space and access for the existing
permanent structures,parking areas and use of the site.As such,Staff believes that
there is sufficient space on the property to allow the existing modular buildings and this
criterion can be met.
2.That the proposed special use and/or development would not adversely
interfere with existing uses on the subject property;and would not impede or
adversely impact pedestrian access ways and/or vehicular circulation
patterns;
As discussed in the previous finding,there is sufficient space on the site for the two
temporary modular buildings due to the large size of the lot.Additionally,the temporary
modular buildings are located adjacent to the existing parking lot,not encroaching upon
or restricting access to any of the existing parking spaces,drive aisles or on-site
roadways.As such,Staff believes that the continued special use of these modular
structures would not interfere with existing uses or vehicular circulation on the cemetery
site and this criterion can be met.
3.That the proposed special use and/or development would not result in a
significant adverse effect on adjacent property;and
The temporary modular buildings were originally approved through a Special Use Permit
in conjunction with the remodeling of the existing Administration Building.This approval
was granted on the grounds that once the remodel of the Administration Building was
completed the temporary modular buildings would be removed from the site and its
former location restored to its previous use and appearance.As there is currently no
active,permitted construction occurring for the administration building,Staff believes
these temporary modular buildings are no longer necessary.Additionally,as described
previously in the background section,the applicant has now been granted Special Use
Permits twice to allow additional time to either remove these two temporary structures or
apply for the construction of permanent structures through the revision of their
Conditional Use Permit.In both cases,no attempts were made or conveyed to Staff that
these structures were going to be removed or if permanent structure plans were being
designed.Furthermore,the applicant applied to allow the same modular buildings as
long term bUildings through a Conditional Use Permit request in 2008.Said request was
denied by the Planning Commission.
Lastly,when driving through the Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhood,Staff observed that
the temporary modular buildings were visible from many of the residential properties
along Avenida Feliciano,as well as from the public right-of-way of Avenida Feliciano.As
the applicant has not proposed plans for the construction of permanent structures to
replace these temporary modular buildings,and the original purpose of these temporary
structures is no longer valid,Staff believes that approval of this special use to allow the
Page 3
ATTACHMENT -34
Memorandum:Case No.ZON2010-00366 (SUP)
27501 Western Avenue -Green Hills Memorial Park
January 5,2010
temporary structures for an additional nine years would have a significant adverse
impact on properties located adjacent to the south side of the subject site.As such,this
criterion can not be met.
4.That by requiring certain safeguards as conditions of approval,the proposed
special use andlor development would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare.
Staff believes these two temporary modular buildings have become detrimental to the
public health,safety and welfare.As these two temporary modular bUildings can been
seen from the Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhood,have not gone through the required
compatibility review process and have been approved as only temporary modular
buildings,Staff believes these two structures have far exceeded their original purpose.
Allowing such structures to continue being used will have a negative impact to the
neighboring property values.Additionally,as these structures have not gone through the
development review process,which is not required through the Special Use Permit
process,parking,loading and access standards have not been reviewed for Municipal
Code compliance along with neighborhood compatibility.Section 17.28.03.C of the
City's Development Code clearly states that:"Associated sales and office uses directly
related to the operation of the cemetery ..."are uses and development permitted by a
Conditional Use Permit.To allow the special use of these two temporary modular
bUildings for continued use as sales and office space without going through the
Conditional Use Permit process is detrimental to the public welfare.Therefore,no
conditions of approval are necessary as Staff recommends denial of this request,and
this criterion can not be met.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Previous Approvals
It should be noted that when the Planning Commission previously approved the Special
Use Permit on September 22,2009 (see attached Planning Commission minutes),it was
in consideration to the economic recession that has compromised many businesses and
put an economic strain on Green Hills Memorial to either remove these two temporary
modular buildings or submit the appropriate application for permanent structures.Since
that time,Green Hills Memorial has finaled a building permit for the Pacifica tractor ramp
(Building Permit BLD2007-00802),and has also been issued two new building permits
for a 2,404 square foot Valley of Peace Mausoleum (Permit BLD2010-00742)and
relocation of the St.Peter's church (Permit BLD2010-00889).Staff is under the
impression that if all this permitted and conducted construction is occurring on the
property,Green Hills Memorial appears to have the economic ability to go through the
appropriate process for constructing sufficient office spaces for the employees currently
using the two modular buildings.
If the use of these two temporary structures is necessary as requested by the applicant
for an additional nine years,Staff believes that the Master Plan should be amended to
include additional sales and office spaces.The current Master Plan does not address
the need for additional administrative use,and identifies additional gardens and a
mausoleum extension in the location that these two temporary modular buildings
Page 4
ATTACHMENT -35
Memorandum:Case No.ZON2010-00366 (SUP)
27501 Western Avenue -Green Hills Memorial Park
January 5,2010
currently occupy.
Public Correspondence
Staff received two letters of concern in response to the notice mailed.The first letter
was from Anna Shannon,property owner of 1825 Avenida Feliciano.Mrs.Shannon
wrote with concern to the noise resulting from the amount of construction occurring on
the Green Hills Memorial property.While Staff can understand the difficulty in living next
to a property that is constantly undergoing improvements,the City works with the
applicant in order to minimize all impacts to neighboring properties as much as possible.
As no new construction is proposed with this subject application,Staff believes these
concerns have been addressed.
The second letter received was from Roger Metzler,property owner of 1921 Avenida
Feliciano.Mr.Metzler writes with concern to the on-going attempts by Green Hills
Memorial for continued use of these two modular buildings.In addition to previously
sent correspondence,which he included in his letter,Mr.Metzler expresses concern with
what he calls the "devious"or "surreptitious"manner that Green Hills is avoiding the
permanent structure process.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion and evidence above,Staff believes that the two existing
modular buildings are no longer necessary for the site and will have a significant adverse
effect on the adjacent neighborhood to the south.As such,Staff can not meet all the
required criteria for approval of a Special Use Permit.Therefore,Staff recommends that
the Director deny Case No.ZON201 0-00366 for a Special Use Permit.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Director's consideration:
1)Deny the requested Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366)
[Staff's recommendation];or,
2)Approve the requested Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366),
subject to Conditions of;or,
3)Approve the requested the Special Use Permit as submitted (Planning Case No.
ZON2010-00366).
Denied pursuant to Alternative No.1 (Staff's recommendation):
Date:1-9-l~
Page 5
ATTACHMENT -36
Memorandum:Case No.ZON2010-00366 (SUP)
27501 Western Avenue -Green Hills Memorial Park
January 5,2010
Attachments:
•Letter from Anna Shannon -dated December 10,2010
•E-mail &letters from Roger Metzler -dated December 20,2010
•Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting -September 22,2009
Page 6
ATTACHMENT -37
NOTICE:ZON2010-000366 (SUP)
27501 Western Ave.-Green Hills Memorial Park
December 6,2010
If you have any questions concerning this application,please contact Assistant Planner Abigail
Harwell,at (310)544-5228,or via e-mail atabigailh@rpv.com.
RECEIVED
DEC 102010
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
•
NOTE:STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009:If you challenge this application in court,you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes during the public review period described in this notice.f;1.£Ml J-h~/lA 2Kft?tMoh~'lfLo.!lP-~YJU)~,
7P"Y Aa&-YMeL 'J()V/J1ch d ;t;?11-V!-&'h ~I ~'"
/0/'.Illy ~;bl~~~~~fo4.7b~c:thAr/">A'--?rv.f Jr-J~ot "/~6d~")$~
.fbu/JC/vr;--vvI/ryV)~1/Yl 0 :/.fI .
ftlrh'jj.ee.!Je jlbY1~etcrv-e-'f747~~eL-
i/pette r~c:u«7W/V~~r~~~
-/?UtA-,hlk hrJ~.iI!a;;d?~~dt>;--~
flvt.fCi/I'f7'if ~L?f]40 4L we-~'J~~-6trJU
-fk ut,''f7!~f:/l.'f)l~'7 ~(5Wv ~CVA-;~.d-
Cih7!~7Jtud..~o-wd J-v aee A&d-.-J7vI~cL,7
t2ttrJ H'W ~1:0 'r~~.
ATTACHMENT -38
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Roger A Metzler [Roger.A.Melzler@aero.org]
Monday,December 20,2010 9:07 AM
abigailh@rpv.com
Comments on Planning Case ZON2010-00366 -Green Hills
GreenHills2010.pdf;GreenHills2008.PDF;GreenHills2009.pdf
GreenHills20 10.pdf :;reenHills200B.PDF GreenHills2009.pdf
(375 KB)(44 KB)(246 KB)
Dear Ms.Harwell,
I have attached a letter to Community Development Director Rojas containing my comments
regarding Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366,the request by Green Hills Memorial Park to
allow two temporary modular buildings to remain on site.
(See attached file,GreenHills2010.pdf)
My comments refer to previous correspondence to the Planning Commission regarding previous
similar requests by Green Hills.I have also attached those letters,dated November 2008
and September 2009.
(See attached file,GreenHills200B.PDF)(See attached file,
GreenHills2009.pdf)
I would appreciate it if you would forward my comments to Mr.Rojas for his consideration.
Thank you.
Roger Metzler
Roger.Metzler@aero.org
1 ATTACHMENT -39
I 'J21 1\venida r-elieiano
Rancho Palos.Verdes '10275
Decemoer 17.20 I0
Mr.Joel Rojlls
Community lJevc[llpmCllt Director
City or Rancho Palos Verdes
309.+0 I lawthnrne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275
Dear Mr.Rojlls.
So Cjrccn Hills is hack again.ell'!This year they arc asking permission f{)r their t\\,"O ·'temporary"
modular ouildings to rcmain on site 1'01'an additionalninc (9)years -until 2020'1
Thc:-c ~rc the same ··temporary"builJings that wert'first permittcd in April.2005.lO serve as
LJuarters during lhe rt:novatioll ur their ,main administration building.which was completed in June
2007.
Tiles!,.'are the same ·'temporary"buildings that Green Ilills requested of the Planning Commission.in
\:owmoer 2008.to be allowed \()remain in place permanently.This appeal was part or a request to
revise CUI'/.ON2003-00086 to allo\\a church ouilding to be relocated to the ccmetery.The pan or
the I'..:-vision request to allow the buildings to remain permanently was denied by the Planning
Commission and sub!'ct}lIcntly withdra\\n by Green Hills.
These nrc the same ..temporary"buildings that Grecn Hills appealed to thl:Planning Commission.in
.'eptember.2009.10 be allowed to remain in place Il)r an additilll1al six (6)years.rather than the
additional tor<:<:month,Ihat you.as the Director of Planning.l3uilding.and Code Enforeemcnt.had
approved.The Planning Commission denied the request for an additional six years.but
compromised and allowed them to remain tllr one acJcJiliunal year.The Planning Commission also
allowed (jr~t::n Hills to rcqucstthe Planning Director for a one timc extension of the permit.
It is not clear to me whether the current request (Planning Case No.ZON20 I 0-003(6)is a request I,)r
this one time ~xtcnsion of"the currcnt permit.or is <.l request for a new Spc<.:ial Usc Permit.V...'hat is
evident.however.is that Green Ililis is "shooting for the stars"\vith this lutest request for anothl.:'r
nine (9)years of life for their "temporary"modular buildings.But I must give them credit ror their
persistency and audacity.Despite having all previous requests to retain these huildings ror various
knglhs or time consistently denied or shortened.tht.:'y arc making another requesl.and l1lflking the
time p..'rilH.!th ..'ir longest yet!
ATTACHMENT -40
:\~I have expressed in my previous eomments (enclosed)10 the Planning Commission.as a neighbor
with property adjoining (jreen Ililis.I do not have so much of an ohjeetion to the buildings
themselves.as to the rather sUlTeptitious manner in which Green Ilills has attempted to add to their
administrative space.These rdatively small modular buildings are much preferable to a large.multi-
stllry permanent structure.hulking ncar their propeny line.Ilowc\'cr.although Green Hills'original
i11lentma~ha\>..:been to add orne..:space while the main administrative building was renovated.they
I\HlIld that by pmposing the buildings as "temporary"they could avoid the scrutiny.formality.public
heuring.c1I1d permit process that would have been required if the buildings were proposed as
pt:rmancnt structures.SimilaJ'ly.by repeatedly asking for extensions.they avoid the scrutiny of'the
planning.permitting.and upgrade process:and more impol1antly they avoid the cost that \vould be
required to bring the huildings up to code as permanent structures or to replace.
You.Mr.Rojas.as Community Devclopment Director.arc empO\\ercd to make a determination.II"
the existing ··tcmporary··Illodular buildings meet all the building code standards Hnd lIS~
rcquircments thm apply·to pcrman~nt structures in Rancho Palos Verdes.then stop referring to them
as ..temporary They would he modular buildings.similur to those which exist at Rolling lIills
Preparmmy School.and on the campuses or Palos Verdes High School and Palos Verdes Peninsul"
High School.I r the ~xisting hui Idings do not meet the same standards as permanent structures.then
they should be upgrnded \0 l11eet those standards or should be removed.Ynu and the Planning
Commission have already made this determination all multiple occasions.Green Hills has
demonstrated that they have no intention or upgrading or removing the buildings voluntarily.As
long a~they arc allowed to keep them as "temporary".they will continue to do so.If their extension
rcquest I<w nine additional years is granted.I'm willing to bet that they'll be back hell,,-e the Planning
Department in 2020 with a similar reques!.
Thank you lor the opportunity LO c:-.:prcss my views.
Sincerely.
.~c)r)""'-\'V"-<~Iv.....
Roger ivtcl/.lcr
ATTACHMENT -41
19:!1 Avenidn Feliciano
Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275
September I I.2009
Planlling Commission
City l\f Ram.:ho Palos Verdes
30l)~O 11,1\1 thorne Illvd.
Ranclw PaIns V~rdes.CA 90275
!)ear ('oll1lllissiol1crs,
I \\ould likt.'to submit s~\'eml comments J'L'g.arding en::)e No.ZON2009-0003:;.the app~al by (jrecn Ilills
Memorial Park or thL'Planning Director's appro\'al of a Spci,,;inl Usc PL'rmit llw tWo temporary nwdubr
huilding.s l\Jl the i,,;ell1etcry grounds.
As you an,,'O1\\nl"<.:'.these t\\O building.s \\"cre originnlly {in 2006'!}approved and constructed as temporary
buildings \\hile the main adlllini:-;traLio!1 building.\\as renovated.1\I111lHIgh thm renovntinll was
~l)lIlplett."d in JUlle of 2007.th~buildings wcre nut removed.In Novemher 2008.(irccn Hills n.:qU\:st~d
that thL'1\\"0 hllildings be alluwed to remain on the ccmetery sik pennuncntly.This request \vas denicd hy
the Planning Commission.Green Hills is now rC4lJcsting that the modular huildings be allo\\"ed to remain
for another 6 years.rather than thc three months permitted by the Direemr of Planning.Ulliiding.and
Code Enfnrccll1ent"
It <lppl.?ars that Cin:ell Hills keeps requesting extensions for these modular buildings in order to avoid the
sl:rutiI1Y.rnJ"lllality.and permit process that would be required if the buildings wcre requested to be
PCrJ11tll1l'nt stnH:lures.And obviously"n::tainillg the lIlodtJlar buildings i~mueh ch<.:apcr than constnll..:ting
a cOI1H:ntiOllill pcnnanclll building.Howevcr.as a Ill'ighbol"with property adjoining.Green Hills.these
relatively stl1all modular buildings arc mllch preferable to a large.multi-story pCl"mHIlt.'1lt structure til at
(jrCl'1l llills might sl..'d,ifthL'modular strllcturcs werc Ilnt allowed to remain"
A compl'OmiSL'I would suggest is that mther than continuing.to c1assil)these modular buildings as
lcmporary.Gn..:cn Ifills b~allowed to undertake the nccessary planning..permitling.and upgrade process
that wuulJ bring the buildings lip to code as permanent stmcttlrcs"As a result.Ihc)would still he
ll1l\dular buildings hut the)would mC'et adequate standards to deem them perm:mcnt.Such n I:ours~of
action \\'l.luld hI:similar to thL'modular buildings at Rolling Ilills Preparatory St:hoo!'and thl..~modular
\.."Iassroom buildings at Palos Verdes High School and Palos V{'rdes Peninsula Iligh School.
If this is no(possible.:md the modular huilditlgs.by their nature"Illust rcmain classified as temporary.
thl..'n I v·'-uuld suggesl a comprpmisl.:in tht,,;period for their approval.Six )"curs is L"alainl;:to~'long."TIlt?
city would lHlve limited visibility illlll their condition and limited ability to force their removal should
tht:y not he atiL'lJlICitcly main1aillcd.A shorter period of time"pcrhaps 18 or 24 l1Wl1ths.would allow the
i,;it)'the OPP0I11111ity to review till'jtlstilication for and ucklJum.:y urthe buildings nn a mon.:l'requent basis.
It would permit thl.:city to act in a period sooner than six years to allow or deny continued appwval rot"
the huilclings.This shorter period would also impose somc iIlCO!l\'l,.:niellcc 011 Green Hills.Requiring
them to navig.ate the appeal process nH)fC frequently might force them to consider wht.'ther lhe buildings
really were necessary or whethc!"they could he "cmovcd.as originally promised in 2006.
Thnn~)Oll tllf the opponullit)(0 express my \,ic\\·s.
Sincerely.
Roger t\'1l'tzler
ATTACHMENT -42
1921 Avenida Feliciano
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
November 2,2008
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Commissioners,
I object to the modification of the Conditional Use Permit ZON2003-00086 to allow Green Hills
Memorial Park to make permanent the two existing modular buildings adjacent to the parking lot,
west of the Administration Building.My objection is not so much to the buildings themselves,but to
the rather devious manner in which,I perceive,Green Hills operated to try to make the buildings
permanent.
The original purpose of the buildings,when they were first permitted (in 2006?),was to allow the
Memorial Park to continue to provide service to their clients while the main administration building
was renovated.The buildings were to remain until no later than November 2008.If the buildings
were really intended to serve only as temporary quarters,they could have been disassembled after
June 2007,when,I understand from Mr.Schon born of the planning staff,the administration building
renovation was completed.
Rather,I suspect that the cemetery asked for permission to construct these buildings as temporary,
hoping to avoid the scrutiny,formality,and permit process that would have been required if the
buildings were requested to be pernlanent structures.Then once the buildings were constructed,the
controversy abated,and the neighbors had "gotten used to them",it would be easier to request they
be deemed permanent,again avoiding scrutiny and objection.It appears that we may now be at that
stage.
As for the buildings themselves,they are certainly preferable to a large.multi-story permanent
structure thaI Green Hills might seek if the modular structures were not allowed to become
permanent.In that respect,I would favor allowing them to remain.However,the Planning
Commissioner should make it clear that it wasn't fooled by the Green Hills administration's
circumvention of standard procedures to make these buildings permanent.In fact,I would suggest
extracting some sort of additional fee or compensation from Green Hills to the City to penalize their
"devious methods"and allow their "temporary"structures to become permanent.Green Hills could
then make the choice to pay the penalty or remove the structures.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely,
Roger A.Metzler
ATTACHMENT -43
· e Chairman Gerstner stated he was in favor of the project,but felt that chaining off
the ee parking spaces would look a bit industrial and there were other options
waul a bit more desirable.He suggested using decomposed granite or s crete
to make spaces less desirable.
Richard Rowe eed with the Vice Chairman's suggestions and f
using turf block in three spaces.
Commissioner Perestam ferred the architectural sol to the four spaces,and
suggested leaving the space chained and revie e situation at the six-month
review to see ifthere is a problem.
Commissioner Perestam moved to a
regarding the chaining of the spa
Commissioner Knight ace
Ruttenberg.
The motion to a t P.C.Resolution No.2009-38 thereby ee 'ng the Mitigated
ation and to adopt P.C.Resolution No.2009-39 t by
condition approving the Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,iance,
and Si Permit for the Point Vicente Animal Hospital;and the Condition se
Revision for the St.Paul's Lutheran Church to modify the off-site parK
odified was approved,(7-0).
4.Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2009-00033):27501 Western Ave
Commissioner Perestam stated that he has recused himself in the past for projects at
Green Hills,and will recuse himself from this application as well.He left the dais.
Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report,explaining that the Director has
approved the temporary use of two modular buildings at the site for an additional three
months.The approval was appealed by the applicant,who is requesting the two
modular buildings be allowed on the site as a temporary use for an additional six years.
She gave a brief history of the use of the modular buildings on the site and the reasons
for the applicant's appeal,as detailed in the staff report.She stated that staff does not
feel the points of appeal are warranted,mainly staff is of the opinion that the structures
are temporary in purpose and appearance and therefore should not be treated as
permanent structures.Staff is recommending the Planning Commission uphold the
Director's decision of approval.
Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing.
John Resich (applicant)explained that Green Hills is requesting the continued use of
the two modular buildings,as they presently serve as the administrative offices as well
as sales offices for the sales personnel.He noted that it has been suggested moving
Planning Commission MInutes
September 22,2009
Page 14
ATTACHMENT -44
the sales staff to a different location,however he explained that the sales staff spend
much of their day meeting with clients at the Green Hills site.He stated that these are
modular buildings,and meet all of the requirements for modular buildings set forth by
the State.They are fully handicap accessible and look like permanent buildings.He
noted that the City has a number of modular buildings at the city hall site that have been
in place longer than these modular buildings.He also noted that if they were to build a
permanent building on the site,it would most likely be a much larger building that would
have a greater impact on the site.He stated that these buildings cannot be seen as
they are screened by trees and landscaping.
Commissioner Knight asked Mr.Resich if Green Hills had any intentions of building a
permanent building to house the staff currently using the modular buildings.
Mr.Resich answered that Green Hills would like to build a permanent building,but will
have to wait until the economy turns around to do so.
Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr.Resich why he felt he needed six years,and
questioned why he couldn't accept one year or eighteen months.
Mr.Resich explained that currently there are plans to build two mausoleums,which will
cost in excess of $5 million.He explained that Green Hills,as a cemetery,could not
borrow money very easily and therefore projects were dependent on cash flow.To do
that,Green Hills has to sell the property in advance and accumulate the funds.
Commissioner Tetreault asked staff why they only approved the extension for three
months.
Director Rojas answered that because an application for a new building has not yet
been submitted,he felt that giving this extension for a period of three months would give
Green Hills enough time to submit an application for a new permanent building.He
noted that Green Hills has already had a year in which they could have submitted an
application.
Commissioner Knight felt that these buildings were intended to be temporary units on
the property while the administrative offices were being built.He was concerned about
setting precedent by allowing these temporary buildings to remain,as there are many
projects in the City using temporary buildings that are associated with construction
projects.He therefore supported staff's recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Knight moved to uphold the Director's decision and deny the
appeal,seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg.
Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Knight's comments,however he
also felt that the condition of the economy should be taken into account.He noted that
the Director had explained that a three month extension was given to allow Green Hills
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22,2009
Page 15
ATTACHMENT -45
the opportunity to submit an application for a permanent structure,and he did not think it
would be unreasonable to give them a bit more time,possibly twelve months.
Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg's comments.
The motion to deny the appeal failed,(3-3)with Commissioners Ruttenberg,
Tetreault,and Chairman Lewis dissenting.
Commissioner Tetreault moved to deny the appeal but allow the use of the
temporary buildings for a time period of one additional year,after which time the
temporary buildings will have to be removed or plans must be submitted to the
City for the new permanent structure,seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg.
Approved,(5-1)with Commissioner Tomblin dissenting and Commissioner
Perestam recused.
Interpretation Hearing request (Case No.ZON2009-00146):
've South and Residential zoned properties citywide
Commissioner .ht stated that the applicant,Mr.York,has submitt a letter
requesting that he r se himself from this item.As he said at th evious meeting,he
has carefully reviewed 'ssue,consulted with the FPPC,10 a at all of the
regulations,and could find n onflict.e his due diligence and
did not feel he had to recuse hi
Senior Planner Schon born presented t taff re ii,giving a brief history of the project
and the request that the item be re-notice he public hearing re-opened.The
Planning Commission agreed to continue Iic hearing to tonight's meeting.Since
the Planning Commission has agreed t e-opene he public hearing,and no new
information has been submitted to s that would cli e staff's recommendation,staff
continues to recommend that the anning Commission old the Director's
determination.He reminded t Commission that the inter tation is a city-wide
interpretation and would affi all residentially zoned propertie roughout the City,and
not just this one particul property.
Director Rojas sta that staff had received a letter from the applicant
allegation that Commission's action at the last meeting constituted a
lolation of the Government Code.He stated he reviewed the I r with
the City rney and it was determined that there was no Brown Act violation,a what
the C mission did was appropriate.He noted other points in the letter which sta
ad ssed in a response letter which was included in the Commission's late
rrespondence.He pointed out that the applicant had made reference to the
moratorium exception findings and reminded the Commission that the determination on
whether this application is exempt from the moratorium is not within the Commission's
purview and this meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 22,2009
Page 16
ATTACHMENT -46
APPELLANT:JOHN J.RESICH,JR.
840 WEST 9TH STREET
SAN PEDRO,CA S0731
APPLICANTI GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
LANDOWNER:27501 WESTERN AVENUE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
STAFF ABIGAIL HARWELL
COORDINATOR:ASSISTANT PLANNER
STAFF
REPORT
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 793 -H7 &J7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION V
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING 'M~~~
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT CfU\
SEPTEMBER 22,2009
AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO.
ZON200S-00033)
27501 WESTERN AVENUE
REQUESTED ACTION:A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DIRECTOR'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON200S·00033),TO ALLOW TWO (2)TEMPORARY MODULAR
BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE USED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 YEARS.
RECOMMENDATION:DENY THE APPEAL,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE USED
ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE (3)MONTHS.
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
CODE SECTIONS:
GENERAL PLAN:
TRAILS PLAN:
SPECIFIC PLAN:
CEQA:
CEMETERY (CEM)
CEMETERY
17.29 &17.62
COMMERCIAL
N/A
N/A
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11)-ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard 1 Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Planning &Code Enforcement Divisions:(310)544-52281 Building Division:(310)265-78001 Department FAX:(310)544-5293
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
ATTACHMENT -47
PLANNING COMMISSION..,fAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON20".,-00033)
SEPTEMBER 22,2009
PAGE 2
ACTION DEADLINE:NfA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500'OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:NONE
BACKGROUND
On April 7,2005,the Director of Planning,BUilding and Code Enforcement approved a Special
Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00271)for two (2)temporary modular buildings of six
hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)to be
used while the main Administration Building at Green Hills Memorial Park was being remodeled.
The Special Use Permit was issued for a two-year period expiring in April 2007.Since the
remodeling for the Administration Building was not completed at that time,Green Hills was
granted a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use Permit,allowing the modular
buildings on-site until April 2008.The Building Permit for the Administration Building remodel
project was finaled in June 2007.Once the Special Use Permit for the modular buildings
expired in April 2008,Staff notified the applicant that the modular buildings needed to be
removed.On November 11,2008,the Planning Commission heard a request to revise
Conditional Use Permit No.115 to allow,among other things,the two modular buildings to
remain on the cemetery site permanently.This specific request was denied by the Planning
Commission.In doing so,several Planning Commissioners felt that allowing the modular
buildings to remain on the site temporarily could be possible if the applicant were to propose to
the City plans to construct permanent buildings to replace the modular buildings on the site.
Given that the permit to temporarily allow the modular buildings expired in April 2008 and the
Planning Commission denied the request to keep the modular buildings permanently on site,on
January 22,2009 Green Hills was notified by Staff that the modular buildings needed to be
removed.In response,on February 9,2009,Green Hills submitted a request for a Special use
Permit to keep the existing two temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years,from
2009 through 2015.On July 9,2009,the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
conditionally approved the Special Use Permit with a condition that the modular buildings only
be allowed for a 3 month period.The condition requires the applicant to either completely
remove the temporary modular buildings from the site within 3 months,or submit a formal
request for a Conditional Use Permit Revision to construct permanent structures to replace the
existing modular buildings.The Notice of Decision and Staff Report was sent to the applicant,
with an appeal deadline of July 27,2009
On July 24,2009,the project applicant,John J.Resich,Jr.,filed a timely appeal of the Director's
approval on behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park,requesting that the Planning Commission
revise the Conditions of Approval to allow the temporary modular buildings for an additional six
(6)years instead of the approved three (3)months.
On August 31,2009,notice of the pending public hearing was sent to all property owners within
500 feet of the subject site.Additionally,the notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News on September 3,2009.Staff has received one letter in response to the notice.
DISCUSSION
The site and project description,Staffs analysis of the required findings,and additional
information,which was used by the Director in making a decision on the Special Use Permit
ATTACHMENT -48
PLANNING COMMISSIO~~TAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON20",,-00033)
SEPTEMBER 22,2009
PAGE 3
request,can be found in the attached Staff Report,dated July 9,2009.As noted in the July 9'"
Staff Report,Staff found that the applicant's request for an additional six years of continued use
of the two modular bUildings would result in a significant adverse effect on adjacent property.
Specifically,Staff determined that since the two temporary structures were originally approved
in 2005 in correlation with the remodeling of the eXisting Administration Building,which was
completed in June 2007,these temporary buildings are no longer necessary for the purpose
that they were originally intended to serve.Furthermore,the applicant has not made any
attempt to submit an application to build office space to accommodate the use of the modular
buildings.As SUCh,the Director approved the Special Use Permit for three months for the
purpose of having the applicant either submit an application to construct permanent structures
to house the offices currently served by the modular buildings or to completely remove the
temporary modular buildings from the site.
In his appeal,Mr.Resich presents several points regarding the continued use of the modular
buildings.Below,Staff has identified the applicant's issues (bold text)followed by a response
(normal text)by Staff.
Said appeal is based upon the fact that the existing buildings are built pursuant to state
code requirements of modular bUildings and meet all such requirement.
Staff is not asserting that the temporary modular buildings are in violation of any state codes.
Staff feels that the structures are temporary in purpose and appearance,and therefore should
not be treated as permanent structures.
That the buildings are necessary for the continual employment of members of the sales
staff and administrators of the park.
The temporary modular buildings were approved in correlation with the proposed remodeling of
the Administration Building in 2005.The Director approved the original Special Use Permit with
the understanding that the employees displaced from the remodeling project were to work in the
approved temporary structures,as was described in the original Staff Report,approved on April
7,2005.It is Staffs understanding,that there are 25 additional people working in these
temporary structures,which were intended to only be used by the employees who were
displaced by the Administration Building construction.If that many additional employees are
needed,Staff feels that efforts should be made by Green Hills to provide permanent structures
and/or lease other permanent office space in the vicinity.
That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on its own property has numerous modular
buildings that have been located on that property without the requirements of permanent
footings and such buildings have been located on such property for period of time in
excess of the Green Hills Modular buildings.
Staff assumes that the appellant is referring to the two modular buildings located south-west of
the City Hall buildings that are being used by the Peninsula Seniors,a non-profit organization.
A Special Use Permit was originally approved by the City to allow these temporary structures
from July 2006 through December 31,2008,while applications for a permanent facility for the
Peninsula Seniors as part of the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project were being
processed.An extension to the Special Use Permit was approved on August 7,2008,which
extended the continued use of the structures through December 31,2011.The extension was
ATTACHMENT -49
PLANNING COMMISSIOfll ....fAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON20.....-00033j
SEPTEMBER 22,2009
PAGE 4
approved because the processing of the permanent senior center application has taken longer
than expected.While these structures can be seen from Palos Verdes Drive South and
Hawthorne Boulevard,the agreement between the organization and the City to allow the
temporary modular bUilding is clearly predicated on the fact that approval and construction of
permanent facilities is going to occur within a reasonable time period.
That the original staff report is attached setting forth the fact that the proposed use of the
temporary buildings on page 7 of that report "are consistent with the General Plan's
Commercial Retail Land use designation of the site."
On November 11,2008,the Planning Commission conducted an Annual Review of the existing
Conditional Use Permit for the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan,in which a revision was
requested to allow the two modular buildings to remain permanently on site.Although Staff was
able to make the required findings,including the general plan consistency findings,associated
with the permanent placement of the two modular buildings,the Planning Commission denied
the request as it was not able to make all the required findings for the modular building
component of the application (see attached minutes from the November 11,2008 Planning
Commission MeAting).Notwithstanding,the Commission did feel that if Green Hills Memorial
Park were to submit an application to build permanent structures on the site that the temporary
modular structures could remain on a temporary basis.Despite this discussion,the Special Use
Permit application submitted by Green Hills to allow the modular buildings to remain for an
additional 6 years did not provide any indication that plans were being prepared for additional
permanent administration buildings that would replace the two temporary modular buildings.
Thus,the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement approved the Special Use
Permit for only three months,in which time the applicant could either completely remove the
temporary modular bUildings from the site or submit a formal request for a Condition Use Permit
Revision to construct a permanent structure to replace the existing modular buildings.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
Staff received one letter,from Roger Metzler,in response to the notice sent to all property
owners located within 500 feet of the Green Hills Memorial Park property.Mr.Metzler,a
neighbor located at 1921 Avenida Feliciano,writes that while the small modular structures may
be preferable to "a large,multi-story permanent structure that Green Hills might seek if the
modular structures were not allowed to remain",efforts should be made to convert and upgrade
the existing temporary structures into permanent structures that would be permitted by the
Building Code.Mr.Metzler also seemed to agree that any permissible continuation of use for
these temporary modular buildings be restricted to a shorter period of time,suggesting 18 or 24
months,contingent on the justification and adequacy of the building's use.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above,Staff believes that the appellant has provided no new
information to warrant a change to the Director's decision.Therefore,Staff recommends that
the appeal be denied and the Director's approval allowing the temporary modular buildings to
remain for an additional 3 months be upheld.
ATTACHMENT -50
PLANNING COMMISSIO._dTAFF REPORT -(CASE NO.ZON2"J:l-00033)
SEPTEMBER 22,2009
PAGE 5 ,.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for the Planning
Commission to act on:
1.Approve the appeal,thereby revising the Director's approval of a Special Use Permit
(Case No.ZON2009-00033),allowing the two temporary modular buildings to remain on
site for an additional 6 years and direct Staff to return to the Planning Commission with
the appropriate resolution;or
2.Approve the appeal,thereby revising the Director's approval of a Special use Permit
(Case No,ZON2009-00033),allowing the two temporary modular bUildings to remain on
site for another period of time as designated by the Planning Commission and direct
Staff to return to the Planning Commission with the appropriate resolution;or
3.Identify any :5sues of concern with the proposed project,provide Staff and/or the
applicant with direction in modifying the project,and continue the public hearing to a
date certain.
ATIACHMENTS
•P.C,Resolution No,2009-_,denying the appeal request and therefore upholding the Director's
approval.
•Letter from Roger Metzler (dated September 11,2009)
•Appeal Letter from John J.Resich (dated July 24,2009)
•Appeal Letter Attachment -Planning Commission Staff Report (dated November 11,2008)
•Minutes from November 11,2008 Planning Commission Meeting
•Staff Report for Special Use Permit (dated July 9,2009)
ATTACHMENT -51
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2009-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF
CASE NO.ZON2009-00033,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE
DIRECTORS APPROVAL OF TWO TEMPORARY MODULAR
BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE BEING USED FOR AN ADDITIONAL
TWELVE MONTHS LOCATED AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL
PARK (27501 WESTERN AVENUE)
WHEREAS,on April 7,2005,the Director of Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement approved a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00217),
thereby allowing for two (2)temporary modular buildings of six hundred seventy-two
square feet (672 SF)and nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)to be used while the
main Administration Building was being remodeled at Green Hills Memorial Park;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2007,the Director of Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement granted a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use Permit in order
to allow additional time for the Administration Building to finish construction;and
WHEREAS,on June 2007,the Building Administration building permit was
finaled by the Building and Safety Division;and,
WHEREAS,on November 11,2008,the Planning Commission denied a request
to allow the two (2)temporary modular buildings to remain permanently on the subject
site;and,
WHEREAS,on February 9,2009,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a request
for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)to allow for continued
u~e of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years,from 2009
through 2015;and,
WHEREAS,on June 10,2009,the application was deemed complete;and
WHEREAS,on June 11,2009,Staff mailed notices to 332 property owners
located within 500 feet of the subject property,providing a 15-day time period for the
submittal of comments and concerns that expired on June 26,2009;and
WHEREAS,on July 9,2009,the Director of Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement approved the Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)
for continued use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional three (3)
months;and,
WHEREAS,on July 24,2009,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Director's approval,requesting that the Planning Commission revise the Conditions of
P,C.Resolution No.2009-40
Page 1 of 5
ATTACHMENT -52
Approval to allow the temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years instead
of the approved three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on September 22,2009,after notice issued pursuant to the
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
continued use of the temporary modular buildings because the two modular buildings
are located in an area of the 121-acre park where there is currently no other
development,while providing sufficient space and access for the existing permanent
structures,parking areas and use of the site.
Section 2:The continued special use of the two temporary modular buildings
would not interfere with existing uses or vehicular circulation on the cemetery site
because there is sufficient space for the two modular buildings,which are located
adjacent to an existing parking lot,and not encroaching upon or restricting access to
any of the existing parking spaces,drive aisles or on-site roadways.
Section 3:An additional six (6)years of continued use of the temporary
modular buildings would have a significant adverse impact on properties located
adjacent to and south of the subject site because the two modular buildings are visible
from the public right-of-way and residential properties,and the two buildings appear
temporary and not permanent.An additional twelve (12)months is an appropriate
amount of "temporary"time to allow the applicant to make arrangements to either
remove the two temporary modular buildings from the site or submit an application
requesting a Conditional Use Permit Revision to construct permanent structures to
replace the existing modular buildings.
Section 4:The two temporary modular buildings will continue to not be
detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare because Conditions of Approval are
associated with the approval and there is a building permit on file for the two temporary
modular buildings.
Section 5:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Reports,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal request,thereby upholding the Director's
approval of Case No.ZON2009-00033 for a Special Use Permit,allowing the continued
use of two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional twelve (12)months,subject
to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made a part hereof,which
are necessary to protect the public health,safety and welfare.
P.C.Resolution No.2009-40
Page 2 of 5
ATTACHMENT -53
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of September 2009,by the
following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Knight,Ruttenberg,Tetrault,Vice Chairman Gerstner,
Chairman Lewis
NOES:Commissioner Tomblin
RECUSALS:Commissioner Perestam
ABSTENTIONS:None
ABSENT:None
Joel Roj
Director
and Co forcement;and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C.Resolution No.2009-40
Page 3 of 5
ATTACHMENT -54
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2009-00033 (SUP)
27501 S.WESTERN AVENUE (GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK)
1.The applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in
writing,that they have read,understand,and agree to all Conditions of Approval.
Failure to provide written statement within thirty (30)days of the date of this
decision shall render this approval null and void.
2.Approval of this permit shall not be constructed 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.
3.The Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to
approve minor modifications to the Conditions of Approval and/or the approved
temporFl~1 modular office building plans,provided that such modifications will
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the
original plans and/or conditions.
4.This permit shall be valid for a period of twelve (12)months,beginning from the
date of this approval.Prior to expiration of this Special Use Permit approval,the
applicant may request a 1-time extension of this permit by the Director of
Planning,Building and Code Enforcement.Any extension request must be
submitted,in writing and accompanied by the applicable fee.This permit shall
ultimately expire at the end of the permit period (including any extension granted
by the City),or upon a decision on a Conditional Use Permit Revision request to
construct permanent structures in which to replace the modular buildings,
whichever occurs later.
5.The days and hours of use for the temporary modular office buildings shall
continue to be the same as those currently permitted for the Administration
Building.
6.Failure to comply with any Condition(s)of Approval of this permit,or conducting
any activity that is beyond the scope of this permit,as determined by the City at
its sole discretion,shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of this permit.
This City will generally provide notification of a violation and direction to the
applicant to correct the violation within twenty-four (24)hours of the notice.
However,the City shall not be obligated to provide such notice,particularly when
imminent health and safety issues are involved.
7.The City reserves the right to modify any of the above listed conditions,based
upon the City's own observations of the use of the temporary modular office
buildings,as well as any valid complaints to the City regarding these buildings
P.C.Resolution No.2009-40
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENT -55
from the community at large.,.
8.The temporary modular office buildings shall be removed from the property and
the site restored to its previous use and appearance prior to the expiration of said
permit.If the temporary modular office buildings are not removed and the site
not restored within the required time frame,the City will remove the temporary
buildings from the site and restore the site using the $5,000.00 trust deposit
established by the applicant pursuant to Condition No.11 of the original Special
Use Permit approval (Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271).
P.C.Resolution No.2009-40
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT -56
JOHN J.RESICH,JR.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
840 West 9th Street
San Pedro,California 90731
Telephone:(310)832-2618
Teletax:(310)832-0388
July 24,2009
Mr.Joel Rojas,AlCP
Director of Planning,Building
and Code Enforcement
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275
Re:27501 Western Avenue,Rancho Palos Verdes Ca
Notice of Decision
Dear Mr.Rojas:
RECEIVED
JUL 24,20U9
plANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENfOrrCF.M~Nr
On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park,i do hereby appeal the approval of the Special use
Permit for the use of two temporary modular buildings of approximately Six Hundred and
seventy two square feet and nine hundred and sixty square feet to continue to be used in
association with the existing Administration Building and the administration of the Park.
As the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement you granted only 3 additional
months in Planning Case No ZON2009-00033 which is being appealed.The application
requested that a Special Use permit be granted to allow the building to remain on site for an
additional 6 years through 2015.
At this time Green Hills Memorial Park does hereby appeal the approval and request that this
matter be presented to the Planning Commission.Said appeal is based upon the fact that the
existing buildings are built pursuant to state code requirements of modular buildings and meet all
such requirements,that such buildings were place and connected to the sewer system and water
systems of the park.That such buildings have permanent looking walks place for handicap
access to the buildings.That the buildings are visually pleasing and blend with the other
buildings located in the park.That the building are necessary for the continual employment of
members of the sales staff and administrators of the park.That the removal of such buildings
would lead to the termination of over 25 individuals because there is insufficient room in the
administration building to house such individuals.That these individuals provide revenue to the
park in making sales and providing services to those individuals who have suffered a loss.That
the loss ofjobs in the poor economic conditions of the State of California and the United States
would only continue to compound the recession that we are in and further hurt the economy of
the City ofRaucho Palos Verdes,State of California and the United States.
ATTACHMENT -57
Page Two
Joel Rojas
July 24,2009
That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has other modular buildings which have been located on
City property that appear to be temporary in nature but have been located on City property for in
excess of 5 years.That such buildings at Green Hills Memorial Park do not cause any burden
upon the city and do not detract or impact any residents in the city.That the original staff report
is attached setting forth the fact that the proposed use of the temporary buildings on page 7 of
that report "are consistent with the General Plan's Commercial Retail Land use designation of
the site."And there again at page 11,wherein the staff stated"There will be no significant
adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use because additional conditions have been
incorporated that reduce potential impacts.Further the modular buildings will continue to be
located within the interior of the cemetery site and will not reduce established setbacks or be
located along the perimeter of the cemetery and will not reduce established setbacks."
The fact that these buildings are modular in design should not have an adverse effect on their
approval.The fact that the buildings are modular and are approved by the State of California for
use as housing for commercial uses should allow the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to allow their
use and continuation of their use at Green Hills Memorial Park.If the Park were to request for
permanent building at this location,nothing in the current conditional use permit would allow the
Commission or Department to deny such a request as the pad coverage does not exceed that
which is allowed for the amount of land owned and operated by Green Hills Memorial Park.To
deny the approval of these buildings based upon the mere fact that they are modular appears to
run contrary to the laws of the State of California,the rules and regulations and Federal
guidelines and requirements for modular buildings and has no basis in fact.The Building were
inspected when placed upon the property by the Department of Building and Safety and the
permit for their placement was signed off by that department.They meet or exceed the codes in
effect at the time of placement.That they are allowed in other jurisdictions on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula and not unsightly.That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on its own property has
numerous modular buildings that have been located on that property without the requirements of
permanent footings and such building have been located on such property for period of time in
excess of the Green Hills Modular buildings.That the Green Hills Modular buildings do not
appear to be modular in nature and Green Hills has taken the necessary steps to make the
buildings blend with other building and has landscaped around the buildings so that they do not
appear to be just placed on the property but appear to be an integral part of the property as
compared to modular buildings on City of Rancho Palos Verdes properties.Whichmodular
buildings appear to be placed on the property without the concern of the visual impact of such
buildings,especially those building which are in plain view over the cliffs of Palos Verdes Drive
South and Hawthorne Blvd.
ATTACHMENT -58
Page Three
Joel Rojas
July 24,2009
For these reasons,Green Hills Memorial Park is appealing the decisions and requesting that the
original application be granted or in the alternative that the buildings be deemed permanent in
nature and allowed for that amount of time that Green Hills determines that they are needed.
J.Resich,Jr.
Chairman of the Board
Green Hills Memorial Park
JJR.
Encl.
ATTACHMENT -59
2.Annual review for Conditional Use Permit (Case No.ZON2003-000861:
27501 Western Avenue
Chairman Perestam recused himself from this item because of a financial interest he
has at the site.He left the dais.
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report,explaining this item is the annual
review as well as a Conditional Use Permit revision to the Green Hills master plan.He
explained the request to relocate an abandon church from San Pedro onto the Green
Hills site,as well as allowing two temporary modular buildings to remain on a
permanent basis.He stated that staff felt the necessary findings for the Conditional Use
Permit to allow the church to be moved to the site and allow for the modular buildings to
remain can be made to warrant approval of the CUP revision.Regarding the annual
review,he reported that staff has approved several applications to implement the
master plan over the past year.He stated that staff has received a few complaints
regarding dust control,and Green Hills was receptive and responsive to addressing
these complaints.He referred to condition of approval 1(6)and stated staff would like
to amend the condition so that it also acknowledges that appropriate permits for the
historic church building also be obtained prior to actually relocating the building to the
premises.In summary,he stated that staff believes the operations have been in
compliance with the conditions of approval and believes that the request for the
modular buildings and church building are warranted and therefore is recommending
approval of an amendment to the master plan.
Vice Chairman Lewis asked if the neighbors were notified that a church would be
moved to the Green Hills property.
Senior Planner Schonborn stated that notices were sent to the neighbors,and staff has
not received any correspondence in opposition to the request.
Commissioner Tomblin stated he has concerns over the modular buildings becoming
permanent.He asked staff if there were any provisions in the master plan to build
additional administrative space.
Senior Planner Schon born explained that in the original master plan there were no
provisions for additional administrative space,adding that this is why Green Hills is
seeking a revision to the master plan to acknowledge the additional administrative
buildings.
Commissioner Tomblin asked if allowing these modular buildings to remain as
permanent buildings would set any precedence with some of the discussions coming up
regarding Marymount College and modular classrooms and other buildings.
Director Rojas answered that the temporary modular buildings proposed at Marymount
College are to be used during construction and there are actual buildings proposed to
Planning Commission Minules
November 11,2008
Page 6ATTACHMENT -60
replace the modulars,while these at Green Hills are being proposed for permanent use.
Therefore,staff felt they are two different issues.
Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they were aware of any other sites in the City
where temporary modular buildings have been converted to permanent buildings.
Senior Planner Schonborn could not think of any sites in the City where this had taken
place.
Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if there were any permanent modular buildings in
the City.He noted that the City does not have any specific codes related to permanent
modular buildings,and that the Building Department will have to refer to State codes,
which he felt are very lax since these structures are typically used as temporary
structures.
Director Rojas stated that,other than some City Hall buildings,he is not ware of any
permanent modular buildings currently being used in the City.
Commissioner Gerstner did not want to imply by the approval of the permanent modular
buildings,that it was alright to have something in the City that is less than what is
required for other structures in the City.He felt that this is a topic that deserves more
discussion than what is being discussed in an annual review.
Director Rojas stated a permanent modular building would have to be approved by the
Planning Commission,and would be subject to a rigorous and thorough Building and
Safety review process.
Vice Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing.
John Resich (Chairman of the Board for Green Hills)stated that he was available for
questions from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr.Resich why there wasn't a master plan to take care of
the needs for administrative office space rather than use of the modulars.
Mr.Resich explained that when the original building was remodeled they did not
contemplate the increase in staff.Staff has increased and Green Hills would like to
continue to have this increased staff.He added that if the modular buildings are not
approved for permanent use,Green Hills will have to request an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit to put a permanent building someplace on the property.
Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr.Resich if he thought there might be a decrease in
staff over the next ten years.
Mr.Resich answered that he did not anticipate a decrease in staff over the next ten
years.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11,2008
Page 7ATTACHMENT -61
Barry Boudreaux (architect with Green Hills)stated that he was also available for
questions.
Michael Mattingly stated that the area where Green Hills is proposing to place the
church is an area that was filled without permits from the City.He questioned if the dirt
was properly compacted.He stated that all of the work done in this area over the years
with the grading and heaving equipment has caused his swimming pool to sink three
inches on the deep end.He therefore didn't think the church should be placed in the
area until it is known if the dirt needs to be removed and recompacted.
Senior Planner Schonborn noted in the conditions of approval there is a condition that if
the church is acquired and placed at this site,as part of the permit process a
geotechnical review will be performed at the site.
Commissioner Knight asked staff if they were aware of the issues brought up by Mr.
Mattingly.
Senior Planner Schonborn stated that Mr.Mattingly has raised these issues with staff,
and staff visited the property with the Building Official last year.He explained that the
Building Official noted stress cracks at the pool,however he was unable to determine if
they were related to the activities at Green Hills,which is hundreds of feet away,or if
these were stress cracks related to Mr.Mattingly's property.
Mr.Resich (in rebuttal)stated that,based on his geologic reports,the church will be
placed on stable land that has not been graded or recompacted.
Vice Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Lewis suggested separating the two issues and discussing them
separately.He began by asking the Commission if there were any objections to the
proposal to bring the church onto the property.
Commissioner Tetreault stated that he had no objections,with the understanding that
Building and Safety will verify that it is a safe structure on the site.
The Commissioners had no objections to the church.
In discussing the permanent use of the modulars,Commissioner Gerstner stated that
he was not in favor at this time of the City accepting modular buildings as permanent
structures.He felt that this is an issue that needs more research and discussion.He
would not object to the applicant requesting that the modular buildings stay on the site
on a temporary basis while they go through the application process to build a
permanent structure.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11,2008
Page 8ATTACHMENT -62
Commissioner Tetreault agreed,adding that it is something the City and Planning
Commission would have to do more research on before allowing modular structures to
be placed permanently on a site.
Commissioner Tomblin also agreed,and stated that he would like to see a date
whereby these temporary modular structures must be removed from the site.
Commissioner Knight also agreed with the comments made by the Commissioners.He
felt that there are alternatives to using these modular buildings on a permanent basis,
such as an application to build new administrative buildings on the site.
Vice Chairman Lewis re-opened the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Lewis asked Mr.Resich how much additional time he felt would be
needed before removal of the temporary modular structures on the site.
Mr.Resich answered that additional time would be requested if the Planning
Commission is not going to allow the modular structures to become permanent.He
asked that,with the present economy,substantial time be granted so that Green Hills
can develop a plan to develop new buildings on the site.He felt two to five years should
be sufficient.
Vice Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing.
Director Rojas clarified that he approved the temporary use of the modular buildings
through a Special Use Permit,which expired in April 2008.Therefore,if the Planning
Commission were to deny the Conditional Use Permit revision regarding this specific
request to allow the buildings to become permanent,they become a code enforcement
issue.Therefore,it is not in the Commission's purview to grant an extension to allow
these modular buildings to remain longer on a temporary basis.The applicant will need
to request an extension of the previously approved Special Use Permit to do so.
Commissioner Gerstner asked if the request for extension could be handled at the staff
level.
Director Rojas explained that the applicant can request an extension and staff can
process a Special Use Permit revision,which would entail noticing the neighbors of the
request.
Commissioner Tetreault stated that he is sympathetic to the request to allow these
modulars to remain longer and that it would be appropriate for staff to give them extra
time through their Special Use Permit to develop alternatives for the site.
Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit
revision to all Green Hills to relocate the church building to the property but
denied the request for the permanent modular buildings on the site,and to
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11 ,2008
Page 9
ATTACHMENT -63
receive and file the annual review for Green Hills,seconded by Commissioner
Knight.
Vice Chairman Lewis suggested that the revised Resolution be presented on the
Consent Calendar at the next meeting for review,and the Commissioners agreed.
The motion was approved,(6-0).
3.Conditional Use Permit (Case No.ZON2007-00243):30359 Hawthorne Blvd.
Chairman Perestam returned to the dais.
Director Rojas reported that the applicant has requested this item be continued to
December 11,2008 to allow more time to install the mock-up on the property.
Therefore staff was recommending the public hearing be continued to December 11,
2008.
Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to December 11,
2008,seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg.Approved,(7-0).
4.View Restoration Permit (Case No.VRP2008-00007):28715 Doverridge Dr.
Commissioner Gerstner stated that was not able to make a site visit to this property and
therefore would abstain from the vote.Since a decision may not be made at this
hearing,he requested that he remain in his seat but not participate in the discussion or
vote.
Director Rojas polled the Commissioners as to who had visited the site.All of the
Commissioners,except Commissioner Gerstner,had visited the site.
Associate Planner Trester presented the staff report,giving a brief background of the
case and reviewing the view and foliage involved in the application.In order to restore
the view,she explained that staff is recommending crown raising on all of the trees with
the exception of tree No.2,where staff is recommending crown reduction.She also
noted that staff has provided the option to the foliage owner to remove and replace any
of the trees rather than have them trimmed.
Commissioner Knight referred to the memo from David Hayes where he recommends
selective branch removal to create a window,and asked if what staff was
recommending was not what Mr.Hayes recommended in his option 3.
Associate Planner Trester explained that staff felt that selective branch removal had the
potential of creating an unsightly tree,and therefore recommended the crown raising.
Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 11,2008
Page 10
ATTACHMENT -64
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
KIT FOX,AICP,SENIOR PLANNE~
APRIL 6,2005
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:SPECIAL USE PERMIT (PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2002-00271):
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF TWO 14'1z-FOOT-
TALL MODULAR OFFICE BUILDINGS OF 672 SQUARE FEET AND
960 SQUARE FEET IN AREA FOR GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL
PARK,LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
Conditionally approve the requested special use permit (Planning Case No.ZON2002-
00271 ).
BACKGROUND
On June 3,2002,the applicant,Green Hills Memorial Park,submitted a special use permit
application (Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271)to the Department of Planning,Building
and Code Enforcement.The request was for approval of a 720-square-foot temporary
modular office building to be used while the main Administration Building was remodeled.
On June 25,2002,Green Hills was advised that,pursuant to Section 17.86.050(A)of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC),the City could not process the special
use permit application until revisions to the site's master grading and development plan
were submitted to the City to correct existing violations related to past non-permitted
grading on the site.These applications (Planning Case No.ZON2003-00086)were
submitted to the City on February 19,2003,and were eventually deemed complete on
February 25,2005.With the submittal of complete applications for the master grading and
development plan revisions,the special use permit application was subsequently deemed
complete on March 8,2005.
Subsequent to the mailing of the public notices for the proposed temporary building,Green
Hills revised its plans on March 18,2005,to propose two (2)temporary buildings of six
hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF).
These buildings were proposed for the same location on the cemetery site as the
previously-proposed 720-square-foot building.A revised notice was issued on March 21,
2005,and the 15-day public comment period was extended to April 5,2005.
ATTACHMENT -65
Memorandum:Planning Case No.ZON2002·00271 (Green Hills Memorial Park)
April 6,2005
Page 2
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is an existing 121.57-acre cemetery and crematory.The site is
surrounded by the Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhood to the south;the former U.S.Navy
housing complex in the City of Los Angeles (San Pedro)to the east;multifamily residential
complexes in the City of Lomita and the Peninsula Verde neighborhood to the north;and
Roiling Hiils Covenant Church and the Municipal Water District (MWD)reservoir in the City
of Roiling Hiils Estates to the west.The land use and zoning designations for the property
are Commercial and Cemetery (CEM),respectively.
The proposed project consists of two (2)14Y>-foot-tail temporary modular office buildings to
be placed adjacent to the parking lot to the northwest of the Administration Building at
Green Hills Memorial Park.One building would be six hundred seventy-two square feet
(672 SF)in area and the other building would be nine hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)in
area.The purpose of these temporary buildings is to accommodate Green Hills'existing
office uses on the site while the Administration Building is undergoing remodeling.The
temporary office buildings are expected to be on site for a period of two (2)years.
CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
In considering a special use permit,RPVDC Section 17.62.060(A)requires the Director to
make four (4)findings in reference to the property and project under consideration (RPVDC
language is boldface,foilowed by Staff's analysis in normal type):
1.The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed special
use and/or development.
The proposed temporary buildings will occupy one thousand six hundred thirty-two square
feet (1 ,632 SF)of the 121.57-acre site,which amounts to approximately 0.03 percent of the
site.No modifications to any other existing improvements on the cemetery property wiil be
necessary to accommodate the proposed temporary building.Therefore,Staff believes
that the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed special use.
2.The proposed special use and/or development would not adversely interfere
with existing uses on the subject property;and would not impede or adversely
impact pedestrian access ways and/or vehicular circulation patterns.
As mentioned above,no modifications to any existing site improvements wiil be necessary
to accommodate the proposed temporary buildings.The buildings are proposed to be
placed adjacent to an existing parking lot,but will not encroach upon or restrict access to
any of the existing parking spaces,drive aisles or on-site roadways.Since the purpose of
ATTACHMENT -66
Memorandum:Planning Case No.ZON2002·00271 (Green Hills Memorial Park)
April 6,2005
Page 3
the temporary buildings is to accommodate existing offices uses in the Administration
Building while it is being remodeled,no additional parking spaces are necessary to support
the proposed buildings.Therefore,Staff believes that the proposed special use will not
interfere with existing uses or vehicular circulation on the cemetery site.
3.The proposed special use and/or development would not result in a significant
adverse effect on adjacent property.
The proposed temporary buildings will be located approximately three hundred feet (300')
from the nearest residences in the Rolling Hills Riviera neighborhood,and more than one-
quarter (Y-;)mile from the nearest homes along the northerly and westerly perimeter of the
cemetery.As such,the placement of the temporary buildings will significantly exceed the
minimum 40-foot side setback requirement for the Cemetery (CEM)zoning district.The
proposed temporary buildings will be utilized for the same office uses that currently occur in
the Administration Building.Once the remodeling of the Administration Building is
complete,the temporary buildings will be removed from the site and its former location
restored to its current use and appearance.Therefore,Staff believes that the proposed
special use will not have significant adverse effects upon adjacent properties.
4.By requiring certain safeguards as conditions of approval,the proposed
special use and/or development would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare.
The recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit 'A'(attached)include,but are not
limited to:requiring visual screening of any exterior mechanical equipment on the buildings;
prohibiting any encroachment of the buildings upon existing parking spaces or drive aisles,
limiting the days and hours of use for the buildings to the same days and hours currently
permitted for the Administration Building;requiring the establishment of a trust deposit to
ensure the timely removal of the buildings upon the completion of the remodeling of the
Administration Building;and requiring the former location of the buildings to be restored to
its current appearance once the buildings are removed.With the imposition of these
conditions,Staff believes that the proposed special use will not be detrimental to the public
health,safety and welfare.
For all of the above-mentioned reasons,Staff believes that the request for the special use
permit to allow the placement of temporary modular office buildings on the Green Hills site
is warranted.
ATTACHMENT -67
Memorandum:Planning Case No.ZON2002·00271 (Green Hills Memorial Park)
April 6,2005
Page 4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
On March 8,2005,notices were mailed to the applicant and property owner;the
homeowners'associations for the Rolling Hills Riviera and Peninsula Verde communities;
the cities of Los Angeles,Lomita and Rolling Hills Estates;and three hundred twenty-seven
(327)other property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site.The 15-day public
comment period was scheduled to end on March 23,2005.However,on March 18,2005,
Green Hills revised the project to include an additional temporary building.Therefore,
revised notices were mailed on March 21,2005.The extended 15-day public comment
period ended on April 5,2005.As of the date of this memorandum,Staff had received two
(2)telephone calls from notified property owners and an e-mail inquiry from the City of
Rolling Hills Estates requesting clarification of the proposal,but no objections to the
approval of t.h~request.
The proposed project involves the temporary placement of small structures on the site of an
existing,developed cemetery.As such,Staff determined that this project is categorically
exempt (Class 3-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures)from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),pursuant to Section 15303 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
Green Hills Memorial Park is included on the City's most-recent list of current and former
hazardous waste sites.Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)Case
No.R-12803 is an open case related to the presence of hazardous wastes dumped on the
Green Hills site prior to the development of the cemetery.A remedial action plan (RAP)to
contain these wastes on site was approved in 1996,and Green Hills has begun the process
to cap and cover the affected area pursuant to the approved RAP.The proposed
temporary office buildings are not located in an area of the site that is affected by these
wastes or any of the remedial actions undertaken in response to RWQCB Case
No.R-12803.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above,Staff recommends approval of the requested special use
permit (Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271 ),subject to the conditions of approval set forth
in the attached Exhibit 'A'.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available for consideration by the Director of Planning,Building and Code
Enforcement include:
ATTACHMENT -68
Memorandum:Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271 (Green Hills Memorial'Park)
April 6,2005
Page 5
1.Approve the requested special use permit (Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271),
subject to the recommended conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit 'A'.[Staffs
recommended alternative)
2.Approve the requested special use permit (Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271),
subject to revised and/or additional conditions of approval.
3.Deny the requested special use permit (Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271).
Approved per Staft's Recommended Alternative No.1.
Accepted:Date:<-}-7-)
Attachments:
Conditions of approval (Exhibit 'A')
Special use permit application (revised March 18,2005)
Site plan (revised March 18,2005)
M:IProjeclsIZON2002-G0271 (Green Hills Memorial Park,27501 Weslern Ave)120050406_S1affRpl.doc
ATTACHMENT -69
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2002·00271
Special Use Permit for 27501 Western Avenue
1.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant
and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they
have read,understand,and agree to all conditions of approval.Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety (90)days of the date of this decision
shall render this approval null and void.
2.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.
3.The Director of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement is authorized to
approve minor modifications to the conditions of approval and/or the approved
temporary modular office building plans,provided that such modifications will
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the
original plans and/or conditions.
4.This permit shall be valid for a period of two (2)years,commencing with the
installation of the temporary modular office buildings on the site.However,the
temporary modular office buildings may not be installed until plans for the
remodeling of the Administration Building are submitted to the Building and
Safety Division to begin the plan check process.In addition,the applicant must
submit plans for the remodeling of the Administration Building to the Building and
Safety Division within six (6)months of the date of the City's final action on this
permit,or it shall expire.Once the temporary modular office buildings have been
installed,the applicant may request a 1-year extension of this permit by the
Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement.Any extension request
must be submitted,in writing and accompanied by the applicable fee,prior to the
expiration of this permit.This permit shall ultimately expire at the end of the
permit period (including any extension granted by the City),or upon finalization of
the building permits for the remodeling of the Administration Building,whichever
occurs first.
5.The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from the Building and Safety
Division for the placement of the temporary modular office buildings,including all
temporary utility connections.The applicant shall also be responsible for
ensuring that the temporary modular office buildings meet handicapped
accessibility requirements,to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.The
placement of these temporary structures shall be consistent with the approved
ATTACHMENT -70
plans and in compliance with the required development standards of the
Cemetery (CEM)zoning district.
6.The placement of the temporary modular office buildings shall not encroach upon
or otherwise interfere with any existing parking spaces,drive aisles or roadways.
No additional parking spaces are required for the temporary buildings.However,
the applicant may be required to designate temporary handicapped-accessible
parking,to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
7.Any exterior mechanical equipment for the temporary modular office buildings
shall be visually screened with landscaping,lattice panels or fencing,or other
means satisfactory to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
8.Skirting shall be provided around the perimeter of the temporary modular office
buildings in order to visually screen the support piers and pylons.
9.The days and hours of use for the temporary modular office buildings shall be the
same as those currently permitted for the Administration Building.
10.Any exterior lighting for the temporary modular office buildings shall be installed,
operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.56.040
of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.The Director may order the
dimming and/or removal of any illumination or fixtures found to be excessively
brilliant.
11.Prior to the placement and occupancy of the temporary modular office buildings,
the applicant shall establish a trust deposit in the amount of five thousand dollars
($5,000.00)to ensure:
a.The removal of the temporary buildings at the end of the permit period;
and,
b.The restoration of the building site to its previous use and appearance.
Within thirty (30)days of the expiration of this permit,the applicant shall remove
the temporary buildings and complete the restoration of the building site,at which
point the trust deposit will be refunded to the applicant.
12.Failure to comply with any condition(s)of approval of this permit,or conducting
any activity that is beyond the scope of this permit,as determined by the City at
its sole discretion,shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of this permit.
The City will generally provide notification of a violation and direction to the
Exhibit 'A'
Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT -71
applicant to correct the violation within twenty-four (24)hours of the notice.
However,the City shall not be obligated to provide such notice,particularly when
imminent health and safety issues are involved.
13.The City reserves the right to modify any of the above listed conditions,based
upon the City's own observations of the use of the temporary modular office
buildings,as well as any valid complaints to the City regarding these buildings
from the community at large.
M:\Projecls\zON2002-00271 (Green Hills Memorial Park.27501 Western Ave)\Exhibil 'A'.doc
Exhibit 'A'
Planning Case No.ZON2002-00271
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT -72