20110517 Late CorrespondenceGreen Hills Appeal from Planning
Commissions denial of the
application for continuation of
Special Use Permit or·approval of
the temporary buildings as
permanent
Hearing before City Council on
May 18,2011
"..
--I.-e
E
(J)
~
C/)
--I
c
(J)
(J)
I.-
<.9
C/)
--I
c
(])
(])
I-
<.9
I 'eo
C)
c---c--::J.c
I-eo
::J-co
~
Modular Buildings In Rancho Palos
Verdes
•At the hearing before the Planning Commission
it is the Applicant's belief that the Planning
Commission did not take into consideration that
there exists modular buildings in the City that
have been there for long period of time and are
permanent in nature.
•That the following slides will depict buildings on
City Property that have been on city property for
long periods of time and are considered .
permanent in nature even though the access to
the buildings appear to be temporary in nature.
eno-.roa..
o..c
t)=c ro
roIo::~
+-'+-'«0
Olen.~(])-c -c-s....--Q)~>
..
eno-CO
C-
O..c
u=c CO
COIo::~
+-'+-'--<Co
Olen
C Q)
---0-0 L..---Q)~>
Location of Modular Buildings on
City Property
•The buildings depicted in the previous slides are all located
immediately adjacent to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall and on
City Property.
•One of the buildings is being used by Peninsula Seniors and has
recently been granted a extension of the Special Use Permit or is in
the process of being granted a Special Use Permit.
•The other two buildings appear to be modular buildings that are City
used building.One being immediately adjacent to the building used
by the Department of Building and Safety and Planning Department.
•The other building is named City Hall Annex and is located a little
away from the main City Hall Building and is the building that
appears to be two buildings immediately connected together.
Appeal of Planning Commissions
Denial
•The Applicant,Green Hills Memorial Park,"
is appealing the denial of an extension of
the Special Use Permit for the continual
use of two modular buildings located on
the 121 acre property.
Green Hills Memorial Park
•Green Hills Memorial Park is a Cemetery located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
•Green Hills when it was founded in 1947 was previously located in the unincorporated area and
know as San Pedro prior to being annexed to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
•Green Hills is comprised of 121 acres of which approximately 30 acres are undeveloped property.
The majority of the 121 acres has been dedicated to burials and not available for the development
of commercial property for the use by the cemetery.
•At Green Hills,there are buildings which are used for the Administrative offices,Mortuary Services
and Chapel services in addition to buildings that are used for the maintenance operations of the
cemetery.
•Green Hills employs approximately 100 individuals who work in all areas of the cemetery including
sales,grounds maintenance,and mortuary services.
•The two modular buildings currently house offices for approximately 20 individuals.These
individuals provide for sales of cemetery property and meet with individuals who are purchasing
cemetery property for future use.In addition,one of the modular buildings is the office space for
two of the officers of the corporation.In addition,a conference room in one of the modular
buildings serves as a meeting place for the grief support group that is comprised of family
members who have suffered a loss and Green Hills provides a counseling service free to those
grieving family members.
•If these modular buildings were required to be moved there is no space available at Green Hills to
accommodate these offices nor provide for the support group and family counseling
•That space outside of Green Hills cannot meet the needs of Green Hills as the counselors who
office in these modular's are required to show families the spaces that they are considering
purchasing.
Staff Report
•"Staff is not asserting that the temporary
buildings are in violation of any State Codes.
Upon inspection by the Building and Safety
Division,these two buildings comply with all
State Regulations regarding "temporary"
structures.However,previous approvals for use
of these structures was ...and have never gone
through the appropriate development review
process for permanent structures ..."
Requirements for setting imposed
by Rancho Palos Verdes
•When Green Hills applied for permission to place the two temporary
structures,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Planning and Building
and Safety,required Green Hills to meet all requirements as if these
buildings were permanent in nature.
•Handicap access was required."Green Hills instead of the
temporary ramps as used by the City in their temporary building
placed more permanent cement handicap ramping to the buildings.
•In addition,Green Hills,was required by both the Planning
Department and Building and Safety to identify a handicap parking
space immediately in front of the buildings.
•That the Department of Building and Safety inspected the building
for all building requirements in existence at the time of placement
•That Green Hills connected the building to permanent power that
was brought directly to the building together with a sewer system
that was brought to the building.
Staff Report
•"Both Staff as well as the Planning
Commission believe that an additional
Special Use Permit possibly could be
approved if the applicant were to apply
and process an application to construct
permanent buil.dings that comply with the
City's Development Code."
Green Hills Application
•Originally,Green Hills applied for a indefinite application but was told that a
definite time period was required in the application for the Special Use
Permit and therefore the application was amended to set forth 9 years.
•Green Hills would have made application to have these two modular
structures be permanent if allowed
•That there are no current City Development Code provisions that deny the
use of modular buildings.
•That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has installed modular buildings on
City Property for use by the City and other agencies within the city and such
uses have been for long periods of time or permanent in nature.
•That to require Green Hills to build a "stick building"would only be a
requirement which would place an undue burden upon Green Hills to
replace perfectly modern modular buildings which meet State Building Code
Requirements with new "stick"buildings in the same location or near which
would have the same look and purpose.
•That Green Hills is a one hundred and twenty acre parcel and the present
buildings do not have a substantial impact on Lot Coverage.
Staff Report
•"There are no provisions in the City's Development Code
that qictate the appropriate use or time period for
modular buildings....As such,historically the City has
permitted the use of modular buildings through a Special
Use Permit for temporary time periods in association
with construction of permanent structures.
•"While there are no specific Development Code
regulations for the use of modular buildings as
permanent office space on private property,there is also
no prohibition on an applicant from requesting that
modular building be approved as permanent office space
through a Conditional Use Permit Application."
"
Green Hills Response
•Green Hills contends that those buildings which are pictured in the first
slides on the property owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are
permanent in nature and the modular buildings that Green Hills is
requesting a 9 year extension are no different in nature.
•That if the Planning Department and Planning Commission is stating that if
Green Hills were to make application that these building be permanent in
nature,which was first suggested,but the Applicant was told to place a
definite time period in the application,then Green Hills will make an
application for these building to be permanent.
•Staff is suggesting that "there is a difference between allowing modular
structures for their intended temporary use and attempting to use modular
buildings as permanent structures".It is the belief of the Applicant that the
modular buildings comply with all requirements of the State Building Code
and the Rancho Palos Verdes Building Code.That there are no prohibitions
for the use of modular buildings within the Rancho Palos Verdes Building
Code or the Development Code.
•The Application as submitted does have a definite period of time,that being
9 years which is not permanent in nature .
•
Conclusion
•That the City Council grant the appeal and
overturn the Planning Commission's denial
of the requested Special Use Permit for
the continued use of the two existing
modular buildings for an additional 9 year
period.
•Or in the alternative grant the Applicant
the use of the building for an indefinite
period of time.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 17,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
6
8
10
12
Respectfully submitted,
Description of Material
Letter from Carole Roberts
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
Answers to questions posed by Councilman Wolowicz
~MAR~
Carla Morreale
**PLEASE NOTE:Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday,May 16,2011**.
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110517 additions revisions to agenda.doc
RECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MAY 17 2011
CrrYOF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:'
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLE~
MAY 17,2011
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY CAROLE ROBERTS
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER~
RECOMMENDATION
Reject the claim and direct staff to notify the claimant.
BACKGROUND
The claimant alleges that a city owned water pipe broke and flooded the claimant's
property.The alleged incident occurred on May 27,2010 and the claim was filed on
July 27,2010.The City does not own or maintain the pipe.
The City's Claims Administrator,Carl Warren and Company,has reviewed the claim
and advised the City to reject the claim.
fit Ms.Carole Roberts I
Attachment:.4387 Dauntless Dr.I Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Ray Holland,Tom Odom,&Judy Huey
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr
DATE:May 17,2011
SUBJECT:CC meeting 5/17/11 item #8 I citywide landscaping
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Ray,Tom,&Judy,
Just to clarify,we are able to use funds from the "1911 Act"account?(Last
reported with a balance of $1.7 million)
Thanks,
Steve
Hi Steve,
Yes,funds from the 1911 Act are used to pay for Traffic Signals and Safety
Lighting,as well as the utility costs for Street Lights.Kathryn Downs confirmed
that the 1911 Act estimated ending fund balance at June 30,2012 will be
$1,329,818.Please see the attached copy of the 1911 Act Fund Activity (211)
which shows this amount.
On page 7 of the Engineer's Report,the attached copy of the Estimate of Cost
shows an ending fund balance of $1,232,858 for the 1991 Act Fund 211,which
includes a deduction of $96,960 from the $1,329,818 for Administration and
Overhead (15%).
Please let me know if you would like any additional information.
Thanks,Judy
i 1 of 3
C:IDocuments and Settings~udyhlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK1 C91cc meeting 2011 05-17 #8 citywide landscaping-response (3).doc 05/17/111:5E
Rancho Palos Verdes
Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
PARTB
ESTIMATE OF COST
May 2,2011
Page 7
The estimated cost of the street Clnd sidewalk improvements for Fiscal Year 2011-12.as
described in Part A,are summarized herein and described below.All costs include
administration and uti lities where applicable.
1972 Act
Fund 203
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (7/1111)$35,372
ESTIMATED REVENUES
~~P..~::;'~.~Assessme~!~!!¥."J $258,516 1
Ad Valorem Taxes.less delinquencies
Interest Earnings --····..--·--$'0·-
cliY"C(iiiIribution tocoverexpenditu"ji~s·$308.738
$567,254
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Street Landscaping
.~or Thorou9.hfa~N!~9.i.~!l.~...........'"$318.960
Special Benefit Median Maintel2?.':l,c::"El....
.__.Rl.I~J?~aue.r.!J:Zone 8)_..._.._._~.~jI~$:.
Alta Vista (Zone E)$865aceCinTerrace(Zo'i1e'Ff......··..·_····_--'-$'ift'9 ..
Weed Abatement $15.000
~.t!~et Tree..Trimming $180,000
1911 Act
Fund 211
$1,528,718
$440,000.............$1;550
$447,500
Administration and Overhead
f-.nticip.i;l;t.~q..!?l:l,.l.i!.'.£I!:lencies (3%.<...).......,.,....::$...:...7.!..:..7.=..55;:....
Administration and Overhead (15%)$17,592
Street Lights
Traffic Signals &Safety LightingStreetUghts.......-...--."_.
Ocean Terrace (Zone F)
Total Expenditures
ENDING FUND BALANCE (6/30112)
$1.040
$517,279
$85,347
$602,626
$0
$202,000
$444,400
$646,400
········..·$00;960··
$96,960
$743,360
$1,232.858
A table showing how the budget is apportioned to each z one is prOVided on page 15.
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be setup for the revenues and expenditures of the
District.Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein.A
contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments,as the City Council
deems appropriate,Any balance or deficit remaining on July 1 must be carried over to the next
fiscal year.
Q:IRPVlLLMDlfy 11-12Irep0r!slllmd11·12 2may11.doc III Harris &Associates
1911 Act Fund Activity (211)Asar:4/8/09
FYOO-01 FY01-02 FYOZ-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning fund Balance
Assessment Revenue
Interest Earnings
301,024
53,156
322,509 343,330 372,695 401,577 432,812 450,639 473,633
31,592 20.604 15,739 25,849 49,807 46,159 66,092
492,705
27,552
492,606
8,441
492,800
7,800
440,000
7,500
TotalResou~s .1,206,122>1;.282,494 1,354,825 ·1;415,()88;;'1;580.53~1,7.42;11'0,};9~~496.2;034;319 2,111,958.'2.133,664 ..2,139,718 1,976;218.
Expenditures 277,729 291,603 328,171
Transfers Out:
Signal Maintenance
To 1972 Act (Repay FY05-06xter)
261,976 321,047 282,412 348,708 375,687 402,551 421,712 506,900 444,400
62,439 66,931 76.800 72,824 104,100 202,000
50,755
TotalUses
Ending Fund Balance'
L.J
l,)
~
W
646;400
928.3!:J3...990~891··4;046l654 '1,153;;112 :1;;259;491·'1.459;69B'.:'11~:5941,59,ti70;r:.:1;632,607 'li~9;f18 ",,528,7181,329,81'£3
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Ray Holland,Tom Odom,&Lauren Ramezani
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr
DATE:May 17,2011
SUBJECT:CC meeting 5/17/11 item #10 SRRE contract
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Ray,Tom,&Lauren,
Please help with a short question on this item.
Thanks,
Steve
Dear Councilmember Wolowicz,
The answer to your question is in bold below:
Q:This contractor was awarded the contract as "the most qualified firm ..."
However,what were the differences in bids from the three companies?
A:The proposed rates were very similar.They were as follows:
Firm Proposed Amount
(not to exceed)
HDR Engineering $34,915
SCS Engineers $34,913
HF&H $35,000
Consultants
Thank You.
Lauren Ramezani
Public Works
Page 1 of 1
C:IWINNTlProfileslteritlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLKBlcc meeting 2011 05-17 #10 SRRE contract.doc
ID.
05/17/11215 P
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:Ray Holland,Tom Odom,&Nicole Jules
FROM:Steve Wolowicz
CC:Carolyn Lehr
DATE:May 17,2011
SUBJECT:cc meeting 5/17/11 item #12 Road contract
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Ray,Tom,&Nicole,
Understanding that there are other reasons for selecting contractors,
nevertheless,what was the range in bids for this contract?
Thanks,
Steve
RESPONSE:
Although staff received 5 proposals,we narrowed the selection down and
interviewed the 3 most qualified firms.Based on interview performance and
qualifications,Harris &Associates was the best qualified firm.The cost
proposals ranged from $213,300 to $239,525,with Harris being at $217,960.
Page 1 of 1
C:IWINNTlProfileslteritlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLKBlcc meeting 05-17 #12 road contract_staff response.doc 05/17/113:58 P
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 16,2011
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday,May 17,2011 City Council meeting:
Item No.
7
14
21
submitted,
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Replacement page 7-2 of staff report
Replacement page 2 of 9 for arborist agreement
Renumbered pages 7 through 11
W:\AGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20110516 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
A.J.FISTES CORPORATION:On April 3,2007,the City Council awarded a contract to
AJ.Fistes Corporation for the City's building painting projects.The contract had an
initial term of three years with the possibility of three (3)one year extensions and the
original term expireg June 30,201.~L On March 16,2010.the Citx:Council approved the .....·{I....:D:..::e.:..::le.:..::ted.:..:::_1 ...J
first extension which will expire June 30.2011.
Based on AJ.Fistes satisfactory performance both in terms of quality of work and
timely performance,staff recommends that the contract be extended for an additional
year as per their Council approved agreement.
PCI:On April 3,2007,the City awarded a contract to PCI for the City's pavement
striping maintenance.The contract had an initial term of three years with the possibility
of three (3)one year extensions and the original term ~~'pjr~g_~IJ._~.l.:I.~~.~QLgQ1.9..Ol On .Ol_.....··{;>=De=let=ed=:=W=ill======<
March 16.2010.the City Council approved the first extension which will expire June 30,-------{Deleted:1
2011.'--------~
Based on PCI satisfactory performance both in terms of quality of work and timely
performance,staff recommends that the contract be extended for an additional year as
per their Council approved agreement.
DISCUSSION
-.Deleted:a
The bid documents that were prepared and circulated prior to the award of the Original
Agreements stated that the term was for a period of three (3)years and included an
option to extend for three one-year terms.~t~.ff..~~IJ.!~9..t~_g_.M~r2h~_I}.tl?_h~IJ.9-~9~f>~L~~LOl_'--'··
Fistes Corporation,and PCI regarding additional g.~~.:-:Y~~r_2Q.1}_tr.~_~t~~!E3_~_l?j~!1..§.LtC?_~hi.~h__
all contractors have agreed.
Deleted:Because the Original
Agreement will terminate on June 30,
2011,s
Extending the contracts for one year will allow time for staff to reevaluate services,and
prepare clear and concise updated specifications for fiscal year 2012-2013.
CONCLUSION
The First Amendment to Merchants ~1J.c,i_l?.<?~R~JQ.L13g~9-~i.g_~_M~ll}_!~_~_~n2~_§~!Yl9~~L._Ol__-"-··{I....:De:..::.:..::let.:..::ed:......:.:..::1 ~
Second Amendment to AJ.Fistes for Building Painting Maintenance and Second
Amendment to PCI for Pavement Striping Maintenance extends each of the Original
Agreement§.for the period of July 1,2011 to June 30,2012.Staff requests the
Council's approval and the Mayor's execution of these one-year extensions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adopted FY 2011-2012 budget provides adequate funding for the staff
recommendation.The funding source for these contracts is Merchants Landscape,and
PCI are Street Maintenance Funded and AJ.Fistes,General Fund.
ATT AC HMENTS ..Ol..Ol __Ol .Ol ._.---{,--D_e_let_ed_:..:;.11 _____
•Exhibit 1:The Original Agreements
•Exhibit 2:The First Amendment to the Roadside Maintenance Services
•Exhibit 3:The Second Amendment to the Building Painting Maintenance
•Exhibit 4:The Second Amendment to the Pavement Striping Maintenance
7
Ii
growth rates,trimming or removal impacts,and other such topics relating to arboriculture
services.
1.3 Schedule of Work
Upon request by the CITY,CONSULTANT shall perform with due diligence the
services requested by the CITY.Time is of the essence in this Agreement.CONSULTANT
shall not be responsible for delay,nor shall CONSULTANT be responsible for damages or be
in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes,lockouts,accidents,or acts of God,
or the failure of CITY to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove
CONSULTANTs work promptly,or delay or faulty performance by CITY,other
consultants/contractors,or governmental agencies,or any other delays beyond
CONSULTANTs control or without CONSULTANTs fault.
ARTICLE 2
COMPENSATION
2.1 Fee
CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT at a fixed rate of ($125)per hour
("Hourly Rate"),which includes all labor and costs,and in any case an amount not to exceed
two thousand dollars ($2,000)annually for services as described in Article 1.The Hourly Rate
shall be in effect through the end of this Agreement.
2.2 Payment Address
All payments due CONSULTANT shall be paid to:
Mr.David Hayes,Consulting Arborist
1124 N.Lindendale Avenue
Fullerton,CA 92831
2.3 Terms of Compensation
CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices for the work and number of work
hours completed in the previous month.CITY agrees to authorize payment for all undisputed
invoice amounts within thirty (30)days of receipt of each invoice.CITY agrees to use its best
efforts to notify CONSULTANT of any disputed invoice amounts within ten (10)days of the
receipt of each invoice.However,CITY's failure to timely notify CONSULTANT of a disputed
amount shall not be deemed a waiver of CITY's right to challenge such amount or percentage.
Additionally,in the event CITY fails to pay any undisputed amounts due
CONSULTANT within forty-five (45)days after invoices are received by CITY then CITY
agrees that CONSULTANT shall have the right to consider said default a total breach of this
Agreement and be terminated by CONSULTANT without liability to CONSULTANT upon ten
(10)working days advance written notice.
Page 2 of 9
R6876-0001\1349852v1.doc
Memorandum:Appeal of Special Use Permit (Case No.ZON2010-00366)
May 17,2011
refunded to a successful appellant"and "[if]an appeal results in modifications to the project,other
than the changes specifically requested in the appeal,then one-half of the appeal fee shall be
refunded to the successful appellant."If this appeal is upheld in full or in part,then the appellant
shall be entitled to a full or partial refund of the appeal fee.The cost of any such refund shall be
borne by the City's General Fund.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,below are alternatives for the City Council to consider:
1.)Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Special
Use Permit for the continued use of two existing temporary modular buildings for an
additional nine (9)years,and direct Staff to prepare a revised resolution for adoption at the
next City Council meeting.
2.)Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Special
Use Permit for the continued use of two existing temporary modular buildings for a modified
time period,and direct Staff to prepare a revised resolution for adoption at the next City
Council meeting.
3.)Identify any issues of concern with the request,provide direction to Staff and/or the
applicant/appellant,and continue this matter to a date certain.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2011-_
•Appeal letter received from John J.Resich,dated March 30,2011
•E-mails and correspondence received from the public
•Minutes from the March 22,2011 Planning Commission meeting
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated March 22,2011
21-7
RESOLUTION NO.2011-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2010-366),WITH PREJUDICE,FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF TWO (2)TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS
AT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK,LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN
AVENUE.
WHEREAS,on April 7,2005,the Community Development Director approved a
Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00217),thereby allowing for two (2)
temporary modular buildings of six hundred seventy-two square feet (672 SF)and nine
hundred sixty square feet (960 SF)to be used while the main Administration Building
was being remodeled at Green Hills Memorial Park;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2007,the Community Development Director granted
a one-time,one-year extension of the Special Use Permit in order to allow additional
time for the Administration Building to finish construction;and
WHEREAS,on June 2007,the Building Administration building permit was
finaled by the Building and Safety Division;and,
WHEREAS,on November 11,2008,the Planning Commission denied a request
to allow the two (2)temporary modular buildings to remain permanently on the subject
site;and,
WHEREAS,on February 9,2009,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a request
for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)to allow for continued
use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years,from 2009
through 2015;and,
WHEREAS,on July 9,2009,the Community Development Director approved the
Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033)for continued use of the two
(2)temporary modular buildings for an additional three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on July 24,2009,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Director's approval,requesting that the Planning Commission revise the Conditions of
Approval to allow the temporary modular buildings for an additional six (6)years instead
of the approved three (3)months;and,
WHEREAS,on September 22,2009,the Planning Commission denied the
appeal,upholding the Director's decision,but modifying the conditions to allow the
temporary modular buildings to remain for one (1)year from the date of the decision;
and,
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 1 of 4
21-8
WHEREAS,on September 22,2010,approval of the Special Use Permit expired
(Planning Case No.ZON2009-00033);and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2010,Green Hills Memorial Park submitted a new
request for a Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366)to allow for
continued use of the two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)
years,until the year 2020;and,
WHEREAS,on January 5,2011,the Community Development Director denied
the Special Use Permit (Planning Case No.ZON2010-00366)for continued use of the
two (2)temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020;
and,
WHEREAS,on January 18,2011,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of
the Director's denial,requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Director's
decision to deny the Special Use Permit application for the continued use of the two
temporary modular buildings for an additional nine (9)years;and,
WHEREAS,on March 22,2011,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2011-15,thereby denying the appeal,upholding the Director's decision
of denial of the Special Use Permit request;and,
WHEREAS,on March 30,2011,the project applicant filed a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of the request for a Special Use Permit to the City
Council,requesting that the original application be ,granted;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a dUly-noticed public hearing to
consider the project applicant's appeal on May 17,2011,at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council finds that the applicant's appeal is unwarranted
and is,therefore,denied.The appeal raises no new issues and provides no information
or evidence that warrants overturning the decision of the Planning Commission in
denying the requested Special Use Permit for continued use of the existing two
temporary modular buildings.While the appeal requests for an additional nine (9)years
of continued use,the applicant does not indicate any intention of filing an application to
revise the Conditional Use Permit to provide permanent structures to accommodate
needed office space for the function of the business nor any intention to remove the
structures from the site,as was conditioned in previously granted Special Use Permits
for the two temporary modular buildings.
Section 2:The Special Use Permit grants approval for temporary uses of land
involving the erection of temporary structure ...or any other similar activity conducted for
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 2 of 4
21-9
a temporary period,as stated in Section 17.62.020 of the Municipal Code.The
requested nine (9)years of continued use of these two temporary modular buildings is
not a temporary time period request and as such the Special Use Permit is the not the
appropriate application for such a request,without application for a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit for permanent structures.
Section 3:The purpose of the Special Use Permit is for temporary special
uses and developments which.may result in an adverse effect on surrounding
properties.An additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020,of continued use of the
temporary modular buildings would have a significant adverse impact on surrounding
properties because the two temporary modular buildings look temporary and do not
appear compatible with the other buildings on the SUbject site,nor the buildings on the
surrounding properties.Any modification or alteration to the two temporary modular
buildings that would be appropriate for long-term use would need to be reviewed
through a.revision to the Conditional Use Permit,not through application of a Special
Use Permit.
Section 4:The two temporary modular buildings will be detrimental to the
public health,safety and welfare because the request is for long-term use of temporary
structures that have far exceeded the scope of the special use permits that were
approved by the City.The temporary structures have not been reviewed and permitted
for long-term use.There are no proposed plans to construct permanent facilities in
place of these two temporary modular buildings,am;J there is no pending application to
oonvert these structures to permanent use,by which necessary conditions wbuld be
implemented to appropriately modify the structures for permanent use and to address
aesthetic issues.Under these circumstances,allowing them to reside long-term in their
current location without the appropriate development,building and geologic review that
would address long-term or permanent use would be detrimental to the public welfare.
Section 5:For the foregoing reasons and based upon the information and
findings included in the Staff Rep~rt,Minutes and other records of proceedings,the City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal and upholds the
Planning Commission's denial,with prejudice,of a Special Use Permit (Planning Case
No.ZON2010-00366)to allow two (2)temporary modular buildings to continue to be
used at Green Hills Memorial Park for an additional nine (9)years,until the year 2020.
Section 6:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought if governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2011.
Tom Long,Mayor
ATIEST:
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 3 of 4
21-10
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby
certify that the whole numbers of the City Council of said City is five;that the foregoing
Ordinance No._was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting thereof held on May 1th ,2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
City Clerk
Resolution No.2011-_
Page 4 of4
21-11