CC SR 20180807 01 - Green Hills Grading Permit appeal
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL
Date: August 7, 2018
Subject: Consideration and possible action regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
approval of a Grading Permit application for Green Hills Memorial Park (Case No.
PLGR2018-0008).
Subject Property/Location: 27501 S. Western Avenue
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Brooks
4. Staff Report & Recommendation: So Kim, Deputy Director of Community Development
5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6. Public Testimony:
Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the
applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be
allowed ten minutes to make a presentation.
A. Appellant: Sharon Loveys
i. Mayor Brooks invites the Appellant to speak. (10 mins.)
B. Applicant: Green Hills Memorial Park
i. Mayor Brooks invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.)
C. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Rebuttal: Mayor Brooks invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins)
Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have
spoken.
8. Council Questions of Appellant (factual and without bias):
9. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias):
10. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Brooks
11. Council Deliberation: The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or
to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer questions posed by speakers during their
testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
12. Council Action: The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to
decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional testimony; continue the matter to a later date
for a decision.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/07/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
approval of a Grading Permit application for Green Hills Memorial Park (Case No.
PLGR2018-0008).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION, THEREBY
APPROVING A MAJOR GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW 424YD³ OF
BALANCED GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE INSTALLATION OF VAULTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EARTH INTERMENTS, 3’ TALL WALLS, AND BENCHES
IN THE UNIMPROVED PORTION OF ALTA VISTA GARDENS (AREA 2) AT
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2018-__ (page A-1)
B. Appeal Letter to the City Council (page B-1)
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-21 (page C-1)
D. June 26, 2018, P.C. Staff Report without Attachments (page D-1)
E. Appeal Letter to the Planning Commission (page E-1)
F. Resolution No. 2018-07 (page F-1)
G. Project Plans (page G-1)
BACKGROUND:
On March 9, 2018, pursuant to City Council-adopted Condition No. 2.a(6) of Resolution
No, 2018-07, Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a Major Grading Permit application
requesting to conduct grading to accommodate the installation of vaults associated with
1
earth interments and 3’-tall walls in an unimproved portion of Area 2 (Inspiration Slope)
of the City Council-approved Master Plan for Green Hills Memorial Park.
On May 11, 2018, after issuing the required public notice, the Director conditionally
approved the requested Major Grading Permit. A Notice of Decision was issued, and on
May 29, 2018, the Director’s decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by Ms.
Sharon Loveys (“Appellant”).
On June 26, 2018, the Planning Commission, after conducting a duly-noticed public
hearing and considering evidence presented in the record, adopted P.C. Resolution No.
2018-21 (Attachment C), denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s approval of
the proposed improvements. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission’s decision
was appealed to the City Council by the same Appellant.
On July 20, 2018, a 15-day public notice announcing the City Council‘s public hearing
on the appeal was provided to all property owners within a 500’ radius of the subject
site, to listserv subscribers, and to interested parties, and was published in the Daily
Breeze. On July 26, 2018, a public notice was also published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News. To date, no comments have been received in response to the public
notice.
DISCUSSION:
The appeal letters submitted by the Appellant for both the Director’s (Attachment E) and
the Planning Commission’s (Attachment B) decisions are substantially the same in
terms of the grounds of the appeal to be considered by the City Council. In considering
the appeal of the Director’s decision, the Planning Commission found that the point of
the appeal stated in the Appellant’s letter was unfounded, and therefore adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2018-21, denying the appeal (Attachment C). The current appeal points
are summarized below (Appeal points are underlined followed by Staff’s response):
Appeal Point No. 1: “There can be no development of open space until there is a
Master Plan in place that allows such development of any such open space, just
because Green Hills has a conditional right to develop some areas of the cemetery
does not mean Green Hills has the unconditional right to develop all areas of the
cemetery.”
Municipal Code §17.28.030.A (Uses and development permitted by Conditional Use
Permit) permits a burial park for earth interments, mausoleums, vault or crypt
interments, and/or columbarium for cinerary interments in the Cemetery zoning district
pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City Council approved a CUP, as
most recently reflected in Resolution No. 2018-07, to allow the operation of a cemetery
and associated improvements at the project site (Attachment G). The CUP also
approved a Master Plan, which is a long-term conceptual layout that guides future
growth and development of the site. The Master Plan Site Plan shows all existing and
future interment sites as simply green areas and outlines any existing and future
2
buildings. The Master Plan Site Plan does not include call-outs for every vacant area
with a notation to the effect of “to be developed with future interment plots” because it is
inherent that all undeveloped open space will be developed for burial activity unless
otherwise noted in the Master Plan. This means that the entire Green Hills site is
permitted to operate as a cemetery and there is an expectation to provide interment
plots for burial activity. Accordingly, Condition No. 1.a of Resolution No. 2018-07
(Attachment F) expressly allows grading to accommodate earth interments throughout
the cemetery site. Therefore, Green Hills has the right, subject to the conditions of
approval, to develop all open areas with earth interments.
Appeal Point No. 2: “Green Hills violated its promise and pulled out of the mediation
obligation. Green Hills should not be granted any further land use entitlements until it
meets its mediation commitments.”
Condition No. 11(h)(10) of Resolution No. 2018-07 requires Green Hills to participate in
a three party mediation process with the Vista Verde homeowners regarding the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Mausoleum. However, Vista Verde homeowners objected to Green
Hills participating in a three party mediation process, and refused to mediate with the
City if Green Hills was involved. Regardless, this is a separate matter not related to the
merits of the subject application. Moreover, to first refuse to mediate if Green Hills was
involved, and then to base an appeal on Green Hills not mediating is at the very least,
ironic, and at the most, the very worst of bad faith and abuse of process. Therefore, the
Appellant’s request to deny entitlements until mediation commitments are met is clearly
not warranted.
Appeal Point No. 3: “The City needs to first process a Conditional Use Permit
application under Chapter 17.28 of the City’s Development (Cemetery Zoning) Code
(and specifically §17.28.030(H)) and then make the requisite Findings under
§17.28.030(H) and §17.76.040(E) of the City’s Development Code prior to approving a
Grading Permit. The lack of Findings under §17.76.040(E) renders the Planning
Commission’s decision deficient.”
Municipal Code §17.28.030(A) reads “Burial park for earth interments, mausoleums for
vault or crypt interments and/or columbarium for cinerary interments” with reference to
permitted uses in the CEM district. The Appellant makes reference to §17.28.030(H),
which reads “Such other uses as the Director deems to be similar and no more
intensive…” As previously discussed under Appeal Point No. 1, pursuant to Municipal
Code §17.28.030(A), the City Council approved a CUP, as most recently reflected in
Resolution No. 2018-07, to allow the operation of a cemetery and associated
improvements at the project site. All appropriate findings for the CUP were made and
this approval was contingent upon compliance with a number of Conditions of Approval
that regulate the operation and use of the site. As part of the CUP, the total amount of
grading for the future development of the entire Green Hills site was already assessed
and specific grading quantities for each area are memorialized in the City Council-
approved Resolution No. 2018-07 (Attachment F). Therefore, a separate site-specific
grading assessment is not required for the proposed project, and the Planning
Commission affirmed this in its denial of the appeal. Specifically, Condition No. 6
3
permits approximately 53,000yd³ of grading in Area 2. The proposed 424yd³ of grading
combined with the previous 16,918yd³ of grading results in a total of 17,342yd³ to date,
which is less than the total grading allowed for Area 2. The proposed grading will be
balanced on-site and consistent with the findings made by the City Council for the
Master Plan in that the proposed grading is within the maximum allowed quantity of
grading and the proposed use for Area 2. Therefore, separate site specific grading
findings are not required, nor is an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
warranted.
Appeal Point No. 4: “To date, no audit or evaluation of density limits has been done
and therefore, the current density and intensity of use is unknown. Therefore, no finding
can be made that Green Hills is in compliance with the density limitations of the Master
Plan.”
The Appellant contends that before any grading is approved, the City must determine
the existing density for Area 2 and if the proposed number of interments exceeds what
is described in the Green Hills Master Plan booklet, the Master Plan must be amended.
The issue of density and intensity have been discussed in previous appeals and
compliance reviews by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City
Council has considered, as previous public comments, and affirmed at the annual
review public hearings held on January 31, 2017 and February 6, 2018 that there are no
density limitations required in the Master Plan. The Master Plan is a long-term
conceptual layout that guides future growth and development of a site. While the 2007
Master Plan Booklet has area descriptions that include the number of interments, these
numbers are general in nature and for reference purposes only. This is underscored by
the following statement cited in the Master Plan:
“It is Green Hills’ strategy to emphasize long-term development toward
mausoleum development as a way to reduce the amount of land used each year
as the cemetery exhausts available land resources. Inurnment numbers
(cremations that are memorialized within the memorial park) are difficult to
predict and therefore the plan assumes that current cremation percentages will
remain constant. If percentages increase, the square footage impact is relatively
small, and the Master Plan provides ample ability to retrofit most mausoleum
buildings and garden areas with additional niche and niche vault inventory.
Additionally, visitation associated with inurnments is less intensive and assumed
to be minor impact on the overall development of the plan.”
The Master Plan was not intended to be used as the final plan, as previously affirmed
by the City Council during the Annual Compliance reviews. Should the City consider the
Master Plan as the final plan as the Appellant suggests, Staff would ministerially
approve plans for various improvements called out in the 2007 Master Plan, such as
mausoleums and other improvements, without requiring separate review by the
Director, Planning Commission, or the City Council. That simply does not happen. The
City Council previously determined that the Master Plan should be used as a reference
document only and all future improvements, as stated in the Conditions of Approval, are
4
to be publicly noticed and considered by either the Director (unless appealed to the
Planning Commission) or the City Council. The City Council-adopted Conditions of
Approval do not regulate or establish density or intensity caps. Therefore, the proposed
project is in compliance with the City Council-approved Conditions of Approval and no
evaluation of density and intensity is required.
5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Quasi-Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to affirm
whether specific findings of fact can be made in order to support approval of a
development application. The specific findings of fact are discussed in the attached
resolution (Attachment A).
Appeal Fees
Pursuant to Municipal Code §17.80.120, if the City Council grants the appeal, the entire
$2,275 appeal fee will be refunded to the Appellant. If an appeal results in a
modification to the project, other than changes specifically requested in the appeal, then
½ of the appeal fee shall be refunded to the Appellant. If the City Council denies the
appeal, the Appellant will not be refunded any of the appeal fee.
CONCLUSION:
No additional or new information has been submitted by the Appellant since the June
26, 2018, Planning Commission appeal hearing that warrants overturning the Planning
Commission’s decision. Therefore, Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal
and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the proposed Major Grading
Permit to allow 424yd³ of balanced grading to accommodate the installation of vaults
associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in the unimproved portion of
Alta Vista Gardens (Area 2) at Green Hills Memorial Park.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council’s consideration:
1. Grant the appeal, thereby denying the Planning Commission’s decision,
and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution at the next
meeting.
2. Modify the appeal and direct Staff to return to the City Council with a
revised resolution at the next meeting.
6
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DECISION APPROVING A GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO.
PLGR2018-0008) TO ALLOW 424YD³ OF BALANCED
GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE INSTALLATION OF
VAULTS ASSOCIATED WITH EARTH IMPROVEMENTS,
3’ TALL WALLS, AND BENCHES IN THE UNIMPROVED
PORTIONS OF ALTA VISTA GARDENS (AREA 2) AT
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK AT 27501 WESTERN
AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2007-32, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2007-33, approving amendments to the Green Hills Master Plan, which
called for development of the Green Hills Memorial Park (“Green Hills”) over the
following 30 to 50 years, and allows grading and mausoleum buildings to be constructed
at various specified locations throughout Green Hills cemetery;
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2015-102, which, among other things, revised certain Conditions of Approval, and
amended the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan;
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-
03, approving revisions to the Conditions of Approval as part of the Annual Review for
the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan Conditional Use Permit;
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-
07, approving revisions to the Conditions of Approval as part of the Annual Review for
the Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan Conditional Use Permit;
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2018, pursuant to Council-adopted Condition No. 2.a(6)
of Resolution No, 2018-07, Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a Major Grading
Permit application requesting to conduct grading to accommodate the installation of
vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in an unimproved
portion of Alta Vista Gardens (Area 2) of Green Hills Memorial Park;
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2018, the application was deemed complete for
processing;
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, a written notice of the application was provided to
all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject site in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090, sent to listserv
subscribers, and posted on the City’s website;
A-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 2
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2018, the Director of Community Development
(“Director”) conditionally approved a Grading Permit allowing 424yd³ of balanced
grading to accommodate the installation of vaults associated with earth interments, 3’
tall walls, and benches in the in the unimproved portion of Alta Vista Gardens (Area 2)
for Green Hills Memorial Park (PLGR2018-0008);
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2018, a written notice of the Director’s decision was
provided to all property owners within 500’ radius of the subject site in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090, sent to listserv
subscribers, and posted on the City’s website;
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2018, Sharon Loveys filed a timely appeal requesting
that the Planning Commission overturn the Director’s decision (PLGR2018-0008) and
deny the Applicant’s Grading Permit;
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2018-21, denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s approval of a
Grading Permit allowing 424yd³ of balanced grading to accommodate the installation of
vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in the unimproved
portions of Area 2 (Alta Vista Gardens) of the City Council-Approved Master Plan for
Green Hills Memorial Park; and,
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the Appellant filed a timely appeal requesting that
the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision (PLGR2018-0008) and
deny the Applicant’s Grading Permit; and,
WHEREAS, the appeal listed the following issues with the Director’s decision: 1)
there can be no development of open space until there is a Master Plan in place that
allows such development of any such open space, just because Green Hills has a
conditional right to develop some areas of the cemetery does not mean Green Hills has
the unconditional right to develop all areas of the cemetery; 2) Green Hills violated its
promise and pulled out of the mediation obligation. Green Hills should not be granted
any further land use entitlements until it meets its mediation commitments; 3) the City’s
need to first process a Conditional Use Permit application under Chapter 17.28 of the
City’s Development (Cemetery Zoning) Code (and specifically §17.28.030(H)) and then
make the requisite Findings under §17.28.030(H) and §17.76.040(E) of the City’s
Development Code prior to approving a Grading Permit. The lack of Findings under
§17.76.040(E) renders the Planning Commission’s decision deficient; 4) no audit or
evaluation of density limits has been done and therefore, the current density and
intensity of use is unknown and no finding can be made that Green Hills is in
compliance with the density limitations of the Master Plan;
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2018, pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of the RPVMC, a
15-day public notice was provided to all property owners within 500’ radius, published in
the Daily Breeze, sent to listserv subscribers, and posted on the City’s website;
A-2
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 3
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 7,
2018, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the proposed project is in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the Master Plan (Resolution No. 2018-
07), which constitutes minor alterations to existing structures or facilities involving
negligible or no expansion of use, and will not have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, the proposed project is within the scope of the previously
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and no further environmental review is
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed project involves 424yd³ of balanced grading to
accommodate the installation of vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls,
and benches in the unimproved portion of Alta Vista Gardens (Area 2) at Green Hills
Memorial Park.
Section 2: The City Council finds that the Director’s approval of the Grading
Permit is warranted because pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 2.a(6) of City
Council Resolution No. 2018-07, the Director may approve grading for mass installation
of vaults, and Condition of Approval Nos. 1.b and 1.e allows grading to accommodate
earth interments throughout the cemetery site. Additionally, the City Council finds that
the City’s Grading Permit process, which permits reasonable development of land and
as conditioned through Resolution No. 2018-07’s Conditions of Approval, is appropriate
for the Director to determine that the proposed project complies with the Master Plan.
Section 3: The City Council finds that the proposed project substantially
complies with the Master Plan in that the proposed grading is within the maximum
allowed quantity of grading and the proposed use of earth interments is permitted. The
Master Plan allows the project area to be developed with earth interments, and the
proposed project consists of grading to accommodate the earth interments. No
buildings, including mausoleum buildings, are proposed in this area. Condition No. 6 of
Resolution No. 2018-07 permits approximately 53,000yd³ of grading in Area 2. To date,
a total of 16,918yd³ of grading has been conducted in Area 2 to accommodate earth
interment sites. The proposed 424yd³ of grading combined with the previous 16,918yd³
of grading (total grading to date: 17,342yd³), results in a total of 35,658yd³ of grading
remaining for Area 2. The proposed grading will be balanced on-site and is consistent
with the findings made by the City Council for the Master Plan in that the proposed
grading is within the maximum allowed quantity of grading and the proposed use is
A-3
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 4
permitted for Area 2. The proposed walls and 3’ tall walls are considered customary
cemetery related features and are allowed without further review.
Section 4: The City Council finds that the merits of the appeal are not
warranted as described below.
Appeal Reason No. 1: Ground for appeal: “There can be no development of
open space until there is a Master Plan in place that allows such development of any
such open space, just because Green Hills has a conditional right to develop some
areas of the cemetery does not mean Green Hills has the unconditional right to develop
all areas of the cemetery.”
The City Council finds that Municipal Code §17.28.030.A (Uses and development
permitted by Conditional Use Permit) permits a burial park for earth interments,
mausoleums, vault or crypt interments, and/or columbarium for cinerary interments in
the Cemetery zoning district pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City
Council approved a CUP, as most recently reflected in Resolution No. 2018-07, to allow
the operation of a cemetery and associated improvements at the project site. This
Green Hills site is permitted to operate as a cemetery and there is an expectation to
provide interments plots for burial activity. Condition No. 1.a of Resolution No. 2018-07
expressly allows grading to accommodate earth interments throughout the cemetery
site. Therefore, Green Hills has the conditional right to develop all open areas with earth
interments.
Appeal Reason No. 2: “Green Hills violated its promise and pulled out of the
mediation obligation. Green Hills should not be granted any further land use
entitlements until it meets its mediation commitments.”
The City Council finds that Condition No. 11(h)(10) of Resolution No. 2018-07
requires Green Hills to participate in a mediation process with the Vista Verde
homeowners regarding the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Mausoleum. At the June 26, 2018
Planning Commission public hearing, Green Hills stated that they have met their
mediation requirements. Irrespective of either parties’ claims, this is a separate matter
not related to the merits of the subject application. Therefore, the Appellant’s request to
deny entitlements until mediation commitments are met is not warranted.
Appeal Reason No. 3: “The City’s need to first process a Conditional Use Permit
application under Chapter 17.28 of the City’s Development (Cemetery Zoning) Code
(and specifically §17.28.030(H)) and then make the requisite Findings under
§17.28.030(H) and §17.76.040(E) of the City’s Development Code prior to approving a
Grading Permit. The lack of Findings under §17.76.040(E) renders the Planning
Commission’s decision deficient.”
The City Council finds that pursuant to Municipal Code §17.28.030(A), the City
Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), as most recently reflected in
Resolution No. 2018-07, to allow the operation of a cemetery and associated
A-4
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 5
improvements at the project site. All appropriate findings for the CUP were made and
this approval was contingent upon compliance with a number of Conditions of Approval
that regulates the operation and uses of the site. As part of the CUP, the total amount of
grading for the future development of the entire Green Hills site was already assessed
and specific grading quantities for each area is memorialized in Resolution No. 2018-07.
Therefore, a separate site-specific grading assessment is not required. Specifically,
Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 2018-07 permits approximately 53,000yd³ of grading
in Area 2. The proposed 424yd³ of grading combined with the previous 16,918yd³ of
grading results in a total of 17,342yd³ to date, which is less than the total grading
allowed for Area 2. The proposed grading will be balanced on-site and consistent with
the findings made by the City Council for the Master Plan in that the proposed grading is
within the maximum allowed quantity of grading and the proposed use for Area 2.
Therefore, separate site specific grading findings are not required nor is an amendment
to the Conditional Use Permit warranted.
Appeal Reason No. 4: “To date, no audit or evaluation of density limits has been
done and therefore, the current density and intensity of use is unknown. Therefore, no
finding can be made that Green Hills is in compliance with the density limitations of the
Master Plan.”
The City Council finds that the Master Plan should be used as a reference
document only and all future improvements, as stated in the Conditions of Approval, are
to be publicly noticed and considered by either the Director (unless appealed to the
Planning Commission) or the City Council. The City Council-adopted Conditions of
Approval do not regulate or establish density or intensity caps. Therefore, the proposed
project is in compliance with the Council-approved Conditions of Approval and no
evaluation of density and intensity is required.
Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on 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 adopts this Resolution No 2018-__,
denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a Grading
Permit allowing 424yd³ of balanced grading to accommodate the installation of vaults
associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in the unimproved Alta Vista
Gardens (Area 2) at Green Hills Memorial Park at 27501 Western Avenue, subject to
the conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit ‘A’ (PLGR2018-0008).
A-5
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August 2018:
Susan Brooks, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, EMILY COLBORN, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby
certify that the above Resolution No. 2018-__ was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 7, 2018.
City Clerk
A-6
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 7
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GRADING PERMIT (PLGR2018-0008)
27501 WESTERN AVENUE (GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK)
General Conditions:
1. This approval allows 424yd³ of balanced grading (212yd³ of cut and 212yd³ of fill)
to accommodate the installation of vaults, 3’ tall walls, and benches associated
with earth interments in the unimproved portions of Alta Vista Gardens at Green
Hills Memorial Park.
2. The Conditions of Approval under Resolution No. 2018-07 shall remain in full
force and effect, unless amended in the future by the City Council in which those
Conditions of Approval shall remain in full force and effect, in combination with
the conditions set forth herein.
3. 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 contained in this
Exhibit “A”. Failure to provide said written statement within 90 days following the
date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
4. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
5. 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.
6. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-07, Condition No. 2.a(1), the Director of
Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications through a
Grading Permit to the approved plans and any of the conditions that will achieve
substantially the same results as would strict compliance with such plans and
A-7
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 8
conditions. Any substantial change to the project shall require approval of a
revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review.
7. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these Conditions of Approval or, if not addressed herein, shall
conform to the cemetery development standards of the City's Municipal Code,
Conditions of Approval, including but not limited to height, setback and lot
coverage standards.
8. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these Conditions of Approval and the
Conditions of Approval set forth in City Council-adopted Resolution No. 2017-03
or future related Council-adopted Resolutions, may be cause to revoke the
approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in
Section 17.86.060 of the City’s Municipal Code or administrative citations as
described in Section 1.16 of the City’s Municipal Code.
9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations
and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter
standard shall apply.
10. Unless otherwise designated in these Conditions of Approval, all construction
shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED
by the City with the effective date of this Exhibit “A”.
11. This approval is only for the items described within these Conditions and
identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing
illegal or legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of
such illegal or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these
conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
12. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste
and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be
removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or
temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable
bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
13. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or
discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. All landscape
pruning, including but not limited to grass, leaves, branches, fertilizer, etc., shall
A-8
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 9
be properly stored in areas with minimal visual impact to adjacent homeowners,
and shall be stored in appropriate containers and disposed of in a lawful manner.
14. When not being used in the daily operations of the cemetery, equipment and
supplies shall be stored in areas with minimal visual impact to adjacent
homeowners or in the maintenance yard if possible. Equipment and supplies
shall be neatly stacked so they do not pose a safety hazard or become a
property maintenance issue. All landscaping equipment and vehicles, and all
vehicles used for maintenance and/or burial preparation shall be stored in the
maintenance yard.
15. Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm
up, geologic investigations, interments excavation for placement of vaults and
installation or removal of large landscape materials or landscaping maintenance
shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays only. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, within 120 feet of any property line abutting a Residential Zoning
District, no construction or grading, including grading operations to prepare sites
for earth interments, shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. All equipment
shall be equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise
levels.
16. Construction shall not impede on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including
ingress and egress to the subject property.
17. Prior to any permit issuance, all applicable soils/geotechnical reports shall be
approved by the City’s Geologist.
18. Prior to any permit issuance, all applicable drainage plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer.
19. Prior to any grading permit final, the Applicant shall submit an as-built
topographical survey prepared and wet-stamped by a licensed engineer
depicting the finished grades.
A-9
B
-
1
B
-
2
B
-
3
B
-
4
B
-
5
B
-
6
B
-
7
B
-
8
B
-
9
B
-
1
0
B
-
1
1
B
-
1
2
B
-
1
3
B
-
1
4
B
-
1
5
B
-
1
6
B
-
1
7
B
-
1
8
B
-
1
9
B
-
2
0
B
-
2
1
B
-
2
2
B
-
2
3
B
-
2
4
B
-
2
5
B
-
2
6
B
-
2
7
B
-
2
8
B
-
2
9
B
-
3
0
B
-
3
1
B
-
3
2
B
-
3
3
B
-
3
4
B
-
3
5
B
-
3
6
B
-
3
7
B
-
3
8
B
-
3
9
B
-
4
0
B
-
4
1
C
-
1
C
-
2
C
-
3
C
-
4
C
-
5
C
-
6
C
-
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN , DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2018
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR-APPROVED MAJOR GRADING
PERMIT AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK (CASE NO.
PLGR2018-0008)
Project Manager: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2018-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s decision to
approve a Major Grading Permit for 424yd³ of balanced grading to accommodate the installation of
vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in the unimproved portion of Alta
Vista Gardens (Area 2) at Green Hills Memorial Park.
BACKGROUND
On March 9, 2018, pursuant to Council-adopted Condition No. 2.a(6) of Resolution No, 2018-07,
Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a Major Grading Permit application requesting to conduct
grading to accommodate the installation of vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and
benches in an unimproved portion of Alta Vista Gardens (immediately adjacent and south of Area 2 -
Inspiration Slope). On April 5, 2018, the application was deemed complete for processing. On April
19, 2018, a 15-day public notice was provided to all property owners within 500’ radius of the subject
site for comments, published in the Peninsula News, sent to listserv subscribers, and posted on the
City’s website. Staff received no correspondence in response to this public notice.
On May 11, 2018, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved the requested
Major Grading Permit and the Notice of Decision was provided to property owners within a 500’
radius of the subject site, to listserv subscribers, and posted on the City’s website. On May 29, 2018,
the Director’s decision was appealed by Ms. Sharon Loveys (Appeal Letter attached).
On June 7, 2018, a 15-day public notice was provided to property owners within 500’ radius of the
subject site, published in the Peninsula News, sent to listserv subscribers, and posted on the City’s
website. In response, Staff received one letter opposing the project (see attached) and one
letter from the Applicant's legal representative in response to the appeal letter, are discussed
under the ‘Additional Information’ section below.
D-1
DISCUSSION
Reasons for the Appeal
The appeal of the Director’s approval of a Major Grading Permit is for 424yd³ of balanced grading to
accommodate the installation of vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in
the unimproved portions of Alta Vista Gardens. The points of the appeal (shown in bold) and Staff’s
responses are provided below.
1) The proposed installation of vaults and 3’ tall walls/benches requires a revision to the
existing Conditional Use Permit and the increase in density and intensity are not
lawfully authorized under Green Hills Master Plan.
Staff Response: The Appellant, in her letter, contends that any development of any part of the
cemetery requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code §17.28 (Cemetery District).
Municipal Code §17.28.030.A (Uses and development permitted by Conditional Use Permit) permits
a burial park for earth interments, mausoleums, vault or crypt interments, and/or columbarium for
cinerary interments in the Cemetery zoning district pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The
City Council approved a CUP, as most recently reflected in Resolution No. 2018-07, to allow the
operation of a cemetery and associated improvements at the project site (see attached). Condition
No. 1.a of Resolution No. 2018-07 expressly allows grading to accommodate earth interments
throughout the cemetery site. The Appellant also contends that before any grading is approved, the
City must hold hearings to discuss and determine the appropriate amount of density, and that the
proposed number of interments exceeds what is described in the Green Hills Master Plan booklet. A
Master Plan is a long-term conceptual layout that guides future growth and development of a site.
While the 2007 Master Plan Booklet has area descriptions that include the number of interments,
these numbers are general in nature and for reference purposes only. There is no maximum limit to
the density as Condition No. 1.g allows additional interment areas by retrofitting mausoleum and
garden areas throughout the cemetery. As for the need for public hearings, Condition No. 2.a(6)
allows the Director to review grading applications associated with mass installation of vaults without
further review or public hearings. Therefore, the proposed project does not require a revision to the
existing CUP and the increase in density and intensity are permitted.
2) The use of the terms “lawn crypts” and “lawn niches” are unclear.
Staff Response: Condition No. 1.e of the Council-adopted Conditions of Approval allow earth
interments. The term “Lawn crypts” is synonymous to earth interments, which is an in-ground burial
of a vault that contain human remains. “Lawn niches” are also generally understood as smaller
vaults that contain urns for cremated human remains, which are buried below ground similar to
“lawn crypts”. Both “lawn crypts” and “lawn niches” are synonymous to earth interments and
therefore, permitted pursuant to Condition No. 2.a(6).
3) The “Project Silhouette Waiver” section on the application was not filled out by Green
Hills and therefore is an error that needs to be rectified.
Staff Response: Generally, the City requires Applicants to install project silhouettes for
improvements above grade to serve as a visual aid to assess potential impacts. The proposed
project involves grading to bury vaults below grade. Construction of a silhouette to depict the
improvements below grade is not feasible. As for the associated 3’ tall walls and benches, the
Municipal Code does not require the construction of a silhouettes for such ancillary improvements.
As a result, the Applicant was not required to sign the “Project Silhouette Waiver” section, which
D-2
waives the City for any damage or injury caused by the construction or failure of the silhouette
frame.
4) Approved plans are misleading because the “project site” is shown as already
developed, when it is currently open space.
Staff Response: The project plans submitted to the City and approved by the Director depict an
unimproved area of the site as it would appear when improved. Therefore, the approved plans are
not misleading as they correctly depict the proposed project.
5) The grading references [Resolution No. 2018-07] are not supported by substantial
evidence and should be challenged.
Staff Response: The Appellant contends that the site plan contained in the Master Plan Booklet for
the project area is shown as undeveloped and therefore should not be allowed to install earth
interments unless the CUP is revised. Furthermore, the Appellant also questions the legality of the
Conditions of Approval (Resolution No. 2018-07) that Staff is applying to allow the project, and the
City Council’s annual review process that amended the conditions of approval in February 2018.
The Director’s decision is based on the Council-approved Conditions of Approval, and any objection
to the Council’s action is not relevant to the merits of the project.
6) Green Hills is in violation of the Conditions of Approval as it pertains to the mediation
process for the purpose of settling the claims of the Vista Verde homeowners
emanating from the construction and operation of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum.
Staff Response: This is a separate matter not related to the merits of the subject application, and
therefore, is not addressed as part of this appeal.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Site Improvements
The proposed 3’ tall walls and benches are exempt from Director, Planning Commission, or City
Council review, pursuant to City Council-approved Resolution No. 2018-07, Condition No. 1.h.
Public Comments
In response to the public notice, Staff received 1 letter in opposition (see attached) to the proposed
project from the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association (RHRHA), which represents the
residential community immediately south of the subject property. The RHRHA expresses that the
applications for Green Hills need more oversight and should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The issue about which deciding body should review what type of application was
heavily discussed and determined by the City Council as part of the 2016 Green Hills Annual
Compliance review. As a result, Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 2018-07 specifies what type of
applications require Director versus City Council consideration. Appeals of any Director-decisions
are subject to Planning Commission consideration.
The legal representative for the Applicant also submitted a letter in response to the Appeal. The
main points of the letter are listed below, which are already addressed under the ‘Discussion’
section above:
D-3
• Green Hills Memorial Park has a CUP to operate a cemetery, which among other things,
permits earth interments throughout the cemetery. The CUP allows mass installations
provided that a grading permit is approved.
• Filing a lawsuit challenging a governmental action [City Council-approved Conditions of
Approval] does not invalidate the action.
• Vista Verde Homeowners refused to allow Green Hills Memorial Park to participate in the
mediation conducted pursuant to a Condition of Approval. As a result, the City deemed this
condition satisfied and Green Hills Memorial Park is no longer under any obligation to
mediate with the Vista Verde Homeowners.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s
approval of a Major Grading Permit to conduct 424yd³ of balanced grading to accommodate the
installation of vaults associated with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in the unimproved
portion of Alta Vista Gardens at Green Hills Memorial Park, subject to the Conditions of Approval in
Exhibit “A” (Case No. PLGR2018-0008).
ATTACHMENTS
• P.C. Resolution No. 2018-__
o Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
• Appeal Letter
• Public Correspondence
• May 11, 2018 Director-Approved Staff Report
• Council-adopted Resolution No. 2018-07
o Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
• Project Plans
D-4
~ "a ~c ~~ ~;. ~k
APPEAL OF SHARON LOVEYS TO NOTICE OF DECISION DAT~A Y"\r.J ~
2018 RE: ALTA VISTA GARDENS (INSPIRATION SLOP~ o~ ~
CASE NO. PLGR2018-0008 ~~ \
~ O,o
Sharon Loveys appeals the Notice of Decision dated May 11, 2018, where tlfe ~""">
Director of Community Development of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Planning)
approved the grading permit application of Green Hills Memorial Park allowing the "cut"
(212 cubic yard) and "fill" (212 cubic yards) (i.e. grading) of dirt in an undeveloped (and
unidentified) open space portion of "Area 2" identified as "Alta Vista Gardens Family
Estates/Private Estates". The appeal is premised on the following grounds:
1. Formal Conditional Use Permit Required. Use of any part of the cemetery
is, by definition, a "conditional use" under Chapter 17.28 of the City's Zoning Code
governing Cemetery Districts; and specifically Section 17.28.030. As such, any
development of any part of the Cemetery requires a "conditional use permit". The
application dated March 9, 2018, (reproduced below) does not seek a conditional use
permit, but onlv a grading permit. (The conditional use permit section of the application
is not checked-See page one of the Application reproduced below). A land use
entitlement allowing for the development of this open space area of the cemetery (as
contemplated by the project description portion of the application) requires that a
conditional use permit application be sought, with the requisite applicable "Findings"
thereafter being made under Section 17.28.030(A) and (where applicable) 17.28.030(H).
In the portion of the application where Green Hills is asked to describe "the project", the
"Project" is not described as a grading project, but is described as "Installation of 44
Lawn Crvpts"1 (Emphasis Added).
1 The use of the term "lawn crypts" in the application is very, very misleading. The reason?
Apart from the fact that "installing lawn crypts" is not the same thing as the "grading" of the soil
preparatory to the construction of the project for which the land use entitlement approval is
sought, a "lawn crypt" is not something that is even contemplated either under the City's zoning
law or State law. (See Health & Safety Code §§7000-7025 in the Appendix to this Appeal).
Health & Safety Code §7015 defines "crypf' or "vaulf' as a space in a mausoleum used or
intended to be used, to entomb uncremated human remains". (i.e. space inside a mausoleum; not
space on the roof of a mausoleum). A "crypt" therefore exists only inside a mausoleum, not
beneath a "lawn". Calling these cement containers "lawn crypts" is thus misleading. It is a
complete misnomer. H&S Code §7102 defines "entombment" as the placing of human remains
in a crypt or vault. The process of placing human remains in a grave is defined as a "buriaf'
(H&S Code §7013). A "grave" is a "space of earth in a burial park used or intended to be used
for the disposition of human remains". "Interment" is the disposition of human remains by
entombment or burial. (H&S Code §7009). A "burial par'/C' is a tract ofland for the burial of
human remains in tlte ground." (H&S Code §7004). The City's zoning law under Section
17.28.030 contemplates specifically only the following three types of interments: (1) earth
interments; (2) vault or crypt interments inside a mausoleum (not on the roof); and (3) cinerary
interments in a columbarium (defined under H&S Code §7007 as "a space in a building or
1
E-1
As such, there is a "disconnect" between what has been granted (a grading
permit) and what is required for a valid land use entitlement to be issued (i.e. a
conditional use permit allowing for the "use" of the project area for (i) the underground
storage within the boundaries of the project area of 44 cement containers which will
eventually hold (ii) individual coffins containing human remains to be buried and placed
within each cement container).2 Just because Green Hills may be permitted to grade a
certain area of the cemetery, does not mean that Green Hills is to be permitted to inter
human remains in the ground beneath the proposed project site in any quantity (let alone
44 coffins); nor can a grading permit authorize the underground storage of 44 concrete
containers (purposely mislabeled as "crypts") in the project area.
Green Hills has yet again, therefore, attempted to "rig" the system by deceit and trickery:
Submitting a grading application when, in fact, what Green Hills really seeks is to
develop the open space area noted as the "project site" by (1) first grading the site, then
(2) installing 44 cement containers (mis-described a "lawn crypts") under the ground in
the locations noted on the engineering drawings, and then (3) using the site to inter
human remains by the placement of coffins inside the concrete containers at those
locations; all without having to separately apply for a conditional use permit allowing
proposed "uses" (2) and (3) noted above. In short, obtaining conditional use land use
entitlement rights by unlawfully "peace-mealing" the project into three phases; and then
structure containing niches for the inurment of cremated human remains"). (H&S Code §7011
defines "lnurnment" as the placement of cremated human remains in a container containing
cremated remains. The term "lawn crypts" does not appear anywhere in law; nor can it logically
be discerned from the foregoing definitions. What Green Hills is really seeking to do is develop
the open space identified on the Master Plan Map adjacent to Area 2 for the eventual earth
interment of human remains in 44 concrete containers in the open space area so designated.
Green Hills cannot sell plots or family estates in the open space area until the land use
(conditional use) entitlement has been properly and formally approved by the City. Storage,
below ground, of cement containers to house coffins containing human remains is not a specific
conditional use authorized under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. At best, what should be the
subject of formal evaluation is a Green Hills Application for a conditional use permit under the
"catch-all" provision of Section 17.28.030 (H) which requires a "finding" that the proposed
"use" (earth interments in the project area) is similar and no more intensive than the specifically
authorized uses contemplated under the Code in Section 17.28.030 (A) (i.e. (i) earth interments,
(ii) interments inside a mausoleum inside a crypt or a vault; or (iii) cinerary interments.
2 The Application also erroneously describes the "existing development" as "130 ac.". This
(presumably) refers to the total acreage of the cemetery. This is an incorrect description because
the "existing development" of the limited project area to be developed is more accurately
described as current "open space" (i.e. an undeveloped area of the Cemetery consisting of a
specified square footage). The proposed development can then be accurately described as: The
creation of "44 earth interment plots" together with surrounding walls needed to segregate family
estates with a specified capacity, with the balance being private estates with a specified capacity;
all of which will be sold consistent with the Cemetery's practices, procedures, and protocols.
2
E-2
conveniently omitting the conditional land use entitlement phases under the false guise of
a "grading permit" (i.e. using the grant of just a grading permit as a false license to obtain
conditional use land use entitlement rights without having to either (i) amend the Master
Plan, or (ii) formally apply for a conditional use permit to authorize the specific use of
added earth interments in what is otherwise an open space area of the cemetery. The
latter requires a lawful "Finding" under Section 17.28.030(H) and Chapter 17.60 of the
City's Zoning Code. Allowing Green Hills to procure substantive land use entitlement
rights under the guise of just a grading permit would be the functional equivalent of
permitting a developer seeking to construct a multi-residential or commercial project on a
given lot to proceed with the project even though all that has been applied for and granted
was a grading permit. A grading permit only allows one to "grade", not to proceed with
the substantive development. A separate formal application for discretionary approval to
develop a property (in this case the undeveloped open space in Area 2) is required under
the City's zoning code and the development standards incorporated into the zoning code.
This Commission should not allow Green Hills to proceed with any grading until the
substantive underlying conditional use right which is clearly sought has been approved
and the protocol to procure such approval properly implemented and executed. This
"grading permit", as issued, is a subterfuge for Green Hills real intention: which is to
develop an open space area of the cemetery with 44 earth interment sites consisting of
Family/Private Burial Estates, surrounded by walls measuring 3' in height (something
which the initial application does not even request). If this is what Green Hills wishes to
do, then Green Hills should clearly make application for this conditional permitted land
use entitlement rather than use the a grading permit application as a subterfuge for
obtaining land use entitlement rights for which it has never applied and which it cannot
legally obtain absent a proper conditional use permit application first having been
obtained.
Labeling the application as a "Grading Permit" is therefore either incomplete,
deceitful, incomplete, or all three. While the City picked up on the lack of documentation
respecting the proposed wall construction and the omission of any reference to the
amount of grading requested, the City has erred and completely failed to require Green
Hills to submit a conditional use permit application allowing for the clearly intended
proposed "use" as set out above (the earth interment of human remains in 44 separate
locations with either a Family Estate or Private Estate (single plot) areas). Green Hills has
in the past exhibited a practice of recording plots as being available for sale even though
the City had not (as of the date ofrecordation) formally approved (by way of the issuance
of a conditional use permit) of such use. Procuring permission to "grade" in the quantities
requested is not the same thing as procuring the City's permission to either "store" vaults
(concrete containers in which coffins containing human remains are placed) underground.
Nor is a grading permit a substitute for a conditional use permit allowing Green Hills to
inter human remains in those concrete containers at the locations identified on the
"interment plot plan" submitted with the application.
3
E-3
To allow the conditional use of the open space area of the cemetery identified as
the "Project Site" for earth interments in the quantity requested would require a
"Finding" that the proposed ultimate use of interring human remains is "no more intense"
that the uses already permitted. To reach that factual conclusion requires a complete
inventory, to date, of (i) all earth interments currently allowed in the cemetery, (ii) all
crypt and vault interments currently allowed inside all Mausoleums and (iii) the number
of niches currently allowed (or permitted); against which can then be measured the actual
number of each type of interments currently in place. Only in this way could a "Finding"
could be made respecting whether the proposed use is or is not "more intensive" than the
current approved uses. Absent such an inventory, the required "Finding" cannot be made;
leaving Green Hills to continue to do what it has done here: Game the system and deflect
away from having to meet the zoning and development requirements and remove itself
from meaningful compliance review. As is, this application is nothing more than a "bait
and switch". The fact that the approval states that the "installation" (i.e. storage) of the
vaults (i.e. concrete containers) is to "accommodate" future earth interments betrays an
admission and represents an acknowledgment of that what is really sought: namely, the
right to use the project site to develop 44 "Interment Plots" (as defined in H&S Safety
Code §7022) allowing for the earth interment of human remains in concrete containers
placed under the earth's natural grade at the project site identified on the application
(currently open space). 3
The appeal should thus be granted and Green Hills required to resubmit a complete
application along with a complete inventory of all intenncnts (earth interments,
interments inside the mausoleums, and cinery interments) which have been approved;
measured against all interments actually developed which are currently in use, both
within the cemetery as a whole, and the proposed project area of the cemetery in
particular; so that the density and intensity of the proposed cemetery use of this
undeveloped open space can be evaluated against the density and intensity of the actual
use, as previously approved. Anything short of that would be "malpractice" by the
Planning Department and would violate the City's Cemetery zoning code.
3 It would not be inappropriate for Green Hills to be required to amend the Master Plan to
identify new open space areas which it may seek to develop in the future; particularly given the
fact that the Master Plan was last amended in April, 2007. As Green Hills noted in its last Master
Plan Application: "Prudent cemetery (management) acknowledges the necessity to periodically
update a master plan to adapt to changing market conditions". In order to meaningfully do so,
however, Green Hills must identify current open space, inventory the current density use, create
a metric to measure the current intensity of use, as developed. the potential intensity and density
of use, as approved, and then to the extent additional development is contemplated, identify
future areas of development where the proposed density and intensity of use is consistent with
the adjacent residential land uses.
4
E-4
(ityof RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone (310) 544-5228 Fax (310) 544-5293
i:~~s11e W\WI rpvca_yQ.v_
~-,~~lannina{fi)rpvca_JlQ\.·.
UNIFORM PLANNING APPLICATION
Planning Case No: PL 61t2:116 =1l0Cf>
Project Address: __ :i.:_~ __ 0_1_ ... V-Rs.-;;;.;::;;,,;;;_~-=--"-A"-'\111..:.=-_______ _
APPLICA I ION !SI 1 "11!1l~ c h~ all thal a r;al~
0 Sole Plan Review Ma1or ~ Grading Permit -0 Height Vanation -0 Extreme Slope Permit 0 Fence. Wall and Hedge ?erm;t 0 Revision/Amendment
O Coastal Permit
Appnatabl1t or Nnn·;:lrpP.lliihJe' 0 Minor facepbon Permrt
0 landslide Moratorium Exception 0 Geologic Investigation Permit
0 Other Application
---
Additional Reviews: 0 Neighborhood Compalib1lily Analysis
CONTACT INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT:
0 Vanance
0 Conditional Use Permit
-'--
0 Foliage Analysis
NamL' ~ c:f..-uo 1/.//1 lfe.t1yd Name _~,A/~1-.I<,..____.,,'"''""""-"----
Address 2150 I
City~ l'.t..J
Telephcne (310) -~11· V!lr.;1_
Ema11~r~.6'1i?f"lr·'Gt!1
Telephor.e (Jtc) s Y: '(.l_(>!._ _____ _
En1ad __ /l;.,J/<-b_f£ !}/,""'.; · ,.,..,
I
City Business License No (Required for architects and design professionals)
!l--LJl.lot:"-llo.¥-L....wJli.lil:lo(JJ~J...lliU.:L\U se additional paper. ii needed)
0 { ...,. ij..,,. < hACT
/'
-
Rev 6116115
Exhibit "1" -Page 1 of Green Hills Land Use Entitlement Application -Note the "Project" is "described"
not as a grading project, but as the "Installation of 44 Lawn Crpts". (Note also that this contradicts what
is contained in the Staff Report dated May 11, 2018 from So Kim to Ara Mihranian where the project is
described as a request to conduct grading activities only). A permit to "grade" is not the same as a
permit to "intall" or "store" cement containers (misdescribed as "crypts"); nor is a permit to "grade" the
same as a permit to use the area to "inter'' human remains below grade (i.e. to use this undeveloped
5
E-5
open space area for "earth interments"). What Green Hills is really seeking is a conditional use permit
allowing for the "storage" (currently an unpermitted use) of 44 cement container-vaults underground, in
the area noted on the project site map (Exhibit "2" below). Allowing for the use of this undeveloped
area of the cemetery for the permanent interment of human remains is obviously Green Hills' ultimate
objective. It is not in the "cement container underground storage" business. Therefore, the Application,
as written, is deceptive by omission because it is incomplete with regard to the failure to identify the
proposed ultimate use of the current open space portion of Area 2. The area sought to be developed is
an undeveloped area of the Cemetery, where no development was contemplated under the Master
Plan. The "Area 2" designation refers solely to the development of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum,
specifically identified as such on the Master Plan, where the intensity and density of use is specified as
noted in the Master Plan (reproduced below): (1) (2800 crypt spaces (niches to be determined); (2)
earth interments (inaccurately termed "ground burials" composed of 388 single depth lawn crypts
(which should read "earth interments" to be consistent with state law definitions -see Appendix below
where the relevant portions of the Health & Safety Code are reproduced) and 1720 double depth lawn
crypts (the numbers do not add up); and (3) Family Estates (48 Family Estates (8-12 capacity, where the
number of single vs. double depth earth interments not specified). As noted herein, this proposed use in
this "grading application" is, by definition under the City's Zoning Code (§17.28.030) a "conditional use"
allowable only by way of a conditional use permit. Therefore, it is sophistry and deceitful for Green Hills
to apply for the right to install 44 "lawn crypts" (a term which is undefined in either state law or local
law and therefore misleading (i.e. what, actually is the City approving here?) which are really concrete
containers intended to hold coffins containing human remains which are to be placed in the earth (i.e.
below grade (aka "earth interments") under the guise of merely applying for a grading permit. The right
to "grade" does not equate to the right to "use", be that use the "storage" of concrete container below
ground (and Green Hills clearly does not intend to merely "store" concrete containers at this location),
or a use allowing for the "earth interment of human remains" in 44 separate identified locations below
earth's natural grade on what is now open space, undeveloped cemetery property.
6
E-6
PROJECT INFORMATION (fill in as applicable)
A. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
_J_} () Ac.• 1 Square footage of Lot
~-2 Square footage of total exisbng floor area:
First Story Second Story ___ _ Garage ___ _
_ ,v...._lil .... ~-3 Square footage of existing structure ~(inc luding any accessory structures , attached or detached)
µ{A 4 Square footage of driveways , pa rjj111 g atea s and Impervious su rfac es . -~~-(EXEMPT . impervious su rl 1Jee1 less lh~n 5 feet 1n widt h ~fldlor one pa tio areas less than 500 square feet 1n areas)
_.&'id ___ 5 Square footage of existing lot coverage (line A3 +line A41
-~JJ~/A-__ 6 . Percentage of existing lot coverage (line A5 -line A 1 x 1001
-~A.l"</i'-'-~~-7. Hetg h1 of e<1s bng i;iruc;(un1, as measured from highest po nt of exist grade covered by $!ruc lU< to the
highest ni;lg &l1ne ''°' 111.dures on "°l""O lol" please refer lo the t-to.tjnl Venation g""''°"'" handou1 h<oOQl'll '1IQ<l ire .)
B. PROPOSED Development
NIA 1 Square footage of proposed new floor area :
First Story ___ _ Second Story ___ _ Garage ___ _ Other ___ ~
(accessory slnJclures)
__,AJ-'+/A,_. __ 2 . TOTAL square footage of structure fll.IWIIiD1,(existing +new)
_cA)~/,"'"'Jq'---3. TOTAL square footage ol driveways , parking a rea s ano impervious surfaces (existing+ new)
(E )(EMPt llllpltN ....,. u•l•wo le u 1h~11 51...,11n W!Cith a1 Kll"' one µat10 ar •n lb •than 500 square feel in areas)
_ _,,tJ,"-1-'/tt-"---_4 TOTAL square footage of proposed lot coverage 1•ne 82 •lone 83)
_,,.,'-._,),.,./A-~-5 Percentage of new lot coverage [hne 84 -line A 1 x 100)
_...,A._1.,_,(fl .... _ 6 Heig ht of JXO poJed slructute, as measured h orn highest point o r exist gr de covered by structure to the
h,g hest ndgellne !for 1ifl.IC:U.J"•' on &loping to ll ;ue refer 10 l™" Hf-9'1t Variation O.uidoW nes handout lor height u1st 11dt0r1t)
__,•~141fqu__7. Linear feet cf existing io te1ior and exterior walls
• (If demolilhl!lg 25% or morv )
___ Linear feet of walls to be demolished
C. GRADING INFORMATION
Cubic yards of: Foll ______ _ + Cut.__ ____ _ TOTAL
Maximum height of: Fill ______ _ Cut
Cub ic yards of: lmpor1. _____ _ Expor1 -----
D. HEIGHT VARIATION EARLY NEIGHBORHOOD CONSUL TA Tl ON PROCESS
____ 1 Number of individual parcels under separate ownership within 500 foot radius of subject parcel
____ 2 . Number of individual parcels under separate ownership within 100 foot radius of subject parcel
____ 3 Number of total signatures within 500 fool radius ___ Percentage of total (01 • 03 x 100)
____ 4 Number of total signatures within 100 foot radius ___ Percentage of total (02 • 04 x 100)
Exhibit "1" -Page Two of the Green Hills Application -Note the misnomer and inaccuracy set out in the
"Project Information" section of the application (Existing Development versus Proposed Development).
The "existing development" should be filled in as zero because the area sought to be developed is open
space. Note further that the section "Grading Information" is left blank (contradicting page one which
states that the application seeks a "Grading Permit"). The City correctly noted in its letter to Mr. Resich
on April 4, 2018, that the application was "incomplete" given this inconsistency. The City wanted both a
grading plan and a depiction and statement of the proposed wall heights and benches which should
have been included in the Project Description section of the Application (which, as noted herein, should
be processed as a conditional use permit application, with a separate grading application being
submitted). No grading should be allowed absent the City's approval of a conditional permit use
application and/or an amendment to the Master Plan.
7
E-7
INFORMATION TO PETERMINE If A FOLIAGE ANALYSIS IS NECESSARY
1. Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which is 120 square feet or more in size iWLwhich
can be used as a gathering space lllllviewing area (i.e, decks, covered patios)? Yes 0 Nogj
2. Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which consists of 120 square feet or more of
habltabla space (i.e , room expansions, additions, conversions)? Yes O No 15-
If the answer is ·yes" to either question, a foliage analysis must be conducted by staff to determine if
any existing foliage on the applicant's property which exceeds 16 feet or the ridgeline of the primary
residence, whichever is lower, impairs a view from any surrounding properties .
PROJECT SILHOUETIE WAIYER (Required for Neighborhood Comp1tlblllty Analysis, Height Variation,
multl·f•mlly re•dlentlal, and nonresldentlal development)
!. __________ .am the owner of property located at .---------------
(property owner) (project address)
in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and wish to apply to the City for permission to construct:
(brier PfOJecl description)
I understand that, pursuant to Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(d) or 17.60.020(F), I must construct and maintain a
temporary frame as a visual aid for evaluating the impacts of the proposed structure. I hereby waive any claim
against the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for any damage or injury caused by the construction of the frame or by
any subsequent failure of the frame.
Property Owner Signature: ______________ _
HAZABQOUS WAST E & SUBSTANC E STATEM E NT (REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962 .5(1), before a crty can accept as complete an application for
any development project which will be used by any person, the applicant shall consult the lists sent to the
appropriate city or county and shall submit a signed statement to the city indicating whether the project and any
alternatives located on a site that is included on any of the lists compiled and shall specify any list.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has compiled lists of Hazardous Waste and
Substances Srtes for the entire State of California, which identifies the following site in Rancho Palos Verdes (as of
6/26/2017):
-Point Vicente (Palos Verdes Dr. and Hawthorne Blvd.)
I have consulted the most current lists compiled pursuance to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and hereby
certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on these
lists.
Property Owner S lgn a tur ~----~---------
PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION (REQUIRED)
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials herein and submitted with this
application are true and correct. I also understand that projects involving new construction and additions
or tear-down rebuilds will require approvals from the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
Property Owner Signature ,_c=:=--? _______ r::::=::> _____ _ Date ) -, _ II
3
Exhibit "1" -Page Three of the Green Hills Application -Note the fact that the "Project Silhouette
Waiver" section (required for non-residential development) is blank. This is another error in the
application which needs to be rectified on remand of this appeal back to the Planning Dept.
8
E-8
Project Described: Installation of Vaults, Minor Cemetery Improvements,
and Associated Grading in Area 2.
Approved 'Plans':
Page 1of2:
ALTA VISTA GARDENS
Family Estates/Private Estates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SPIKE/WASHER RCE 26120
BM EL 334 16 150' t 'vVEST NORTH TERRACE DRIVE
OF AL TA VISTA GARDEN
·--fl~-ON CENTERLINE OF NORTH --l __ _ _ \ _
TERRACE DRIVE
DIRT QUANTITY
CUT 212 au VOS
FILL 212 au . VOS
-1 ••
AL TA 'ASTA GARDENS
FAMLY ESTATES/PRIVATE ESTATES
/ ,
I
C I I• ra I ;
GREEN HILLS MEMORtlAL PARK
27501 VIE STERN A Vf.
RANCHO PALOS 'If.ROES, CA.
8 ollon an9ln..,.lng Corp.
251lJ.C N<rllonnt A...,.;1 Ste. 21 • • '
Lomllo, c.. 90717 mi
Ph on e; (JI O) 325-5580 ... _., u
f or. J10 lli -~1 -I "' '
Exhibit "2" -Page 1 of site plan in support of grading application .
9
E-9
Approved 'Plans':
Page 2 of2:
~ OIANf.WO ii VALl[Y
NQI' IN lCJli'WACE IJHllE
-t...J, ' (,.j tf·,.....:. ~~ ... r.·v
<{. ::jJ T[
8RO JiCT j \. L ./I
SI'[ ·-I
t:>
l.W.RALO
1;ARO£NS
4L !A lfS/A H-1
;\1.9-lO\'A 1/GW
'<;< ("'f~ 4hll/S(f l//ll
~~'}(/!}(
,t}I,.;) A./n'A:JY
lfS !A !Jfl II• lY !! ~
·'
WS!A
NL sa
CJIHOFNS lT Rli' A CC
llA8>1AN/l
POI.ta.NAN AM?
o·;'.' !hlA M't.VCXrAl
,+
'~ ·:J'' W.Sf.A ~ANO{
Hill TOI' p
NOTTO SCALE
'A VISTA GARDENS
INITY MAP
(" 11 .. t"! t
GREEN HILLS MEMORllAL PARK
27501 WESTERN AVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA.
N
11
SHEET 2 OF 2
e S olt-Engineering Corp. "' " ' lOU
,.. 25834 NG'bonne Avenue Ste. 711 ,. ~ ·~
.: ...... Lomita, Co. 90717 __ mo
a .Phu11e: (310) 325-5580 •v«"
Exhibit "2" -Page 2 of site plan in support of grading application. This is misleading because the "project
site" is shown as already developed when, in fact, it is currently open space (See Exhibit "3" -Master
Plan Map below).
10
E-10
...... " "f~tf....,_ ... , .............
THIS SllEET MAS BEEN IJPI>ATEI~>~l'l~oR~l'l~-A~N~N~'l ~N~G-;.. .. .-.... J
COMMISSION ADOPTED RESOLllTION NO.
20 I ;-09, CO:\'lllTION OF ·\ l'PRO\' A I I 2(m)
Exhibit "3" -City's Master Plan Map showing(@ red arrow) the portion of Area 2 where the "Project" is to be
Developed as currently open space.The reference to "Area 2" is intended as a reference to the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (now constructed) where approval was given to use the interior
for vault or crypt interments and for various earth interments below the earth's natural grade
next to the Mausoleum. No permission was granted to use the roof of the mausoleum as a
broad "interment plot" site where human remains are to be interred below the artificial grade
created by landsacping the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The approval only
extended to the "storage" of cement containers (which Green Hills misdescribed as "vaults") on
the roof under the artifical grade created on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The
conditional use right to use the roof as a venue to inter human remains in those cement
containers has not been given. This demonstrates that Green Hills and the Planning Department
know the difference between "grading" on the one hand, and an authorized "conditional use"
on the other. The grading permit for the proposed Alta Vista Gardens project just allows Green
Hills to "grade" the location by cutting out portions of the earth (natural grade) needed to make
room for the installation of the cement containers which will (it is assumed) eventually hold
coffins containing human remains., that's it. The grading permit does not allow Green Hills any
use rights to either "store" 44 cement containers under-ground, or to establish (for sale) 44
earth interment plots for sale and use as either Family Estates (of unspecified size) or Private
Estates (of unknown size) in the project area.
11
E-11
AREA2 INSPIRATION SLOPE
2.05 Acres Total Development
One Story Mausoleum
2800 crypt spaces I niches to be determined
Building height per Resolution No. 91-7
Ground Burials
388 Single Depth lawn Crypts
1720 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
48 Family Estates (8 -12 capacity)
Exhibit "4" -Page iii From Green Hills Master Plan -Submitted January, 2007; Approved April, 2007 (Note:
Green Hills has never formally applied for an amendment to its Master Plan). The proposed
total of Earth Internments noted above (as contemplated by Master Plan) has never been
reconciled with either (i) the total number of actual earth Interments currently in place versus
(ii) the proposed number of earth interments allowed under the current conditional use
permit. The number of earth interments contemplated by the Alta Vista Garden Project must be
compared to these numbers so that a statutory "Finding' can be made that the number of earth
interments contemplated under the proposed Alta Vista development is consistent with the
uses allowed under the Cemetery Zoning Code and is "no more intentive" than the conditional
uses permitted under Section 17.28.030 of the City's Cemetery zoning code. Unless this is done,
it is not possible to render a "Finding" that the proposed "development" is in fact consistent
with the conditional use permit currently in place and whether a new category of
"use" (i.e. the underground "storage" of burial vaults-44 of them in this case (although it is
unclear which are single depth and which are double depth) is consistent with the density
allowed and contemplated under the Green Hills Master Plan. In short, the Master Plan has to
be respected and followed; or it has to be amended. It cannot be ignored; particularly since at
some time in the future, it can be expected that Green Hills will seek approval to formally
convert the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum into one large "interment plot"
thus allowing Green Hills to sell space on top of that roof and inter human remains on the roof.
In short, this request to be permitted to "grade" the open space area located within
the boundaries of"Area 2" to "accommodate" future earth interments is a disguised effort to
procure City approval, sub silencio, for the earth interment of human remains in what is now
an open space, undeveloped area of the cemetery. It represents improper "piece-mealing" of
what appears to be the "true" proposed Development Project (future earth interments in what
is now open space) and a de facto request to amend the Green Hills Master Plan which, by
definition, does not contemplate the "storage" of cement containers (mislabeled as burial
"crypts" or "vaults", or "lawn crypts" or "lawn vaults") below the earth's natural grade in
what is currently an open space area never contemplated for development in the Green Hills
Master Plan. As such, this "grading application" is merely a disguised request to amend the
Master Plan in a "piece-meal" fashion. It should be rejected in the absence of an appropriate
12
E-12
application submitted by Green Hills to formally amend the Master Plan and the City's
consideration of whether the Master Plan should in fact be amended to allow for the increased
density and intensity of use in this area of the cemetery which was never contemplated for
development by the original Master Plan (adopted in 1991) or the Amended Master Plan
(adopted in 2007).
Reprinted below is a portion of the "General Development Parameters" as
described by Green Hills in its proposed 2007 Master Plan Amendment package. The
importance and necessity of periodically amending the Master Plan to reflect "changing
market conditions" is noted. Until the Green Hills Master Plan is appropriately amended (and
the City's Resolution No.2018-07 did not lawfully accomplish that purpose because it was
passed on February 6, 2018, as part of and in connection with what was agendized as a
"Compliance Review Hearing"), and the extent to which Green Hills was and is in
compliance with the existing conditions incorporated into its conditional use permit, granting
this permit is premature. The Council's Compliance Review was not agendized for the
purpose of considering any amendment to the Green Hills Master Plan given that Green Hills
had not applied for an amendment to its Master Plan. The fact that the Master Plan protocol
contemplates future amendments (instead of "spot" separate conditional land use permit
approvals) to allow for development of open space, consistent with proper land use planning
principles) is reflected in the following quote from Green Hills' submission to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes of its ''Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package" dated January 29,
2007 (No. ZON-2003-0086) received on February 20, 2007.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
The latest Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes in 1991 . Prudent cemetery development acknowledges the necessity to
periodically update a master plan to adapt to changing market conditions,
resources, and restrictions. Although every effort has been made to maintain the
original acreages set forth in the approved master plan dated 1991, many areas
of the original master plan have been refined in scope and size . In all cases
where the revised plan differs from the original, design of the structures has been
revised to mitigate the impact on the cemetery and surrounding environment.
The new design parameters for Green Hills Memorial Park call for a unified
design palate for both materials and scale, creating a campus effect throughout
the remaining undeveloped areas.
For this reason alone, therefore, the City's approval of Green Hills grading
permit should be rejected and this appeal sustained.
13
E-13
1-
i:..:.
1.
2. Tile Gradi11gReferences ;,, tile Staff Report Are Not Supported bv
Substantial Evidence. Here the City has chosen to follow the Master Plan. Page two of
the Staff Report states that "The Master Plan allows Area 2 to be developed with a
mausoleum and earth interments." This is not a precise statement of the facts because
"Area 2" on the master plan (See Exhibit "2") references only the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum as being developed (with no roof-top interments on the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum contemplated. "Ground burials" refer to "earth interments"; and "Family
Estates" refers to "earth interments" of members of a family which are segregated into
specific areas, by family, via the construction of one or more walls in specified areas for
the collective interment of such family members). The geographical boundary of "Area
2" is the 2.05 acres identified by the lightly shaded green portion. As noted in Exhibit
"2", the area sought to be developed under this "grading" application is an undeveloped
"open space" area located within the geographical boundary of "Area 2".
The initial grading quantities (reproduced below:
I ~
l--:.."---·"-
""-:;. : • ~·. L I ·.~i •• : ···~
-.: ~.,. >'·'·-'.'-'~~··· ,,,,...,.
-:: .• .• ~ •. • ••. . ·..._ -...... i·
M-C
Exhibit "S(A)" -Page "MC" of the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan showing the grading quantities to be allowed
in order to accomplish the permitted improvements to Area 2.
14
E-14
·-· ....
... ....
...
-·· .. •·
·~·· . -
Exhibit "S(B)" -The Grading to be permitted for Daily Cemetery Operations.
For Area 2
..... '
......
-··
Dailv Cemetery Operation
(In Ground Burials -Earth Interments)
Column "A"
(Excavation Cut)
(11,214)
.,.. ... .... ..... .
Column "B"
(Backfill/Fill)
3,504
Column "C"
Net Dirt Movement
Fill/( Cut) "A"+ Col. "B")
(7,710)
1-'f<O~[C .... IMPACTS
t. ... ...._.
.... -·· . ........
....
..
. ........ '
"' • .., ·.-1w k
I r<
....
.. ~
.. :
, . .,, ...
...... .. 1 ••
.,.,.~j .. f:"t I
. ,
Exhibit "S(C)" -Grading permitted for Construction Activities
For Area 2
Column "D"
(Excavation Cut)
(15,312)
Project Impacts
(Construction/Site Grading)
Column "E" Column "F" Column "G"
(Backfill/Fill) Net Dirt Movement Imported Fill Incl. In Column "E"
Fill/(Cut)
55,312 40,000 40,000
15
E-15
. . . . '
SUMMARY
Gross Dirt Movement -A+B+D+E
65,312*
*This number (65,312) does to equate to the total of Columns A (-11,214), B (+3,504), D(-15,312)
& E (+55,312) •.• That total = 32,990 •••••• Not 65,312
Resolution No. 2018-07 referred to in the Staff Report is currently under legal
challenge by way of a writ of mandamus lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior court and served on March 20, 2018, styled "Sharon Loveys vs. City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, et. al. (Green Hills Memorial Park is named as a real party in
interest) -Case No. BS 172886. Therefore, the reference in the Staff Report to
53,000 cubic yards of grading being allowed by this Resolution must be challenged.
In passing the Resolution, the City Council was undertaking a "Compliance Review"
process where an evaluation was undertaken if and to what extent Green Hills was in
compliance with the existing conditions of the current conditional use permit and
Master Plan. There was no amendment to the Master Plan sought or pending before
the Council. De facto amending the Master Plan under the guise of conducing a
"Compliance Review" is a subterfuge and a "bait and switch". It represents a misuse
of the planning process. To the extent, therefore, that the City takes the position that
the quantity of grading has been approved under the Master Plan, that position is
without substantial legal or factual support.
The grading numbers in the Master Plan reference only the development of
the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum since that is the only development contemplated in
"Area 2" under the Master Plan. This idea that the City can "mix and match" and
combine approved Master Plan developments with proposed developments of open
space never contemplated for development under the Green Hills Master Plan is a
grave and gross misnomer. Since the project site {currently open space) is now
sought to be developed, the grading quantities referenced in the Master Plan do not
16
E-16
appear to be relevant unless it can be said (and it has not been said so far) that what is
contemplated by way of grading in connection with this "project" (ill-defined and
mis-described, as noted above) falls into the category of "Daily Cemetery
Operations" as opposed to "Construction/Site Grading". Staffs approval does not
take account of this difference. Combining the figures, therefore, makes no sense in
this context. It appears we are just going through the motions without any serious
thought given to respecting the City's planning process. In short, this "grading
application" seeking to do more than just "grade" is a perversion of the planning
process. It is simply not possible to support a "Finding" that that the proposed
grading is consistent with the grading contemplated and otherwise approved in the
Master Plan for a development of open space never contemplated by the Master Plan.
Consequently, there is no substantial evidence to support any such finding.
Moreover, it should also be noted that if the Master Plan can be referenced
for the purpose of making grading comparisons and evaluations, the same can is also
true when it comes to the evaluation of the "intensity" and "density" of Green Hills'
proposed use of what is now an open space, undeveloped area of the Cemetery, albeit
within the boundaries of the 2.05 acres of the cemetery identified as "Area 2" on the
Master Plan. Therefore, until both the grading portion of the Master Plan and the
actual development component of the Master Plan are properly reconciled, no
approval of this grading permit should be forthcoming. In addition, there should be
no approval (implied or express) permitting the use of this open space portion of
Area 2 of the cemetery for either actual earth interments or the storage of any
quantity of cement containers absent a clear "Finding" under Section l 7.28.030(H)
that the "density" and "intensity" of the proposed use (earth interments of human
remains below the earth's natural grade) is no more "intense" than the combined
other uses previously approved by the City under the Green Hills Master Plan. To
accomplish this objective requires, as noted above, a complete inventory of all
interments approved, all interments actually in place, and an evaluation of whether
adding more interments is consistent with the City's conditional use criteria as set out
in the City's zoning code, and specifically, Chapter 17.60 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code (reproduced below in the Appendix) relating to the
"Findings" which are required to be made in support of the issuance of "Conditional
Use Permits", as well as Section l 7.28.030(H).
Equally telling is the fact that "Findings" were made with regard to the 3'
height of the walls and the benches to be placed in the area of each proposed Family
Estate/Private Estate to be developed. Such a "Finding" is consistent with a
"Conditional Use Permit" finding, both under Chapter 17.28 (specifying the
conditionally pennitted uses and "Findings" in support thereof set out in the City's
Cemetery (Zoning) District (Overlay)) and Chapter 17 .60 (the "Findings" in support
of the issuance of a Conditional Use Pennit). This represents an acknowledgment by
the City that a formal conditional use permit application should have been made and
17
E-17
processed according to the City's statutory protocol. In fact, the grading permit
approval contains "conditions"; thereby making the grading permit application a de
facto "conditional use permit" application.
Because there was no formal conditional use permit application made by
Green Hills, and no public hearing was held as required by Section 17.60.040 of the
Code, the City's approval of the grading permit application was improper. Green
Hills should be directed to make a proper conditional permit application along with a
separate grading permit application just so the protocol is clear; and Green Hills
should be stopped from continuing to "rig" the system by engaging in these "bait and
switch" tactics where the public is deceived by the rubric of Green Hills seemingly
applying for a grading permit when, in reality, Green Hills is applying for a
conditional use permit which is supported by a separate grading permit.
3. Green Hills is not in Compliance with its Dutv to Mediate with the Vista
Verde Condominium Owners With Respect to their Nuisance Claims
Emanatitrg from the Construction and Operation of the Pacific Terrace
Mausoleum.
Condition 40 of Resolution No. 2015-102 requires Green Hills to
participate in a mediation process for the purpose of settling the claims of the Vista
Verde Homeowners emanating from the construction and operation of the Pacific
Terrace Mausoleum. Despite numerous requests to mediate, Green Hills refuses to
comply with this condition (the latest instance being Green Hills' unilateral and
unprivileged cancellation of a mediation scheduled for the end of May, 2018). Green
Hills' continued violation of its duty to mediate and its promise to mediate should
preclude Green Hills from procuring any further entitlements from the City until the
mediation has been undertaken. On behalf of the Vista Verde homeowners who are
parties to the pending litigation against Green Hills, request is again made that Green
Hills adhere to Condition No. 40 and agree to mediate the homeowners' claims; be it
to mediate over the question of the extent to which there has been a loss of value of
the individual condos as a result of the construction and operation of the Pacific
Terrace Mausoleum, or the extent of the other property and personal injury damages
occasioned by the construction and operation of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Appellant Sharon Loveys requests that her
appeal to Permit No. (Case No.) PLGR2018-0008 be granted.
18
E-18
APPENDIX TO APPEAL
Chapter 17 .28 -CEMETERY (C) DISTRICT
17 .28.030 -Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.
o The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a
conditional use permit, as pe r Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
A. Burial park for earth interments , mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or
columbarium for cinerary interments;
B. Mortuary;
C. Associated sales and office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery,
including flower sales;
D. Churches;
E. Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;
F. Public utility structures;
G. Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.83 .060 (Small wind energy
systems); and
H. Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive.
Such a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning
commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17 .80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located
in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may
be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are
similar and compatible with the local coastal program.
(Ord. 481 § 22, 2008; Ord. 377 § 10, 2002: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 187 § 8
(part), 1984)
17.28.040 -General development standards.
The following standards shall apply to cemetery districts :
A. Setbacks. The following setback provisions apply to all structures and 6eloWi
1. Front and Street Side. The front and street side setbacks shall be twenty-five
feet.
19
E-19
2. Interior Side a nd Rear. If abutting a residential zoning district, the interior
side and rear setbacks shall be forty feet . If abutting a nonresidential zoning district,
the interior side and rear setbacks hall b twenty-five feet.
B. Building Height. The maximum height of anv building shall be1 sixteen feet,
except with the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission,
pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permit.)
C. Roof Equipment. All roof equipment shall conform to the height limits specified in
Section 17.48.050 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) and shall be
adequately screened from private properties and the public right-of-way.
D. Signs. The provisions of Section 17.76 .050 (Sign permit) shall apply.
E. Parking, Loading and Access. The provisions of Chapter 17 .50 (Nonresidential
Parking and Loading Standards) of this title shall apply. Where a cemetery district abuts
a residential district, additional parking requirements may be imposed by the director or
planning commission if warranted by a proposed project or use.
F. Storage. Except for those outdoor uses permitted by a conditional use permit or
special use permit, all maintenance and groundskeeping equipment shall be housed in
permanent, entirely enclosed structures.
20
E-20
Chapter 17 .60 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
17.60.010 -Purpose.
The conditional use permit procedure provides for uses that are:
A. Necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but cannot
readil be c/ass1 ·/ed as ennitted uses m indivtdual zonin d1striccs b reason o t
uni 11eness or s11e. sco e or ossible effect an ubltc fac1lll1es or surroundm
ru ses ; or
8. Appropriate as accessories to the development of neighborhoods or the city; or
C. Appropriate uses in the zoning districts in which they are listed as permitted
subject to a conditional use pennit, bur requiring specific consideration of the
proposed use or development.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 78 (part), 1975)
17.60.020 -Application .
A. The application for a conditional use permit shall be filed on forms provided by the
city. A person may not file, and the director shall not accept, an application which is the
same as, or substantially the same as, an application upon which final action has been
taken by the director, by the planning commission, or by the city council within twelve
months prior to the date of said application, unless accepted by motion of the planning
commission or city council, or the previous application is denied without prejudice by the
planning commission or city council.
8. An application shall contain full and complete information pertaining to the
request.
C. The director or the planning commission shall investigate the facts bearing on each
case to provide information necessary to assure action consistent with the intent and
purposes of this title.
D. In cases where the director considers the conditions set forth on the application not
within the scope of the conditional use permit procedure, the applicant shall be so
informed. Whereupon, if the application is filed, it shall be signed by the applicant to the
effect that he or she was so informed. Filing of an application does not constitute an
indication of approval.
E. In no event shall the acceptance of an application by the city be construed as support
for, or the eventual approval of, the proposed use.
21
E-21
F. For multi-family residential and nonresidential development applications, a temporary
framework silhouette of the proposed project shall be required to be constructed as part
of an application. Said application will not be deemed complete until the applicant has
submitted a signed statement agreeing to construct said silhouette when directed to do
so by the director some time prior to the public hearing on the application . The
silhouette shall be constructed in accordance with the guidelines established by the city
council for nonresidential construction projects .
(Ord. 463 § 9, 2007 : Ord . 340 § 8 (part), 1998: Ord. 320 § 7 (part). 1997: Ord . 78 (part),
1975)
17.60.030 -Flllng fee.
The filing fee for a conditional use permit shall be as established by resolution of the city
council.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 78 (part), 1975)
17.60.040 -Public hearing.
A. The public hearing notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
and given to owners of property located within five hundred feet of the project, to all
persons requesting notice, to any affected homeowner associations, and the applicant
pursuant to Section 17.80.090 of this title.
B. Conditional use permit amendment applications shall require a public hearing
and notice similar to an initial conditional use permit application. However, conditional
use permit amendment applications for master television antennas in multiple-family
developments, including residential planned developments, do not require a public
hearing.
C. Not more than forty days following said hearing, the planning commission shall
announce its findings , as per Section 17.60.050 of this chapter, by formal resolution .
The resolution shall recite the findings of the planning commission and set forth the
conditions deemed necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons
residing in the neighborhood and in the community as a whole.
(Ord . 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 166 § 11, 1983; Ord. 90 § 6 (part), 1977; Ord. 78 (part),
1975)
17.60.050 -Findings and conditions.
A. The planning commission, may grant a conditional use permit, only if it finds :
22
E-22
1 . That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use
and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required
by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with
those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood;
2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry
the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use;
4. That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan;
5. That, if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts
established by Chapter 17 .40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title, the proposed use
complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter; and
6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the
planning commission finds to be necessary co protect the health safety and general
welfare, have been imposed:
a. Setbacks and buffers;
b. Fences or walls;
c. Lighting;
d. Vehicular ingress and egress;
e. Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions;
f. Landscaping;
g. Maintenance of structures, grounds or signs;
h. Service roads or alleys; and
i. Such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in an orderly and
efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title.
B. Conditional use permits may be granted for such period of time and upon such
conditions and limitations as may be required. to protect the health, safety and
enera/ welfare. Such conditions shall take precedence over development standards
otherwise required by the underlying zoning of the subject site .
23
E-23
C. For multiple use developments under a conditional use permit. where the uses
permitted in the development are specified in the conditional use permit resolution, the
uses permitted in the zoning district shall not apply unless such uses are among those
permitted by the conditional use permit.
D. When deemed desirable, the planning commission may add conditions requiring
future review or updating of maintenance, development plans and activities.
E. Any change which substantially intensifies occupancy or land coverage on the site
shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit pursuant to the amendment
procedures set forth in Chapter 17.78 (Miscellaneous) of this title.
F . When required, the findings, recommendations and notices thereof shall be filed in
conformity with the provisions set forth in Section 17.60.050 of this chapter.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 259 § 2, 1990: Ord. 78 (part), 1975)
17 .60.060 -Appeal.
Any interested person may appeal any decision of the planning commission or any
condition imposed by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17 .80 (Hearing
Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 90 § 6 (part), 1977: Ord . 78 (part), 1975)
17 .60.070 -Time llmlt.
Before approving any conditional use permit, the planning commission shall establish a
time limit within which the applicant shall commence upon the permitted use, as that
phrase is defined in Section 17 .86 .070 (Enforcement) of this title. The time limit shall be
a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development. If no
date is specified by the planning commission or city council, a conditional use permit
shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval. All
such permits shall be null and void after that time unless the applicant has commenced
upon the permitted use, as that phrase is defined in Section 17 .86 .070 (Enforcement) of
this title . Upon a showing of substantial hardship, delays beyond the control of the
applicant, or other good cause, the planning commission or city council may extend this
period one time for up to one additional year .
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part). 1997: Ord. 78 (part). 1975)
17.60.080 -Fallure to comply.
If the time limit expires and no extension has been granted. or if any of the conditions to
the use or development are not maintained, then the conditional use permit shall be null
and void. Continued operation of a use requiring a conditional use permit after such
24
E-24
conditional use permit expires or is found in noncompliance with any condition of a
conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of this title.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 78 (part), 1975)
17 .60.090 -Amendments.
An amendment to an approved conditional use permit may be initiated by the city or by
the property owner pursuant to Section 17.78.040 (Miscellaneous) of this title.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
17.60.100 -Revocation.
A conditional use permit granted pursuant to this section may be modified, revoked or
suspended pursuant to Section 17.86 .060 (Enforcement) of this Code.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
25
E-25
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 7000-7025
7000. The definitions in this chapter apply to this division, Division 8 (commencing with
Section 8100) and Division I 02 (commencing with Section I 02100) of this code, Chapter
12 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions
Code. and Chapter 19 (commencing with Section 9600) of Division 3 of
the Business and Professions Code.
700 I. "Human remains" or "remains" means the body of a deceased person, regardless of
its stage of decomposition, and cremated remains.
7002. "Cremated remains" means the ashes and bone fragments of a human body that arc
left after cremation in a crematory, and includes ashes from the cremation container.
"Cremation remains" docs not include foreign materials, pacemakers, or prostheses .
7003. "Cemeterr" means either of the following :
(a) Any of the following that is used or intended to be used and dedicated for cemetery
purposes:
(I ) I huriuf purl.. Jin· <'tll'lll i11termt•111'.
(2) A 1'1t111.wdt•1m1 , tor a!'l'I or \'t111/1 inlt•rmL'llf.\,
(3) 1 fff!lllflftJIT um/ co/11111huriu111. for c:i11ert11T i111em1e11t.\.
(b) A place where six or more human bodies arc buried.
7004. ' . r!t " means d
groum7, used or intended to be used, and dedicated, for cemetery purposes .
7005. Except in Part 5 (commencing with Section 950 I) of Division 8, "nuw_soleum"
means a struct11re o r lmiltli11g f(n· .l!L. 11 . of'/111111t111 re11rni11' in CQ'Qf.'i or ''ault.'i
i11 ' plm u ·ed, or i111e11deJ to be used, um/ dt•dic'aled, /(Jr cemeterr purpo.\ \'".
7006. "Crematory" means a building or structure containing one or more fumaces for the
reduction of bodies of deceased persons to cremated remains.
7006.3. "Cremation chamber" means the enclosed space within which the cremation of
human remains is perfonned.
7006.5. "Cremation container" means a combustible, closed container resistant to
leakage of bodily fluids into which the body of a deceased person is placed prior to
insertion in a cremation chamber for cremation.
26
E-26
7006.7. "Cremated remains container" means a receptacle in which cremated remains are
placed after cremation.
7007. Except in Part 5 (commencing with Section 9501) of Division 8, "co/11111bari11m "
means a structure, room, or ollter pace in a b11ildi11g or struct11re c:o11lai11i11g 11iche. for
iu11r11111e11t of cremated /111111011 remain ." in a place used, or intended to be used, and
dedicated, for cemetery purposes.
7008. "Crematory and columbarium" means a building or structure containing both a
crematory and columbarium.
7009. "/ r11 t " means / , I· 111. ''·•'" i·111 / ,, i ,;,,,
or, in the case of cremated remains. by inumment, placement or burial in a
cemetery, or burial at sea as provided in Section 711 7.
70 I 0. "Cremation" means the process by which the following three steps are taken:
(a) The reduction of the body of a deceased human to its essential elements by
incineration.
(b) The repositioning or moving of the body or remains during incineration to facilitate
the process.
(c) The processing of the remains after removal from the cremation chamber pursuant
to Section 7010.3.
70 l 0.3. "Processing" means the removal of foreign objects, pursuant to Section 7051,
and the reduction of the particle size of cremated remains by mechanical means
including, but not limited to, grinding, crushing, and pulverizing to a consistency
appropriate for disposition.
70 l 0.5. "Residue" means human ashes. bone fragments, prostheses, and disintegrated
material from the chamber itself. imbedded in cracks and uneven spaces of a cremation
chamber, that cannot be removed through reasonable manual contact with sweeping or
scraping equipment. Material left in the cremation chamber, after the completion of a
cremation, that can be reasonably removed shall not be considered "residue."
7010. 7. "Scattering" means the authorized dispersal of cremated remains al sea, in other
areas of the state, or commingling in a defined area within a dedicated cemetery, in
accordance with this part.
27
E-27
7011. "lnumment" means placing cremated remains in a cremated remains container
suitable for placement, burial, or shipment.
7011.2. "Placement" means the placing of a container holding cremated remains in a
crypt, vault, or niche.
7012. "E11tombmt'n. "means the process of /1 in 11 l111111i111 11·111<1111,· in 11 < r 11 or 1"t111!1 .
7013. "Burial" means the process of plllci11g /111111a11 remai11.\ in a ::ru'"'·
7014. "'1lr!N»2 " means tit 111 J /11111111 >a11 , used, or intended to be used, for
the disposition of human remains.
7015. "~"or" •llU/J" means · 2 111 ""· •• ,f, ·.; : of sufficient size, used or
intended to be used, to entomb uncremated human remains.
7016. "Nit:he " means a space in a columbarium 11wd. or i111t•11d11tl to he 11 .\·ed, for tl1t•
plac:t'melrl n( cre11111ted /111111a11 rt•111ai11s .
7018. "Cemetery authority" includes cemetery association, corporation sole, limited
liability company, or other person owning or controlling cemetery lands or property.
7019. "Cemetery corporation," "cemetery association," or "cemetery corporation or
association," means any corporation now or hereafter organized which is or may be
authorized by its articles to conduct any one or more or all of the businesses of a
cemetery, but do not mean or include a corporation sole.
7020. "Cemetery business," "cemetery businesses," and "cemetery purposes" arc used
interchangeably and mean any and all business and purposes requisite to, necessary for,
or incident to, establishing, maintaining, operating, improving, or conducting a cemetery,
interring human remains, and the care, preservation, and embellishment of cemetery
property, including, but not limited to, any activity or business designed for the benefit,
service, convenience. education, or spiritual uplift of property owners or persons visiting
the cemetery.
7021. "Directors" or "governing body" means the board of directors, board of trustees, or
other policymaking body of a cemetery association.
7022. "Lot," "plot," or "hll<'rm<'llf 11/ot " 111«•1111., ''"" 1· i11 a 0'1111·1< q, 11 .\C'tl or iflfl'llllt•d to,
he u,o;ed (or tire illterme11t o{/111111u11 remuill:!'I'. Such terms include and apply to one or
more than one adjoining graves, one or more than one adjoining crypts or vaults, or one
or more than one adjoining niches.
28
E-28
7023. "Plot owner," "owner," or "lot proprietor," means any person in whose name an
interment plot stands of record as owner, in the office of a cemetery authority.
7024. "Permit for Disposition of Human Remains" includes "burial permit" and is a
permit, issued pursuant to law, for the interment, disinterment, removal, reinterment or
transportation of human remains.
7025. "Disposition" means the interment of human remains within California, or the
shipment outside of California, for lawful interment or scattering elsewhere, including
release of remains pursuant to Section I 03060.
29
E-29
F
-
1
F
-
2
F
-
3
F
-
4
F
-
5
F
-
6
F
-
7
F
-
8
F
-
9
F
-
1
0
F
-
1
1
F
-
1
2
F
-
1
3
F
-
1
4
F
-
1
5
F
-
1
6
F
-
1
7
F
-
1
8
F
-
1
9
F
-
2
0
F
-
2
1
F
-
2
2
F
-
2
3
F
-
2
4
F
-
2
5
F
-
2
6
F
-
2
7
F
-
2
8
F
-
2
9
F
-
3
0
F
-
3
1
F
-
3
2
F
-
3
3
F
-
3
4
F
-
3
5
F
-
3
6
F
-
3
7
G
-
1
G-2