20150901 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 1, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
J
1
Respectfu I ly
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Emails from: Sunshine; Lenee Bilski
Letters from: Michael N. Friedman; Ellen Berkowitz;
Revised Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval); Exhibit B
(Potential Future 2nd Interment); Exhibit C (Pacific Terrace
Rooftop -Interments)
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, August 31, 2015**.
W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150901 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Monday, August 31, 2015 4:50 PM
cc
Doug Willmore; Lauren Ramezani; Cory Linder; cprotem73@verizon.net
Sept 1 Council Item J
TO: RPV City Council. Copy to City Manager, City Attorney and interested parties
RE: September 1, 2015 City Council Consent Calendar Item J. Deed Restrictions added to public property.
Do not move to approve this recommendation. Deed restrictions do not enhance our trail system, citizen
involvement nor public outreach. The 90 page Staff Report does not clearly and legally describe what property
is recommended to be burdened with these deed restrictions. Do understand that a deed restriction in perpetuity
means that no future City Council may pursue some other land use.
Either the Staff was incorrect in 2005, they are incorrect now, or the RPV Open Space Planning and Rec. &
Parks Task Force/the public was misled in 2005.
A few years ago, I did the research and I did the math on the Hon property purchase. "Gateway Park" was
created by private donor funds. Divide the purchase price by the number of acres and you get a dollars per acre
number. The number of acres which did not need to be deed restricted because they were purchased with
available private funds came to seventy-five (75) acres. Prove me wrong.
Gateway Park is a moving target (pun intended). Staff has not yet produced a legal lot line between the deed
restricted nature preserve and the not deed restricted parkland. The lot lines stay the same no matter how much
the landslide moves the surface dirt.
Please do not record deed restrictions on land which could be useful for other activities sometime in the future.
1
Teresa Takaoka
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sept. 2, 2015
Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:39 PM
cc
Carla Morreale
CC agenda item J
Dear Mayor Knight and City Council members Brooks, Duhovic, Campbell, and Misetich,
Who started this??? We should not be imposing deed restrictions now without good reason.
I am opposed to putting deed restrictions on the part of the Hon property that the City
acquired with private finds. That was ten years ago. The purchase of the Hon property was partly
funded with private money and with matching grant money from the Annenberg Foundation. as well
as the County grant money. The private money did not require deed restrictions. Now there is claim
that if even A PORTION of the purchase was with grant money the deed restrictions must be imposed
on the WHOLE property. If that was part of the "deal" the City should never have stated that part of
the property would Not have deed restrictions. If the Sept. 1 Staff Report is correct, then the public
was misinformed .years ago.
Perhaps there was some error made in 2005 when the understanding was that one part of the
property would NOT be deed restricted. This was about 75 acres, but staff has not provided a
property line map showing this. Are these proposed deed restrictions going to be placed on Malaga
Canyon which is not in any proximity to Portuguese Bend? Have any deed restriction been recorded
on Three Sisters and Filiorum land purchases?
from Staff Repor t" The purpose of spreading the grant funds among various properties was to assure that all
those acquired properties were also eligible for M & S funds, which help reduce the City's General Fund
expenditures for future maintenance costs of the acquired properties."
Putting deed restrictions on property indiscriminately precludes any other potential future
use. This is NOT something I want for the part of the Hon property that is supposed to be
parkland. (aka Gateway Park)
There are many amendments listed in the staff report. Perhaps the City should file another request
for an amendment to remove that part of the Hon property purchase (aka Gateway Park) so that
deed restrictions are not required on what has been described as "parkland" instead of "preserve"
land. The Task Force proposed it a.parkland, Director Rojas defined it. However, it has never been
recorded.
I see a Recommendation and a Conclusion but not Alternative in the Staff Report.
I propose an alternative: that you vote to remove a part of the land from this deed
restricting recordation . Please file a request for such an Amendment before closing out this grant.
Thank you!
Ever vigilant,
Lenee Bilski
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Council Members
Michael Friedman <mnfesq@gmail.com>
Monday, August 31, 2015 5:23 PM
CC; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carla Morreale
'Brian Carter'; 'sharon loveys'; 'Matt Martin'; 'Veronica Lawlor'; 'Curtis Wuestenhagen'
Green Hills Appeal -VVOA Letter to City Council
Letter to City Council.August 31.pdf
Attached please find the letter of the Vista Verde Owners Association in opposition to the Green Hills appeal, which has
been set for hearing as Item No. 1 at your September 1, 2015, meeting. Please contact me if you have any difficulty
opening the attachment. Thank you.
Michael Friedman
Michael f\J. Friedman
H!RSCHl:H.:FtG & U.P
5023 N. Calabasas
Calabasas, 91302~1421
(~U8) 225·9593
Cell (818) 642w0822
Email mnfesq@hfllp.com
Website www.hfllp.com
1 I
HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP
5023 N. PARKWAY CALABASAS
CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302-1421
• LESLIE D. HIRSCHBERG
MICHAEL N. FRIEDMAN
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
EMAIL ldhesq@hfllp.com
EMAIL mnfesq@hfllp.com
August 31, 2015
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Annual Review
27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
CASE NO. ZON2003-00086
TELEPHONE (818) 225-9593
FACSIMILE (818) 225-9593
Green Hills' Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-29
Hearing Date: September 1, 2015 Agenda Item No. 1
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This office represents the Vista Verde Homeowners Association in connection with
its support of PC Resolution No. 2014-29 and its opposition to Green Hills' appeal thereof.
The Vista Verde Homeowners Association is comprised of the owners of the 25
condominium units located adjacent to the northern border of Green Hills Memorial Park,
precisely where Green Hills constructed its Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, aka Pacific
Terrace Mausoleum, after illegally obtaining permission to relocate the mausoleum in 2007
to only 8-feet from its common boundary with the Vista Verde condominium complex.
On January 12, 2015, prior to the initial hearing on this matter, this office submitted
a letter for the City Council's review. I have attached a copy of said letter hereto as
Attachment 1 and ask that you consider said letter in addition to the comments set forth
herein.
In January, the independent report regarding the processing of the Green Hills Master
Plan Revision in 2007 was not yet complete.1 Now that the report has been completed, it
1The independent report, entitled Administrative Investigation for the City ofRancho
Palos Verdes, dated March 11, 2015, was not included in the staff report for this matter.
Because the subject matter of the report covers the grounds for the Planning Commission's
resolution, I am incorporating herein by reference the entire report and its numerous
attachments so that it will be included in any administrative record prepared in the event of
Ci) Printed on Recycled Paper
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page2
appears manifest that a requirement for Green Hills to submit an application for a variance
for the setback of the mausoleum from its common property line with Vista Verde is wholly
inadequate to deal with all of the deficiencies in the entitlement process meticulously detailed
in the independent report.
Based upon the findings of the independent report, which will be detailed below, Vista
Verde submits ( 1) Green Hills submitted knowingly inaccurate and conflicting information
which was relied upon by City staff and the Planning Commission which supports a
revocation of Green Hills current conditional use permit as it pertains to Area 11 ofits master
plan; (2) the conditional use permit allowing changes to Area 11 of the Green Hills Master
Plan was improperly approved as to height, location and rooftop burial sites, and a new
conditional use permit application should be required for all Area 11 revisions; (3) Green
Hills does not have a vested right to continue selling burial plots on the mausoleum rooftop
and indoor mausoleum crypts within the setback mandated by the City's development
standards contained in its municipal code; and ( 4) a moratorium should be imposed on Green
Hills' sale of burial plots on the rooftop of the mausoleum and on crypts located inside the
mausoleum which are within the City's mandated setback from residential property.
As a result, Green Hills' conditional use permit as to Area 11 of its revised master
plan should be revoked and all matters pertaining to the development of Area 11, including
the proposed variance of the setback between the Green Hills and Vista Verde properties,
should be reviewed anew, this time properly. Vista Verde further submits that, given the
history of Green Hills permit processing with the City, the City should hire a private
independent reviewing company to process the new variance/CUP applications.
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code§ 17 .86.060, entitled "Suspension or revocation
of permits," provides:
"The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant
to the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized
for approving such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if:
A. The permit was issued erroneously; or
B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent
a judicial review of this matter. Because of its volume, I am not attaching the report hereto.
In the unlikely event that any council member has not already reviewed the report, it is
available from the City Clerk.
Ci} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 3
information supplied by the applicant; or
C. The permit was issued contrary to the prov1s10ns of the
Municipal Code; or
D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to
the terms or conditions of such permit.
No permit shall be revoked prior to providing a ten calendar day written
notice to the holder of the permit and an opportunity to be heard before the
officer or body considering revocation or suspension of the permit. Any
decision to revoke or not to revoke a permit, other than a decision by the city
council, may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 17 .80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title."
Vista Verde requested the Planning Commission to institute revocation proceedings
on August 8, 2014. In lieu thereof, the Planning Commission resolved to require Green Hills
to submit a variance application. Vista Verde formally renews its request to the City
Council to commence CUP revocation proceedings at once and require Green Hills to
resubmit a new CUP application as to al/Area 11 development, now existing or proposed
for the future. As set forth below, the independent report provides substantial evidence that
Green Hills' revised master plan approvals regarding Area 11 were issued erroneously,
contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Code, were based on false information supplied
by Green Hills and that construction of the mausoleum pursuant to its approvals were in
violation thereof.
Green Hills Submitted Knowingly Inaccurate and Conflicting Information in
Support of its Application Thereby Justifying a Revocation of its CUP as to Area
11 of its Master Plan
On January 26, 2005, Green Hills submitted its application for a revised conditional
use permit and grading permit. This is the application which resulted in the City's 2007
approval. The application is attached hereto as Attachment 2. The application requests
Green Hills to "[d]escribe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development." Green
Hills' architect, Barry Boudreaux, responded:
"Ground burial section development, above and below grade
mausoleum buildings, construction of internal cemetery road system."
e Printed on Recycled Paper
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park-Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page4
That's it-that's Green Hills' detailed description of its project. But the application
continues by asking Green Hills to "[ e ]xplain how the site for the proposed use is adequate
in size and shape to accommodate the use." Green Hills responds:
"Usages proposed are extensions of existing cemetery use. Setbacks
and heights are within existing 1991 approved master plan."
That was a blatantly false statement. The map submitted by Green Hills along with
its application depicted a westward extension of the Area 11 mausoleum adjacent and within
8 feet of the Vista Verde condominium complex. Notwithstanding this, Barry Boudreaux,
on behalf of Green Hills, signed the application stating"
"I HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information
and materials submitted with this application are true and correct."
The application fails to state that the mausoleum in Area 11 would be located adjacent
to the Vista Verde complex, that it would have rooftop burial sites, that it would be
constructed higher than the height elevations for mausoleums approved in the 1991 master
plan, and that it would be located only 8 feet from Green Hills' common property line with
Vista Verde. These were material misrepresentations and omissions in Green Hills'
application and, notwithstanding the fact that it knew precisely what it would be building at
some future date, it never sought to correct the record and accurately state what it was
proposmg.
In a January 16, 2015, report, the Lily Planning Group made the following finding:
"In the consultant's review ofrelated documents including: staff reports,
resolutions, meeting minutes, environmental documentation, plans, written
correspondence, permits, exhibits and e-mail correspondence, several
inconsistencies and process errors were discovered with respect to the Master
Plan development and construction of Area 11 of Green Hills Memorial
Park."2
The Lily Planning Group report relevantly continues:
2The Lily Planning Group report is Exhibit Q to the independent report. The Lily
Planning Group had no reason or incentive to make any false or inaccurate statements in its
report and Vista Verde submits it is entitled to great weight by the City Council.
C'i) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 5
"Throughout the entitlement process for the Master Plan
ZON2003-00086 project, the applicant misrepresented the size and
configuration of the MTM building. Each applicant resubmittal would build
on previously submitted plans and representations of the size associated with
the "original" MTM (CUP No. 155) approval. Acknowledging that the
applicant continually confused the situation with unresponsive piecemeal
information and misrepresentations; nevertheless, it appears that the project
manager took applicant representations at face value without verification. Had
the planning project manager compared each plan resubmittal to previous
submittal packages, the increased size would have been discovered."
* * *
"Similar to the historical expansion of the Memorial (Pacific Terrace)
Mausoleum Building, an expansion of rooftop internments atop the building
were inadvertently approved. The original 1991 Master Plan included a 2 7, 007
square foot area for ground burials and along with 11,326 square feet of family
estate area within Area 11. Both burial types were dedicated as ground level
internments. The initial ZON2003-00086 application proposed an increased
ground burial area (34,848 square feet). It also introduced a proposal to reduce
the family estate area to 8, 712 square feet and relocate it (i.e., family estate
area only) atop the Mausoleum building.
By the time the application was presented and approved by the Planning
Commission in 2007, reference to the size of ground and family estate areas
vanished and discussion of additional internments was limited only to the
rooftop of the Mausoleum building. As the size of the building expanded, so
did the rooftop internment area. We were unable to locate any record or
evidence that staff analyzed these modifications or was cognizant of the
relocation or expansion altogether."
* * *
"Among a host of other modifications, the applicant proposed a
modification to the staff recommended setback Condition of Approval No. 7.
An edited version of the proposed modification presented to staff and the
Commission follows:
e Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 6
7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not
limited to mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum and
the Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan
Revision) and crypts shall be as follows:
North: 80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road,
whichever is greater (8'-0" for the western-most portion of the
Mausoleum shown in Area 11 ).
South: 40'-0"
East: 25'-0"
West: 5'-0"
The April 24, 2007 StaffReport for ZON2003-00086 outlined applicant
proposed condition modifications into three categories: those that were
acceptable to staff, those that were acceptable with additional revisions by staff
and those with modifications that were unacceptable to staff (Exhibit L ). There
was no staff report discussion of applicant proposed modifications that were
acceptable to staff and the modified setback condition of approval (no. 7) was
among the modified conditions in that category. As a result of the applicant's
misrepresentation and staffs reliance on its submittal without a thorough
review, PC Resolution 07-33 was approved with Condition of Approval No.
7 language, as modified by the applicant. The record shows no analysis,
written discussion with the applicant or verbal discussion/deliberation at the
Planning Commission Meeting regarding this Condition of Approval."
* * *
"As discussed in the previous Comprehensive Peer Review
Memorandum, the height requirements for mausoleum buildings within Green
Hills Memorial Park have fluctuated from 20 to 30 feet maximum throughout
the development period. At the time the Memorial (Pacific) Terrace
Mausoleum was approved, two conflicting standards were adopted. The
Resolution of Approval for ZON2003-00086 adopted in 2007 includes a
Condition of Approval that states, "With the exception of the mausoleum
building on Inspiration Slope, all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed
(il Printed on Recycled Paper
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 7
20-feet in height as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade
at the front of the building to the highest point of the structure and 3 0-feet
when measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the
highest point of the structure." The Master Plan Revision Booklet which was
also adopted with the project, indicates that the maximum height for the
building would be an average of 20-feet maximum and no more than 25-feet
at any point. The oversight created an inconsistency that would make it
difficult to review at the plan check stage of development.
Regardless of this inconsistency, the building that was constructed is
not compliant with either standard. Nor is it compliant with the elevation
representations depicted as part of the plans approved as the "Master Plan
Submittal Package" with ZON2003-00086. Yet, the project manager approved
both the construction plans and height certification at a height of3 0 feet for the
entire length of the building."3
The foregoing excerpts from the Lily Planning Group's report evidence that, at every
stage, Green Hills has misled, deceived and obfuscated all aspects of the Area 11
development encompassed in its 2005 application/2007 approval.
31t is significant that City staff continues to favor Green Hills at the expense of the
City's authority and the rights of Vista Verde residents with respect to the height of the
mausoleum. While the fact is that the mausoleum was constructed in non-compliance with
the City's approvals, staff now proposes, at pages 11-12, to clarify Condition No. 38
regarding the manner in which the height of the mausoleum is measured. As proposed, the
revised condition makes the non-conforming height of the mausoleum conforming. Staff
never says this in its report and it is doubtful that the City Council could know this on its
own. However, if this condition did not make the non-conforming height conforming, why
would staff make no recommendation to correct this condition? The City Council should not
be tricked into approving a post-hoc height increase for the existing mausoleum in the guise
of a clarification. This type of deception appears to be ongoing and is not restricted to the
one city employee who resigned as a result of this matter.
e Printed on Recycled Paper
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park-Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 8
Green Hills' CUP Was Improperly Approved as to Area 11 of its Master Plan
Vista Verde submits that the City's review of Green Hills' conditional use permit
application failed to address the location, height and rooftop burial sites of the mausoleum.
The independent report, at pages 77-81, concludes, in part, as follows:
"The evidence developed during the course of the investigation clearly
showed that Senior Planner Eduardo Schonbom failed to perform in a
satisfactory and competent manner during the time frame of January 2007
through April 2007 as it related to his work performance and oversight
responsibilities respective to the Green Hills Memorial Park project."
* * *
"RCS Investigators concluded that Director Joel Rojas failed to
adequately review the Green Hills Memorial Park "Modified Conditions of
Approval Proposed by Applicant" document that was referenced in and
attached to the April 2007 staff report prepared by Senior Planner Eduardo
Schonbom. The modified conditions of approval document clearly outlined
changes in property line setbacks, which ultimately had a significant impact
on Vista Verde condominium residents/owners."
* * *
"RCS Investigators concluded that Deputy Community Development
Director Greg Pfost failed to adequately review the Green Hills Memorial Park
"Modified Conditions of Approval Proposed by Applicant" document that was
referenced in and attached to the April 2007 staff report prepared by Senior
Planner Eduardo Schonbom. The modified conditions of approval document
clearly outlined changes in property line setbacks, which ultimately had a
significant impact on Vista Verde condominium residents/owners."
The report further identifies areas in which City staff incompetence contributed to the
improper approval of the Green Hills revised master plan, stating, in part:
"RCS Investigators reviewed a Rancho Palos Verdes "Public
Notice-Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated February 6, 2007.
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 9
The public notice was prepared by Eduardo Schonborn and was posted for
public review on February 20, 2007. The public notice that was created by
Schonborn was inadequate with respect to identifying the location where the
Memorial Pacific Terrace Mausoleum would be built, specifically along the
Vista Verde condominium complex property line. The notice described an
addition to a previously approved mausoleum building located southeast of the
existing maintenance yard. The previously approved mausoleum building was
actually south and not southeast of the existing maintenance yard. . .
Regardless, the public notice created by Eduardo Schonborn did not include
sufficient information to properly inform Vista Verde condominium
residents/owners that a mausoleum would be constructed eight feet from their
property line.4
The foregoing conclusions contained in the independent report are not mere
contentions; they are established facts supported by substantial evidence and the review of
competent independent investigators. These findings should be neither disregarded nor
minimized by the City in its review of Green Hills' appeal. Green Hills took a calculated risk
that, by appealing the decision of the City's Planning Commission, it could obtain a worse
result than if it had merely complied with the Planning Commission's decision. The City
Council has no legal or moral basis to award Green Hills with a decision that is more
favorable than the Planning Commission's. Yet, City staff is recommending just that. Green
Hills has not earned the City Council's favor by its deceptive practices and the City Council
should express outrage at its conduct in this matter and subject Green Hills' Area 11 master
plan revisions to new and legally-appropriate scrutiny.
4Not only did the notice fail to accurately state the location of the proposed
mausoleum expansion, it also failed to state that it would include rooftop burial sites or that
its height would be 35 feet above finished grade. Because this information was not gleaned
by City staff from the plans submitted by Green Hills, it was also not addressed in the City's
initial study or approved mitigated negative declaration. The City never performed a proper
and adequate environmental review of the Area 11 development because it never clearly
stated on paper what that development would include. As a result, an analysis of its likely
environmental impacts was impossible and, accordingly, was never performed.
ti' Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 10
Green Hills' Approval Regarding Area 11 Fails to Comply With the City's
Municipal Code and its Construction of the Mausoleum Failed to Comply With its
Approval
The facts found by the independent report establish that Green Hills' approval failed
to comply with Municipal Code § 17 .60.050 regarding the required findings to approve an
application for a conditional use permit and Municipal Code § 17 .28.040 regarding cemetery
height limits and setbacks from residential zones.
The independent report provides, at page 7, in part, as follows:
"The importance of the Rancho Palos Verdes Cemetery Ordinance was
that it called for a rear setback of 40 feet for structures abutting a residential
zoning district and the Memorial Pacific Terrace Mausoleum was built eight
feet from the Palos Verdes condominium complex property line. Green Hills
Memorial Park did not submit a formal "variance" request to deviate from the
40 foot setback requirement before the master plan amendment was approved
in 2007. It appeared as though Schonborn failed to properly research the
Cemetery Ordinance and the 40 foot setback requirement for structures
abutting a residential zone, before his staff report was submitted to the
Planning Commission in 2007 ."
The staff report for this matter, dated September 1, 2015, recommends that the City
Council require Green Hills to submit a variance application due to the mausoleum's failure
to comply with Municipal Code §17.28.040. While Vista Verde supports this
recommendation, it contends that the recommendation does not go far enough and is not
adequate to address all of the improprieties that occurred in the processing of Green Hills'
master plan revision application, at least as it pertains to Area 11. Moreover, the variance
should address all of the non-conformities with the Planning Commission's 2007 approval
and not just the setback requirement.
The Planning Commission never approved rooftop burial sites nor did it approve the
height to which the mausoleum was actually built. This was addressed previously in the Lily
Planning Group report and will not be repeated but it is incorporated by reference into this
argument. Neither the Planning Commission nor the public knew that the mausoleum would
have more than 400 burial sites on the rooftop of the mausoleum and that funeral services
would be conducted on the rooftop, bringing those funeral services, associated set-up and
tear-down, and landscape maintenance activities within earshot of Vista Verde's residents.
Ci) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 11
The proposed variance application alone will not allow the City to review or mitigate
all of the significant impacts resulting from the mausoleum's height and rooftop burial sites.
The operating conditions contained in the staff report are not sufficient to address these
impacts and are premised on the validity and legality of Green Hills' 2007 approvals. The
City should consider all of the impacts from Green Hills' mausoleum and can only do so if
revokes Green Hills' CUP as to Area 11 and require it to submit a new CUP application.
The City Council Should Adopt a Moratorium Until a Final Decision is Reached
on Green Hills' Variance and/or CUP Applications
The City's Planning Commission adopted a moratorium in connection with its
Resolution No. 2014-029, from which Green Hills appeals, based upon the following:
"Section 1: Pursuant to Conditions of Approval Nos. AQ-14 and N-3
contained in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33, which state that: "The project shall
be reviewed by the Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date
of final approval, to review the applicant's compliance with all conditions of
approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that
time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of
approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as well as increase the time
between review periods. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and
provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting
notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in
accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.",
during the annual review, the Planning Commission has the ability to add,
delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and
appropriate by the Planning Commission.
Section 2: Consistent with the aforementioned conditions, this determination
includes incorporating additional conditions of approval within, and revising
existing conditions of approval of, the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan, to
address the visual, privacy and noise impacts associated with the rooftop
burials on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building (Area
11) upon the adjacent Vista Verde Condominium complex located in the City
of Lomita and to address existing violations of the Green Hills Master Plan. In
addition, because there are existing violations of the Green Hills Master Plan
due to interments within the required sixteen-foot setback along the north
property line from the west property line to the maintenance yard and the
(j Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park-Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 12
impermissible construction of structures and above-ground interments within
five feet of the western property line, a moratorium is hereby imposed on
further interments within the required setbacks.
Section 3: Notwithstanding Section 17.80.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, as a result of the observed visual, privacy and noise impacts
associated with the rooftop burials on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building (Area 11 ), and due to inconsistencies between the
conditions of approval and the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building, a moratorium is hereby imposed immediately on the
burials and sale of plots on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum in Area 11."
The Planning Commission conducted numerous public hearings and spent hours in
open meetings hearing testimony from Vista Verde residents and Green Hills representatives
alike. It was the entity that heard the original Green Hills application and it determined that
a moratorium was appropriate to prevent innocent members of the public from being harmed
by Green Hills actions and becoming unwilling participants in this situation by being sold
cemetery plots in and on the mausoleum.
The City Council was incorrectly advised by its legal counsel that the Planning
Commission's moratorium was rendered moot by Green Hills' appeal, but more importantly,
the City Council has never seen fit to take its own action in support of the City's own
Planning Commission's well-reasoned temporary solution to this problem. Rather, the City
Council chose to support Green Hills by failing to act on any interim measure for nearly one
year. During that time, Green Hills has continued to bury more people on the rooftop of the
mausoleum and has continued to sell still more rooftop burial plots.
The City Council has given Green Hills a totally unwarranted profit source by
allowing it to continue to sell burial plots in an illegal structure and allowing it to flagrantly
disregard the City's ordinances and authority. In the process, Green Hills pitted unwary
burial plot customers against the Vista Verde residents.
The process of applying for and obtaining a variance, including initial proceedings
before the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to the City Council, is likely to take
many months if not more than a year to complete. During that time, the mausoleum is
deemed an illegal structure or, at a minimum, a structure which has not been approved for
its intended use.
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014-029
August 31, 2015
Page 13
Municipal Code § 17 .86.050, entitled "Disqualification for Violation," provides, in
subdivision A, in part, as follows:
"A. The city shall not accept for processing or grant:
1. Any application for a development, use or other
permit or entitlement on any lot or parcel on
which the director has verified that a violation of
this Code exists;
* * *
An application may be accepted or granted by the city if the subject
lot or parcel is brought into compliance with this Municipal Code, either by
removing the violation or by submitting an application to legalize the
violation and a permit or approval is granted pursuant to Section
17.86.050(B) of this chapter."
The City's own Municipal Code mandates that, for a non-conforming structure, an
application must be accepted to bring it into conformity and the application must be granted.
That is the most important reason for imposing a moratorium in this case -to compel Green
Hills to promptly obey the City's requirement that it submit an application for a variance and
that it seek a final determination on that application. In the absence of a moratorium, Green
Hills has absolutely no incentive to comply with the City's requirements because it can
continue to conduct business as usual without cooperating with the City. Should the City be
forced to prosecute Green Hills for a violation, Green Hills has the ability and the incentive
to tie-up the City in court for years and can pay for the cost of doing so by selling additional
rooftop burial plots on its non-conforming mausoleum.
The independent report clearly implicates wrong-doing on the part of Green Hills and
incompetence on the part of City staff. It did not, however, find any wrong-doing or failure
to act on the part of Vista Verde residents. Vista Verde residents have been lied to, cheated,
given a run-around and otherwise neglected as their rights have been disregarded. On the
other hand, Green Hills has been allowed to profit from illegal and fraudulent conduct. The
Planning Commission knew this and the people of Rancho Palos Verdes know it as well.
The City Council cannot and should not turn a blind eye to the rights and sensibilities of
Vista Verde's residents any longer. The time has come for the City to take long-overdue
action to vindicate its laws, its authority and the rights of the Vista Verde residents.
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park-Appeal of PC Resolution No. 2014 -029
August 31 , 2015
Page 14
Please put an end to Green Hills' profit-taking from selling any further cemetery plots
in its Memorial Terrarce/Pacific Terrace Mausoleum until such time as it has been brought
into compliance with the City's laws and approvals.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter. I will be available at the meeting of
September 1, 2015, to answer any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP
cc: Mr. Brian Carter
Attachments
('f) Printed on Recycl ed Paper.
LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL,
DATED JANUARY 12, 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP
5023 N. PARKWAY CALABASAS
CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302-1421
LESLIE D. HIRSCHBERG
MICHAEL N. FRIEDMAN
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
EMAIL ldhesq@hfllp.com
EMAIL mnfesq@hfllp.com
January 12, 2015
TELEPHONE (818) 225-9593
FACSIMILE (818) 225-9593
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
CASE NO. ZON2003-00086
Green Hills' Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-29
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This office represents the Vista Verde Homeowners Association in connection with
its support of PC Resolution No. 2014-29 and its opposition to Green Hills' appeal thereof.
The Vista Verde Homeowners Association is comprised of the owners of the 25
condominium units located adjacent to the northern border of Green Hills Memorial Park,
precisely where Green Hills recently constructed its Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, aka
Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, after illegally obtaining permission to relocate the mausoleum
in 2007 to only 8-feet from its common boundary with the Vista Verde condominium
complex.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Green Hills provides the council with a "laundry list" of grounds for appeal with no
clear framework in which they apply. This appeal is really quite simple and does not require
so many grounds either for appeal or support of the Planning Commission's decision. The
council need not be overwhelmed by the number of arguments made by Green Hills' counsel
and should seek clarity and simplicity rather than complexity in reviewing the Planning
Commission's decision. Vista Verde submits that the issues on appeal are limited to the
following:
1. Was the location of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum properly approved in
the 2007 Master Plan Revision?
A. If so, does the City have the authority to require Green Hills to apply
(i} Printed_ on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 2
for a variance to address adverse impacts caused by the Mausoleum's
proximity to the Vista Verde condominiums?
B. If not, does the City have the authority to require Green Hills to apply
for a variance for its non-conforming setback?
2. Does the Planning Commission have the authority to impose a moratorium to
maintain the status quo while Green Hills' variance application is being
processed?
The City Council's staff report also simplifies the issues on appeal. However, Vista
Verde submits thatthe staff report's analysis is incomplete. Essentially, the staff report takes
the position that, if Green Hills misled the City into issuing its approval of the Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum, then Green Hills does not have a vested right to keep the structure as-is
and the City may require modifications thereto. However, if Green Hills did not mislead the
City into approving the mausoleum, then Green Hills does have a vested right and the City
cannot require it to change the structure. The problem with this analysis is that it leaves out
the rights of Vista Verde entirely. It fails to consider whether public notice was not properly
given and the impact of inadequate and erroneous public notice on the vested rights issue.
Vista Verde submits that all of the requirements for a validly-issued approval must be
considered when analyzing the propriety of the mausoleum's approval and not merely
whether or not the City was misled.
1. The Location of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum Was Not Properly
Approved in the 2007 Master Plan Revision
In Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d
785, the California Supreme Court established the rule in California that a vested right can
only arise "if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial
liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government." Id. at 791.
However, the vested right is limited. "Once a landowner has secured a vested right the
government may not, by virtue of a change in the zoning laws, prohibit construction
authorized by the permit upon which he relied." Ibid.
In McAllister v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, the
court states that, "when a developer starts a project without any permit or under an invalid
permit-i.e., one that was issued in violation of existing zoning or environmental laws-the
developer does not gain a vested right to complete the project; and, in the latter situation, the
$ Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 3
government is not estopped from challenging the validity of the permit even if the developers
expended resources in reliance on it." Id. at 948.
Vista Verde submits that Green Hills' Memorial Mausoleum presents a case where
the applicant constructed the mausoleum in its entirety, sold burial sites to innocent third
parties and commenced the use of the mausoleum, including its rooftop burial sites, all
without ever having obtained a validly-issued approval of its master plan revisions. Vista
Verde contends that the approval for Green Hills' master plan revisions was not validly-
issued because Green Hills and/or members of the City's planning staff, failed to (1)
accurately represent the nature of the project to the Planning Commission and to the public;
(2) disclose the project's obvious impacts on Vista Verde residents; and (3) provide full and
accurate public notice of the project, including the recirculation of the project's proposed
mitigated negative declaration following staffs recommendation of approval of revised
conditions proposed by Green Hills which changed the setback for the mausoleum from
Green Hills' northerly property line from 80-feet to only 8-feet.
A. Green Hills Failed to Provide the City With Full and Accurate
Information Regarding its Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
Before Green Hills proposed changes to the conditions of approval of its revised
master plan, City staff described the project proposed by Green Hills. In its February 27,
2007 agenda report for the Planning Commission, staff described the project, in pertinent
part, as follows:
"Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum): allow an addition to the previously approved mausoleum
building located southeast of the existing maintenance yard, from a 22,187
square foot building footprint to a 33,668 square foot building footprint."
The agenda report provides additional detail regarding the nature of the mausoleum,
stating:
"With approval of the original Master Plan, adequate setbacks for
mausoleum buildings and ground interments were established. These setbacks
will not be modified or reduced with the additional mausoleum buildings. The
additional buildings requested through the revision include additions to the
already approved buildings, thereby making them larger buildings. However,
they will continue to be located with sufficient setback within the cemetery
<i) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page4
site, rather than along its perimeter ... Thus, the setbacks and heights of all
proposed improvements will be consistent with the requirements established
by the prior Master Plan as approved through Resolution No. 91-7 (attached),
and the conditions contained therein will remain in full force and effect unless
specifically modified by this Master Plan Revision."
Additionally, the City's environmental checklist for the project describes the
mausoleum revisions as follows:
"The amendments to the originally approved Master Plan include:
* * *
7) allow a reconfiguration of, and additional area to the
previously approved mausoleum building adjacent (south of) to
the existing maintenance yard (depicted as Area 11, and
named "Memorial Terrace Mausoleum" in the revised master
plan) from a 22,187 square foot building footprint to a 33,668
square foot building footprint." [Emphasis added]
All of the foregoing representations are inaccurate. The location of the Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum was revised so that it would be located primarily south and southwest
of the maintenance yard, not southeast. Were it located southeast of the maintenance yard,
it would not be located adjacent to the Vista Verde condominium complex, and would not
create any adverse impacts for Vista Verde residents. Instead, the mausoleum and access
ramp is located due south of Vista Verde along its entire common property line with Green
Hills. That is a HUGE difference!
Where did these descriptions come from? Did the City make them up or were they
provided by Green Hills? The answer is obvious that the information which is contained in
the staff report and environmental checklist came from Green Hills.1 Assuming that the
1Green Hills has previously asserted before the Planning Commission that the site plan it
submitted in 2006, which was approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, accurately
depicts the size and location of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. Green Hills, however, has never
explained why it remained silent when the City consistently referred to the mausoleum as being
located southeast of the existing maintenance yard. An applicant cannot sit silent in the face of
inaccuracies in a local agency's documents leading up to an approval and then claim good faith
reliance on said approval. It was incumbent upon Green Hills, if it knew that its project was not
(i) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 5
information did not come from Green Hills, what non-nefarious reason would Green Hills
have for failing to disclose to the City the inaccuracies of the project descriptions in the
City's documents? At a minimum, the City should investigate further the source of the
project description that it included in its environmental checklist and Planning Commission
agenda report.
On August 8, 2014, this office submitted a letter to the Planning Commission urging
it to revoke Green Hills conditional use permit based upon false information Green Hills
provided to the Planning Commission to support its application for master plan revisions.
A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
as grounds for the City Council to either revoke Green Hills' conditional use permit or find
that Green Hills does not have a vested right to retain its Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in
its present location.
B. The City Failed to Give Adequate and Accurate Public Notice Before
Approving Green Hills' Application
In Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 15 8
Cal.App.4th 877, the court discussed the role of public notice in land use matters, stating:
"[A ]t every level of the planning process -the Legislature recognizes
the importance of public participation. ([Government Code]§ 65033.) To this
end, the Planning and Zoning Law has declared the policy of the state and the
intent of the Legislature that each state, regional, and local agency concerned
in the planning process involve the public through public hearings, informative
meetings, publicity and other means available to them, and that at such
hearings and other public forums, the public be afforded the opportunity to
respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions. (§
65033, italics [in original].)
With this broader perspective in mind, we return to the statutory
language at issue here. As stated, the notice of the legislative body's hearing
must contain "a general explanation of the matter to be considered."(§ 65094.)
This must be read in conjunction with the state's policy and Legislature's
intent that the public be involved in the planning process and be given "the
being described or analyzed accurately by planning staff, to alert it to that fact before a decision was
made by the Planning Commission based upon inaccurate information.
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 6
opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and
actions." (§ 65033.) Together, there can be little doubt that the purpose of
notice in cases such as this one is to inform the public of the legislative
body's hearing so they will have an opportunity to respond to the planning
commission's recommendation and protect any interests they may have
before the legislative body approves, modifies, or disapproves that
recommendation. If notice could be given before the planning commission
made its recommendation and, therefore, without inclusion of what that
recommendation was, the purpose behind the notice provision would be
ill-served, as the notice would not inform the public to what "clearly defined
alternative objectives, policies, and actions" they would be responding. Id. at
891-892. [Emphasis added; Citations and internal punctuation omitted.]
The public notice herein was filed on February 20, 2007. It erroneously
describes the addition to the mausoleum as follows:
"The Master Plan Revision includes the following: ... Area 11 of the
Master Plan Revision (known as Memorial Terrace Mausoleum): allow an
addition to the previously approved mausoleum building located southeast of
the existing maintenance yard, from a 22, 187 square foot building footprint
to a 33,668 square foot building footprint."
Subsequent to the February 27, 2007, hearing, Green Hills proposed modified
conditions of approval, including Condition No. 7, which reduced the setback for the western
extension of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum from 80 feet to 8 feet. Despite the
significance of the reduction in this setback, and the fact that it reduced the setback to a
distance shorter than that set forth in the City's development standards for cemetery setbacks
from residential properties, no new notice or environmental review of this change took place.
The April 24, 2007, Planning Commission agenda report addresses the public notice
issue, stating:
"Since the project was continued to a date-certain (i.e., April 24, 2007),
a new public notice is not required. Nonetheless, as a courtesy, Staff informed
the 36 interested parties of the new hearing date via mail, which resulted in one
verbal comment from a nearby resident that will be addressed in more detail
in the Additional Information section of this Memorandum."
f'i Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 7
The condition of approval regarding the setback for the Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum, as modified by Green Hills was Condition No. 7. There is no analysis of this
condition in the agenda report nor explanation about why it is acceptable to staff. Moreover,
despite the significance of this change, particularly as it reduced the setback between the
cemetery and residential property, no new or additional initial study was performed nor was
any mitigation measure proposed to address impacts from the mausoleum with rooftop burial
sites on the adjacent residential property.
CEQA Guidelines § 15073 .5 addresses the rules regarding the recirculation of a
negative declaration prior to its adoption. It states:
"(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration
when the document must be substantially revised after public
notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to
Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. Notice of recirculation
shall comply with Sections 15072 and 15073.
(b) A "substantial revision" of the negative declaration shall mean:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified
and mitigation measures or project revisions must
be added in order to reduce the effect to
insignificance ... "
Here, in order to allow Green Hills to locate its Memorial Terrace Mausoleum where
it is depicted in its site plan (as opposed to its stated location southeast of the maintenance
yard,) the setback from the northerly property line had to be reduced significantly. There is
no document in the City's files explaining why the mausoleum had to be moved so far west
that it would no longer be located southeast of the maintenance yard. The City's files are
absolutely silent on this issue. Given that Green Hills has represented that it does not intend
to ever construct an addition to the mausoleum eastward of the existing structure, it is
difficult to believe that Green Hills wanted anything other than to shift the location of the
mausoleum westward without anyone knowing that was what it intended all along.
The public was totally deceived by the notice given of Green Hills' project. When the
setbacks were changed just prior to the April 24, 2007, hearing, no notice of any kind was
given of that fact. No notice of any kind was given that the mausoleum would be located 8
feet from Vista Verde's southerly property line. Is there any wonder why no Vista Verde
residents appeared at the April 24, 2007, Planning Commission hearing? Vista Verde's
Ci) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 8
residents were clearly and significantly prejudiced by the inadequate and inaccurate notice
they were entitled to receive. Whether or not the blame for this lies with the City, with Green
Hills or with both, it is clear that blame does not lie with Vista Verde's residents, who must
bear the adverse impacts of the mausoleum on their view, the property values and on the
impairment of the quiet enjoyment of their homes.
2. Even if Green Hills Has a Vested Right to Keep its Mausoleum in its Current
Location, the City Has the Power to ModifY its Allowable Uses
Vested right can apply to both structures and uses. There is no dispute about that.
However, Green Hills accepted the approval of its master plan revisions subject to annual
review of the conditions of approval. Section N-3 of the Planning Commission's 2007
resolution approving Green Hills master plan revisions states:
"As indicated in mitigation measure AQ-13 above, the project shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date of
final approval, to review the applicant's compliance with all conditions of
approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that
time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modifY the conditions of
approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing
shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to
persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the
property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
Section 17.80.090."
If the foregoing is to have any meaning, it must be the case that Green Hills cannot
claim a vested right to use its property as approved in the master plan revisions. The
Planning Commission must, by the terms of this condition of approval, have the ability to
change what Green Hills received on April 24, 2007, where circumstances support such a
change.
Vista Verde submits that the sale and use of burial sites does not constitute a structure
but is rather a use of the mausoleum which can be changed by the Planning Commission
where it finds that circumstances warrant it. Vista Verde therefore contends that, even if the
City Council finds that Green Hills has a vested right to retain the Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum in its current location, the City has the power to restrict burials on the
mausoleum's rooftop. The operational mitigation measures are not adequate to reduce the
impacts of the rooftop burials and family visits of loved ones buried on the mausoleum's
<i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park-Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 9
rooftop to the level of insignificance to Vista Verde residents. The record of the Planing
Commission's hearings is replete with descriptions of residents' negative encounters with
mourners and the ill-will it creates between residents and mourners alike. The City Council
should not allow this situation to persist, particularly where Green Hills has created this
negative environment for its neighbors and its customers solely for economic gain.
While it is abundantly clear that Green Hills' approval was not validly-issued, the City
should, at a minimum, stop all further burials and sales of burial sites on the rooftop of the
Memorial Terrace Mausoleum aka Pacific Terrace Mausoleum.
3. The Planning Commission's Moratorium Should Remain in Effect Until the
City Council Takes Final Action on Green Hills' Appeal
The effect of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to the City Council in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes is governed by RPV Municipal Code Section 17.80.020, which
states:
"Effect of filing.
The filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to this chapter stays all activity
on the project until a final decision on the appeal." [Emphasis added]
The "project" in this instance is the use and development of the Green Hills Memorial
Park pursuant to the conditional use permit issued by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which
includes, as a condition of approval, annual review of Green Hills' compliance with the CUP
and allows the City to amend the conditions of approval of said CUP. The "project" is not
the Planning Commission's resolution imposing, inter alia, a moratorium on sales of and
burials in rooftop burial plots atop the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. The plain meaning of
the ordinance does not reasonably permit an interpretation that stays the Planning
Commission's moratorium automatically when it expressly stated that it was to be imposed
immediately for the preservation of the status quo.
Tae moratorium was ordered, in part, to protect innocent third parties who were sold
burial plots or who buried loved ones on the rooftop of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
without knowing of the dispute regarding the mausoleum's location and the possible
ramifications it could have on them. The motive was clearly one of consumer protection, not
the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
(i) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
January 12, 2015
Page 10
On January 9, 2015, a funeral service was conducted on the rooftop of the mausoleum.
It is clear that Green Hills has not and will not voluntarily adhere to the provisions of the
moratorium. It should be spelled out plainly that the moratorium ordered by the Planning
Commission is in full force and effect and cannot be disregarded by Green Hills. The City
Council should also decide whether this or future violations of the moratorium should be
referred to the City's code enforcement officer. Vista Verde contends that, if the City
demonstrates that it is intimidated by Green Hills and its financial resources, there will be no
stopping Green Hills in its operation of its cemetery in whatever manner it sees fit.
Public Hearing
I will be present at the January 20, 2015, hearing and will be available to respond to
any questions you may have at that time. Additionally, residents of Vista Verde intend to
appear and speak on their own behalf and not as representatives of Vista Verde. It is my
hope that you will allow adequate time for me and for these residents to be heard.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Very truly yours,
HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP
cc: Mr. Brian Carter
Attachment
e Printed on Recycled Paper.
LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION,
DATED AUGUST 8, 2014
HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP
LESLIE D. HIRSCHBERG
MICHAEL N. FRIEDMAN
5023 N. PARKWAY CALABASAS
CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 91302-1421
EMAIL ldhesq@hfllp.com
EMAIL mnfesq@hfllp.com
August 8, 2014
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
TELEPHONE (818) 225-9593
FACSIMILE (818) 225-9593
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
27501 S Western Ave, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
CASE NO. ZON2003-00086
Hearing Date: August 12, 2014, Agenda Item: No. 1
Dear Commissioners:
This office was recently retained by the Vista Verde Owners Association ("Vista
Verde") to represent its interests in connection with the review and amendment of the Green
Hills Memorial Park Master Plan. Please allow me to apologize in advance for my inability
to complete this letter and submit it to the Planning Division in time for it to be included as
an attachment to the staff report prepared for this hearing. I have had less than one week to
get up to speed on this matter and to provide meaningful comments.
Executive Summary
Vista Verde supports the recommendations of staff as interim measures only while
further investigation is undertaken regarding the propriety of the recently constructed
Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and, particularly, the rooftop graveyard. Vista Verde urges
the Planning Commission to enact the 90-day moratorium to maintain the status quo while
said investigation is pending and to set a future hearing to address issues, including those set
forth below, that provide legal grounds for revocation of entitlements for the Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum. Vista Verde requests that the moratorium include the sale of rooftop
burial plots in addition to funerals for previously-sold plots.
Vista Verde requests modification of the proposed revised condition regarding the use
of motorized equipment prior to and after burial to prohibit such use on Sundays. Vista
Verde requests that Green Hills not conduct rooftop funerals on weekend afternoons because
the likelihood that those funerals will be disrupted by normal and reasonable noise emanating
from the Vista Verde condominiums (e.g., TV, music, swimming pool/common area use,
fi' Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 2
etc.) is greatest on weekend afternoons. Lastly, Vista Verde requests that visitors of the
rooftop graveyard be limited to the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of their ability
to see inside Vista Verde condominiums.
Further Investigation of the Propriety of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
is Warranted by Existing Evidence
There are two issues involving the approval of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
which, combined, are responsible for the "unintended consequences" cited by staff in its
report. Those two issues are the mausoleum's height and setback from Green Hills' property
line. Our review of the approval of the mausoleum (at both the planning stage and
construction stage) reveal improprieties on the part of planning staff with respect to each of
these issues which deprived the Planning Commission from considering significant changes
to the mausoleum structure prior to its construction and give grounds for the revocation or
significant modification of said approvals.
A. The Rooftop Graveyard's Height
The site of the constructed Memorial Terrace Mausoleum is southwest of its
maintenance yard. This is the westernmost portion of the mausoleum (Area 11) approved
in the Revised Master Plan in 2007.
1 1
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 3
According to the approved Revised Master Plan, the maximum height of the
mausoleum in this location is 25-feet.
The approved rooftop graveyard is substantially lower than 25-feet. And blocked from
view by walls on the north and south side.
MEZ ZANIN E LEVEL
........................
CEMETERY ROADWAY _ _,__-
e Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page4
The mausoleum, however, was redesigned after planning approval but before building
permits were issued. The new design is much more monolithic and the rooftop graveyard
is at the maximum height of the structure and is no longer surrounded by solid walls but,
instead, and due to the increased elevation of the graveyard, is surrounded by wrought iron
fencing and, in the front only, by several pilasters which exceed the structure's approved
maximum height.
Additionally, the structure, as depicted in the construction plans, exceeds the approved
25-foot height limit. At the April 24, 2007, hearing on the Revised Master Plan, Senior
Planner Schonbom was recorded in the meeting minutes as stating:
"Senior Planner Schonbom explained that the condition [regarding
structure height] dictates that the mausoleum not impair a view, no matter what
the height of the structure is. He stated that the height would be measured
from the roadway, since that is something that will remain constant. He
stated that would be addressed thoroughly when staff receives an application
and plans for the construction of the mausoleum." [Emphasis added]
In the building plans, the elevation of the interior roadway is listed as 185 feet above
sea level. The rooftop graveyard is depicted, on the west side of the structure, as being at
211 feet above sea level (i.e., 26 feet in height) and, on the east side of the structure, as being
at 213.5 feet above sea level (i.e. 28.5 feet in height). Considering that the elevation of the
rooftop graveyard approved by the Planning Commission was approximately 20 feet above
the interior road, this represents an increase in the elevation of the rooftop graveyard of 6 to
8.5 feet. It appears that this additional height was requested by Green Hills so that it could
have two-level "stacked' burials for each burial plot.
ti) Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 5
That is a significant increase in the elevation of the graveyard -an increase too great
to be approved by the Planning Director without requiring Green Hills to submit an
amendment for review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director exercised
authority he never possessed when certifying that Green Hills' construction plans conform
to this Commission's 2007 approval. It clearly does not.
B. Setback From the Northern Property Line
The original conditions of approval for Green Hills' master plan, contained in
Resolution No. 91-7, provided for the following setbacks:
"b. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to
mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum) and crypts shall be as follows:
fi) Printed on Recycl ed Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 6
North -80' or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is
greater."
In the staff report of February 27, 2007, in the draft conditions for approval, the
setback for the northern property line is exactly the same. The public notice contained no
information regarding any change in the setback from the northern property line. For the
April 24, 2007, meeting, Green Hills submitted proposed modified conditions of approval
which, for the first time, propose the following change in the setback from the northern
property line:
7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to
mausoleums (except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Mausoleum shown in Area 11
of the Master Plan Revision) and crypts shall be as follows:
North: 80' -0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever
is greater (8 '-0" for the western-most portion of the Mausoleum shown
in Area 11 )."
Staff states in its report that it found this modified condition acceptable. It never
refers to the condition by its substance -only by the condition number given it by Green
Hills. The minutes of the April 24, 2007, hearing reflect no discussion whatsoever regarding
the reduction of the setback from 80 feet to 8 feet, and there was never any new notice to the
public regarding this enormous reduction in the setback requirements for the proposed
mausoleum. A reduction in the setback from the northern property line from 80 feet to 8 feet
is so significant that it should have required an amendment to the application for a revised
Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit. A new public notice was required but never given.
It does not appear clear that the Planning Commission ever knew that it was approving such
a large reduction in the setback, given the manner in which it was hidden in an attachment
to the staff report but never referenced by subject matter in the report. It is very apparent that
the public was not notified of this significant change.
Grounds for Revocation/Modification
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code§ 17 .60.100 -Revocation, provides as follows:
"A conditional use permit granted pursuant to this section may be
modified, revoked or suspended pursuant to Section 17.86.060 (Enforcement)
of this Code."
(j Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 7
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code §17.86.060 -Suspension or revocation of
permits, provides:
"The officer or body taking final action granting any permit pursuant
to the provision of this title may, after following the same procedures utilized
for approving such a permit, revoke or suspend the permit if:
A. The permit was issued erroneously; or
B. The permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent
information supplied by the applicant; or
C. The permit was issued contrary to the provisions of the
Municipal Code; or
D. The permit is being or recently has been, exercised contrary to
the terms or conditions of such permit.
No permit shall be revoked prior to providing a ten calendar day written
notice to the holder of the permit and an opportunity to be heard before the
officer or body considering revocation or suspension of the permit. Any
decision to revoke or not to revoke a permit, other than a decision by the city
council, may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 17 .80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this title."
Vista Verde submits that it is entirely appropriate for Planning Commission to request
staff to investigate whether the 2007 Revised Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit was
issued in conformity with the law, when no public notice was given of the 72-foot decrease
in the setback from the northerly property line. It should further be determined whether an
amendment to the Revised Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit was required for the
approval of the construction plans for the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum when the elevation
of the rooftop graveyard was increased from 20 feet to 26-28.5 feet above the elevation of
the interior roadway.
Additionally, staff should be requested to investigate whether Green Hills provided
incorrect and/or fraudulent information when it is represented in its application for a
conditional use permit that "There is no adverse impact on adjoining land uses," and "future
development will continue to maintain a negative impact [on adjoining land uses.]" There
is no doubt that Green Hills knew it was going place a taller mausoleum closer to the Vista
Verde condominiums than had previously been approved and it did so in a piecemeal fashion
which substantially shielded the true impacts of its proposed development from the watchful
eyes of the Planning Commission, its staff and Vista Verde residents.
® Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 8
Vista Verde believes that a 90-day moratorium on rooftop funerals and burial plot
sales is appropriate to maintain the status quo until a proper investigation can be conducted.
Given that this situation was not caused by Vista Verde but was, instead, perpetrated upon
it, Vista Verde believes it appropriate for the Planning Commission to initiate
revocation/modification proceedings on its own and not force Vista Verde to undertake the
burden of doing so. Nonetheless, Vista Verde reserves its right to initiate revocation
proceedings should the City elect not to do so. Either way, a moratorium will help to prevent
any innocent customers of Green Hills from buying a burial plot in the rooftop graveyard or
from having a loved one buried there only to have the body relocated in the event that the
rooftop graveyard is found to have been inappropriately approved and/or constructed.
Support for Interim Conditions of Approval
Vista Verde supports staff's proposed modified conditions of approval but only as
interim measures designed to mitigate adverse impacts pending a determination of the
propriety of the rooftop graveyard and whether physical changes to the graveyard are
mandated by the circumstances of its approval and construction. Additionally, Vista Verde
has a few of its own proposed modified conditions of approval that it requests be added again
as interim measures.
Vista Verde requests modification of the proposed revised condition regarding the use
of motorized equipment prior to and after burial to prohibit such use on Sundays. All other
types of motorized construction equipment is disallowed on Sundays and the same type of
equipment prohibited for construction projects should also be prohibited for cemetery use on
Sundays. Adequate man-powered alternatives are available so that, at least one day per
week, Vista Verde residents do not have to listen to motorized construction equipment on the
rooftop graveyard.
Vista Verde also requests that Green Hills not conduct rooftop funerals on weekend
afternoons. Weekend afternoons are typically a time for recreational activity. Vista Verde
residents should be able to use their residences and the common areas for recreation during
this time without concern for offending the sensibilities of mourners and funeral goers. It is
for both Green Hills' customers and Vista Verde residents that this request is sought.
Weekend afternoons are a time when the likelihood that funerals will be disrupted by normal
and reasonable noise emanating from the Vista Verde condominiums (e.g., TV, music,
swimming pool/common area use, etc.) is greatest.
Lastly, Vista Verde requests that visitors of the rooftop graveyard be limited to the
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park -Master Plan Review and Amendment
August 8, 2014
Page 9
hours of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of their ability to see inside Vista Verde
condominiums. Vista Verde residents should not be subjected to unintended, unwelcome
"visitors" who can see inside their condominium units and balconies between sunrise and
10:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and sunset. Moreover, this feeling would most likely be
shared by those wishing to visit a grave site in solitude and express their emotions in private.
Public Hearing
I will be present at the August 12, 2014, hearing and will be available to respond to
any questions you may have at that time. Additionally, residents of Vista Verde intend to
appear and speak on their own behalf and not as representatives of Vista Verde. It is my
hope that you will allow adequate time for me and for these residents to be heard.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Very truly yours,
HIRSCHBERG & FRIEDMAN, LLP
cc: Mr. Matthew Geier
(i} Printed on Recycled Paper.
GREEN HILLS APPLICATION FOR REVISED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND GRADING
PERMIT, DATED JANUARY 26, 2005
ATTACHMENT 2
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNIN G, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT
GRADING APPRO ~PPLICATION
NUMBER# llJ~ , otJo e0
APPLICANT /CONTRACTOR:
'1211<2-~ C.. . Pvor-..i;Au )l ) :i. STv,,.ri..T To DO , 1 ,..:, .o.
(Name) I
z,q I q V\)ev~t2~
(Address}
V~>a:, T~ 1?7..l °I
Telephone: Home Work ..Z.1~1, I?'Z-Z. Lfo '? 3
LANDOWNER:
G ftc-st--J \~1.-L c;-~ t M.of2-l A-L .PA.¥-~
(Name)
'l 1 SI 0 \ S . VJ C: ~ ( cll--N ~ ~ . (2.A-t-l O..+-o -P ~ <:; U ..::i'!'L/") .='> CA 1 O 'Z-I S
(Address)
Telephone : Home Work ?lo .~)·\' t?'!:>tl
Lot and Tract No: --------------------
Project Location: 121 ?o\ S. \Al c-c; ""C'c-12-N ~ 2
Project Description : U:: Me -re.fl.~ MA~ 'Lc:12-9J..+.~ ~et.JD M.~
General Information :
?<.? l
';o I
So')_1 oof
( G:>.'i ~c)
')~ \ (02-0
( ~.1 ~c}
1.
2.
3 .
4.
Maximum height of project, measured from top to lowest
foundation wall to ridge .
Maximum height of project above finished grade.
Square footage of project. (Building footprint)
If addition, square footage of existing structure (including any
Page 10
30840 HAWTHOrmE BLV D. / l<ANCHO PALOS V ERDES. CA 90275 -53flt
f)LAN NI NC;/CODI: ENFOJ\CE Mf:NT (310) !'>4~·52213 I BU ILDIN(I (310) 541-770 2 / OH'T I-AX {310) 544·5293 /E-MAIL P L ANN I NG@l~l'V.COM
5'°1 't;J 1t b D $" F-5.
(I\. 4 Ac.)
52}o1 (po 6.
(I '1.~ ~G-J
97::>0 /o 7.
8.
Grading Information:
Lot Type:
3o 0 /o
Vf>..fl...\e-$
1-J L;.-
I
t-J I A..
)
~ 0 J>/c.
-./A<L\ ~_s.
Pad
1.
2.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
covered or enclosed patios).
Square footage of driveways and parking areas. ( €"'/-1 <.:.T 1 1--)G,)
SquA~ ~dfAC.i{;: CF ~w 'P=P>.Ds/P,c..o..IL..ft-..S(", • l[ltOO -s.i::-.
Square footage of lot. •
Percentage of existing open space.
Percentage of open space after development.
----Upslope ___ _ Downslope ----
Maximum depth of cut.
Total cubic yards of cut.
'. 0\ ,4tP O· t.-j A. Under the building (excluding footings).
I 01 10 I Ci "~ 8. Outside of building footprint.
Maximum height of fill.
Total cubic yards of fill.
'i l. ~1 ,1-13. 1 A. Under the building.
?4, f1Je-T 8. Outside of building footprint.
Total volume of earth to be moved.
3f1i Jo 3i c--/ A. Under the building (sum of lines 2A & 4A).
(I .I'!:> ~c.-)
} 3~ 51& t-'1 8. Outside of building footprint (sum of lines 28 &
11 48).
Maximum percentage of created slopes.
Total average slope of site.
Maximum height of downslope retaining wall.
Maximum height of upslope retaining wall.
Maximum percentage grade of driveway.
Maximum percentage of existing slope.
Page 11
Does the project involve any work, activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or
public drainage structure?_ No . If so, you must obtain approval from the
Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction permits.
Does the project require any off-site graping (remedial, contour, utilities, etc.) or
stockpile of excavated materials? No . If so, provide a written explanation
as to why it is necessary, the quantity, and length of time the stockpile will remain.
Also, delineate on a plan the limits of off-site grading and/or stockpile. If off-site grading
is required provide proof of landowner approval.
Information to Determine if a Foliage Analysis is Necessary
Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which is 120
square feet or more in size and which can be used as a gathering space
and viewing area (i.e., decks, covered patios)?
Does the proposed project involve an addition or structure which consists
of 120 square feet or more of habitable space (i.e., room expansions,
additions, conversions)?
If the answer is "no" to both questions, the proposed project is exempt from the "foliage
removal" requirements, and a foliage analysis of the applicant's property is not necessary.
If the answer is "yes" to either question, a foliage analysis must be conducted by Staff
prior to approval of the Grading Permit Application to determine if any existing foliage
on the applicant's property, which exceeds 16 feet orthe ridgeline of the primary residence,
whichever is lower, impairs a view from any surrounding properties.
Voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility PreMapplication Step
Was the voluntary Neighborhood Compatibility Pre-application step completed?
A) ves s)C§)
If yes, please include the Neighborhood Compatibility Consultation Form (NC-F) at the time
of application submittal.
COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 70 OF THE CITY BUILDING CODE
Upon approval of the application by the Director of Planning or Planning Commission,
the application must still conform to all conditions imposed by Chapter 70 of the City
Building Code, including all required fees, and approval by the Director is not final until
approval has been granted by the City Engineer.
Continued on next page
Page 12
CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL
I UNDERSTAND that a City business license is required for all work performed in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This license is obtainable from the City's Finance
Department prior to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division.
(initials)
S~Contracti?
~j C. ~o~~u'(_
Dated: __J_. 2c. . '2.oo~
Staff Signature:
Date Received:
W :\Forms\Plng\apps\Grnding Application.doc
Revised: 06-24-03
Signature of Landowner
Dated:
Page 13
~~
,. "-~~~ ~CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
~' ~() ~G~ \~' ~\)\\.~~t." PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEME NT ~' ~ ~~' / ~~~~t.~~° CONDITIONAL U(£:;ERMIT APPLICATIO!\NO. -µ;NZ<ltJ'3-oo~a ~
? cPQ ~'JlS1~ TD WP IS~
APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR: LANDOWNER:
(Name): DA-fl..P..1 C . f>ouDBb.A I.?)< (Name): LaM~ ttl vt.~ ~e-uo{2.1 .k. Pkf2...l'-
{Address): J. STvA-P.Tfc.Df.I, \t-J~. (Address): 'Z.1°:>19\ S . WE~Te-'2.N Au;:;.
~~'9 wa...~ J
'DA-u..>-5, Tx. /'::;>'2.l) ~Nct=tv flws ;;~~, GA... 1o1-1S:
1:'.'.lf ~j °fF,.GlN p~--.;; 10 ~4
Phone: Work : -( ) '37-'2..4D~3 Phone: Work: ~t.tj ~3'2. "'1.,&, I b
Home : ( ) , Home : ( ) _____ _
Projectlocation: 1./?ol S. W .;-:.T€QN ~.;;:-Nu li;
HA·s,:1~ ~no2. PLA-N ~~Na M~
Project Description: y~~ 4-t LA.S Vltr"M 012,1Ar-L-PA-P-fL---
CurrentZoning: __ ~~=~M~.e-~~c=--~~--(-~---~-·+)-~--------
GENERAL INFORMATION
Ex isting Development
S '21 o 1t,o '>F 3.
5.
Square footage of existing structure footprint (including any
covered or enclosed patios and garage).
Square footage of driveways and parking areas .
Square footage of lot or parcel.
Square footage of existing lot coverage [line 1 +line 2}.
Percentage of existing open space . [100% -(line 4 divided
by line 3)].
Proposed Development (PLEAS E COMPLETE ONLY IF A NEW STRUCTURE IS
PROPOSED)
6 .
7 .
Maximum height of project, measured from the highest point
of existing grade covered by the structure to ridge .
Maximum height of project, measured froni the finished
grade ad jacent to the lowest foundation to · ridge.
:l0~40 H AWT I1 or~Nf 8Lvo / l ~/\NCHo Pl\Los v1:1mEs. CA 'l0275·53r11
111 ANN IN( VLODL LNr"ORCl:M[N l n 10) 544 -:,228 / BU 1Lf)IN'1 (:l10l 541-7702 I DE:I'' I FAX (~10) ~,44 ·:iw:i I E MAIL I 'L ,~Ni'l!NG@Rf'VCOM
8. Square footage of proposed new floor area.
A. First Story ::::
8. Second Story=
Square footage of proposed new structure footprint.
11 loo 51'°" 10. Square footage of driveways and parking areas.
4
Square footage of new lot coverage [linJ.j) +line 9 +line 10).
12. Percentage of new open space [100% -(line 11 divided by line 3)].
GRADING INFORMATION
Are any of the following conditions proposed? _ / Yes
Grading Application is required.
·--No If yes, a separate
* Total volume of earth to be moved (cut and fill) is 20 c.y. or greater.
* Height of fill or depth of cut is 3 feet or greater.
Does the project involve any wo~} activity, or encroachment in the public right-of-way or
public drainage structure? __ ,_t:!__e:_:_. ----~~---------------
If so, you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use or development
Burden of Proof Statements
1. Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use.
U s A.Ci f::S PP---Of'CJ r.;;-""--1':>, ~ 8-&"Ts: N S' \ ~N :S. c)F ~I s \I ~1\.A 6, l'a'L~
_J.l5e: ' SGT F.:::it\?-¥-~S f\;IJ D tk-~1 Ts, 'Ye..;;; w 1T\*1 i--J C:t! ~Tl;..) s l Ciq \
__Af?rQ-OJ~ M.~~~~~l~€i1-~~P'-=<-AN~~~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. Explain how the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways
properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the
subject use.
k -r f2-~ C. W vUv f:> ;;i ~f-..l \St) ~'--1 <?f l 'S. l° i lo.JS S~ S.:It-~ ~
C,c-MCTea.l 12-c.Aoi.-JAJ.1s, 1PMZ¥--.10S {)..)vu cicwt-: A.-c..o~c1 G)(t'.:>t/~G;
W f;) N £1>) r:2-o A-6 w ~ S . Llew ~~LAI t?1 <; Afk--pa.;, fu1 ~-D Fo f!-.
Nl:OP..E u..:::1-h~LAR e-t~LAT1or-.l.
3. Explain how the proposed use at this specific location will have no
significant adverse effect on adjacent properties or the permitted use
thereof.
L Pf.2.6Pt>~~ PP-o~e: c:._'Ts ~E c-x T~s~ar-:J ~ ~ c:::qc._~ '.::;1"1...JS
Ct? M t-r ~r2.sf u s A 0i-e; . Tu -s 1 6i r-.:i o'F ~ 0 1 1..-a , ~ ~ s AN {J Fe: AtT\J ~ ----c.;
' Uij L-l~ . Co M Qu;·M~ Mb:( MA. '""(82..,\ A;-L ~ >.N tl S~
n "" !.;
lfl-Df':).;C.C C-AM~ys bc-S\c"N ~1 1
4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
\)fL.? P= i:; ~ 3-quJ c_ [ c.J &ES Af?....;;;-' _DES \0; N ..:::,~ I~ ~ C-['_u P--0 A:t--J (_£"
' M0Dt.fjc.A--r1'0N !S fuf2. A.D~1\LoW&-~~\t-SGi MtouNT<; t--J . ..::-w=;:.s-.s.~
fP' F.-. GO ..sr 1 w u lS'D ct: 1v1. e -c e: 0-_=t P-P;;; /lA\ \ r::i r-J s A+.J D u PD &.. T 1 ~ P-i cF
~ t S T ! t--J ~ M. A S:-Cc--f.-PLl\-"' .
I HER~BY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materic;tls
~s application are true and correct.
Sign lure of Ap~lic~:5convaP and -Signature of Landowner
13A C. ~D~~ /j· 'IT'up.,-P..T "tDDD. bJ~.
Datea: '1tTNuArz..l 2_e.r,
1
'2.D<-'.'S Dated: _______ _
CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL:
I UNDERSTAND that in order to perform work in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, a business license must be obtained from the City's Finance Department
prior to obtaining a building permit from the Building and Safety Division. __ _
(initials)
Staff Signature
W \Fortns\Plng\apps\Condil1onal Use Permit doc updated 7/01
Page 6
CITY OF RANCHO fJALOS VERDES
PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has compiled lists of Hazardous Waste and Subst.ances Sites for the
entire State of California. Although the current list for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (reproduced below) is based upon data
retrieved from the Cal/EPA web site on September 16, 2003, you should be aware that these lists are revised periodically.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(f), before the City can accept an application as complete, the applicant must
consult the list and indicate whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site, which is included on any such list,
and shall specify any list.
IMPACT CITY: RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CURRENT USE FORMER USE RWQCB CASE
STREET ADDRESS CASE No. STATUS
3860 CREST ROAD FAA radar site Same R-13308 Closed
5656 CREST ROAD Demolished Unocal service station I-06500 Open
5837 CREST ROAD Cal. Water offices Same R-05395 Open
5841 CREST ROAD Verizon facility Same R-12296 Closed
28103 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD Mobil service station Same R-01504 Open
28732 HIGHRIDGE ROAD Hilltop Automotive Unocal service station I-06434 Closed
96 NARCISSA DRIVE Residence Same R-23219 Closed
6100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SoUTH Residence ( 1 Sea Cove Shell service station R·36348 Closed
Drive)
6124 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Fire Station No. 53 Same R-12757 Closed
6560 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Two residences (32504 & Chevron service station R-14832 Closed
32508 Seawolf Drive)
6600 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH Partially demolished Marineland and Texaco R-01409 Closed
service station
31200 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Unocal service station Same I-11074 Closed
31501 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST Point Vicente Interpretive . U.S. Military rifle range N/A Open
Center
27501 WESTERN AVENUE Green Hills Memorial Park Same R-12803 Open
29421 WESTERN AVENUE Chevron service station Same 1-15523 Closed
29505 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center Mobil service station R-03558 Open
29701 WESTERN AVENUE Shopping center Unocal service station R-05958 Closed
In the event that the project site and any alternatives proposed in the application are not contained on the Cal/EPA lists,
please certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed In this application are IlQ!; contained on
these lists.
(Applicant) (Signature) (Date)
:inci40 I \;\W r1101~f>fl HLvD / l\·V'l1 :Ho I \\1 t ls vu~m:S. c :A 'lO:J ;;, !<1'11
l 'i -\''lflil~1 i/1 -, ll 11 1 i'if rn:1 -1 /'-If r--11 (:11rn ',.14 b,':O!l / 1-ll 11LUll~1; 1 11\ll :1-11 11w i : n I' 1 r -\ \ n H 1l ,, 1 1-b2~ n J I -M.\11 1 '1 \r1111N1 ;1f!'l;1'v1 , 1M
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSJANCES STATEMENT
If the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the CAL/EPA lists, please
complete the following st.atement.
1. Name of Applicant: 6 P--Ec}.J , B i U.... "'::. U E Mo Q,~ ~
2. Address: "21 Go\
3. Phone Number: Day { 310) -~3'2. 1.Js:-t'b Evening[__)-----------·-----
4. Address of Site (Street name and number if available, and ZIP code):
1.:1SD l 5, W6"5ic12-~ f*v .:::.t-Ju-2 /R~u..+T> P~..,, U ~{.l-f.)==~
~calA~ncy(C~~u~):_~~\~-1~~~~~-A_N_~~7 _6_~p~~~~~~J~=~=~~~--------5.
6. Assessor's Book1 Page 1 and Parcel Number: ____ _ __ _
7. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code:
8. Regulatory Identification Number: __ _.._P--_-_\_'2--=l'.;:>'--o_:S.;;:.__ ________________ _
9. ~~~u~--------------------~----~~~------a~c-,..) -~---'---t'--\A.._,_~_;;;-M_u 12--l __ ,_A:f-.., __ p_A-<2¥--__ <;?___,__-i"-l:'I-47""~~.;::___z=v ___ · ___ _c_.\ _· "2_G:,_-o__:c___s
(Applicant) (Signature}CTR ? (Date)
1<>h-f.2-c r~r::.Q..::~
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
I have consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government ~de and hereby certify that the
development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are located on a site which: (check one}
Is not included In these lists.
Is included rn these lists, and the project applicant has completed the statement required by Section 65962.5(f)
of the Government Code.
Is included in these lists, and I have notified the applicant1 pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code,
that he or she has failed to complete the statement required by section 65962.5(f) of the Government Code by
letter dated-----------------
Revised March 1, 2004
W:\Forms\Plng\misc\Hazardou~ Waste & Substances Statement.doc
Staff Signature
Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT
CIERlr~FICATION Of !PROPERTY OV\INER.Su MAIUNG UST
Applicataon{s) _ Mr:i. ST1.:;""f2... r~ ~~N0Mt==:::r: __ _
.Applicant Name ~ ft.E="er-J \~ l LA-<; M t M 0 ()_; ~ L. -p Ml::-17::
Subject Property Address 't 1 £7o I
I
Notice Radius Required __ __,,,5"'-o_o_--------------------
Number of property owriers to be rnotified '34o
I certify that the property owners' mailing list submitted with the app!ication(s) listed above includes al/ of
the persons listed on the latest adopted LA County Tax Roll as the legal owners (and if applicable
occupants) of all parcels of land within 6 oo feet of the subject property noted above. I certify that the
property owners' mailing list has been prepared in accordance with the City of.Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code and "Vicinity Map Instructions Sheet" I also understand that if more than 20% of the
notices are returned by the post office after mailing due to incorrect address information, or if the address
information is not complete, that I will have to submit a new property owners' list that has been prepared
anc/ certified as accurate by a Title Company or other professional mailing list preparation service, and
the project notice will have to be re-mailed.
Prop
-~~~-c. ?->~r:;,p..~
Name (Plealse Print)
W:\Forrns\Plng\misc\Cerlificalion of Property Owners' Mailing List.doc
Date
:10<l4\l I i.\wrno1{Nt 1~1\'D f h'.·\ti( :r1n 1 'fl.l(l'> \rno1::;-; CA nn?r;, :,:i,.11
I'! -\"!~11N1 ;,, ,i iu; 1 'ii ( 1h'.LI rll r·11 (:1111) :Fl.\ !1??B 1131111 DH'\; n1nl !i-11 no:> J 1 ll f'l f.i.\ nmJ 1,.1.1 r,?~u J L ·M,\11. Pl 1\NN1N1 ;lfi'W\ r:n1·1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(To be completed by City Staff)
Date Filed:
(To be completed by applicant)
General Information
Case No.
LANDOWNER APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR
B~(.2.~1 c. ~ Df2.,\;?AUX G8.-l7btu 1-hl,{_,~ Mc~µ o a-t ~ P('l--(L~
Address
\-)~--.I Tf /S'2.\j
City/State/Zip
~If )~4&4& (Z/4J '?:?_i~.:1~?3
HomePhOne --Work Phone
ProjecVSite Information
Address of project:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
Name
Address
p/O)B~LO?l_l_ (~tOJ ~ ?'2.' i~ lb
Home Phone Work Phone
~----~---~-------~---~
Existing General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning: --------
List and Describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,
including those required by City, Regronal, State, and Federal agencies:
Environmental Information Form
Page2
Project Description
Proposed use of the property (please provide a detailed description):
Site Size: Project Square Footage:
~~~~--~~-~~~~~~~-R>-a._.'p<'...11.'i 6, A.t...c ,,s 6>
Number of floors of construction: L1· ~ Amount of off-street parking provided: l<2'MoeTe:i2,..~ \L..o 1:>4)S:
Proposed Phasing:
Anticipated Incremental Development:
If this is a residential project, please indicate the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range
of sale prices or rents, and household sizes expected:
If this is a commercial project, please indicate the type of project, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square foot of sales area, and loading facilities.
If this is an industrial project, please indicate the type of project, estimated employment per shift,
and loading facilities:
Environmental Information Form
Page 3
If this is an institutional project, please indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project:
I
If the project involves a City discretionary permit (such as Variance, Conditional Use Permit, or
Zone Change application, etc.) please indicate why these applications are required:
Are any of the following items applicable to the project or its effects? (for any items checked yes,
please describe why on separate sheet of paper)
YES NO
v" ---
v" ---
_L_.
------/
·--L--
_/
--·--....-:=
/'
---
/ ---------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7_
8.
9.
Change in existing feature of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills, or
substantially alter ground contours.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, or
public lands or roads
Change in pattern, scale, or character of general area of project.
Produce significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change Jn dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream, ground water quality or quantity,
or alteration of existing drainage patterns
Substantially change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity_
Site is on filled land or on slope of 10% or more.
Use or dispose of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammables, or explosives.
Environmental Information Form
Page 4
10. Sub'stantially change the demand for municipal services (Le. police,
fire, water, sewage, etc.).
/_ 11. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (i.e. electricity, oil,
natural gas, etc.).
12. Relationship to a larger project or a series of projects.
Environmental Setting
On a separate page, please describe the project site, as it exists before the project. Please
include information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical,
or scenic aspects. Additionally, please describe any existing structures on the site, and the use
of said structures. Please attach photographs of the site and the structures (snapshots or
polaroid photos will be accepted)
On a separate page, please describe the surrounding properties. Please include information on
plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Please indicate the type of
land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of the land use (single-family, multi-family,
shops, department stores, etc.) and the scale of development (height, frontage, setbacks, etc.).
Please attach photographs of the vicinity (snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted)
NOTE: Before the City of Rancho Palos Verdes can accept this application as complete, the
applicant must consult the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code
and submit a signed statement indicting whether the project and any alternatives are located on
a site which is included on any such list, and shall specify any list {Please see attached
Hazardous Waste and Substance Statement).
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Please complete the attached Exhibit "A"
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statement, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. ~ g ~ Signature
JS~ C. 'kuD(2..t?Au){
Print Name
Environmental Information Form
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
EXHIBIT "A"
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Please check of level of impact for each question. In
comment box, please provide reasons and supporting evidence for the section (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation including,
but not limited to the general plan, ~ specific plan. local coastal plan, or
zoning ordinance?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies /' with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use / in the vicinity?
d) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural ~ community conservation plan?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established ~,
community {including a low-income or
minority community)?
Comments:
rp(.2opot;;. ~ !..A~\"\:'"~ P.......M"--1 lS c:\c:N~ I ,..} e..c "1."'bf"L,"--i.. Ac ,..., ~ w !ITH.
~Pfp.civ~ 1'1"l \ N\A.':,T..n2.., ~.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or /' local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g.
through projects in an undeveloped /'
area or major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially ...,,_//
affordable housing?
Environmental Information Form
Page6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
d) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
p n.-f-\-o "' 0-0 lv\r-..~ -C--=----0.--p~ lS
v..> l -CI .\-P..PP (IA J .;;.() 1'1:.q \ ~';::.-r=<L.
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the proposal:
a) Expose people or structure to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
includinQ liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in the Uniform Building Code,
thus creating substantial risks to life or
property?
~--
Potentially Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
~..::-r-I=~ t ,_j C.-..? ~ .~ (2_,N\ (l..r-J c;;;
P.A.r-\ .
/
,_____
......------
~-
....,....-
v
--
---
Environmental Information Form
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
e) Have soils incapable or adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems, where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
~""'> of" \)i(£V~ p. NI.~ .-1 >Tl..\-I ...'.::I ~-.vi. iE'I!:: (2-1 kl'-~ 'Su \---C-,.<1..f.:::,~
'\);;:-\..) G'--0 f M 8Si l >-.) \..;::(l,,M \. cP 1..11Z'.c-5/\<Fe~ ~Cf'-' I fl..-2 M ~ ,._)f<:, ,
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any water quality standard or
wastewater discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or areas,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a
manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or areas
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding on or oft
site?
-·
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f} Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
No
Impact
~,
P..,fJ.-
/
v
/
/
,
/
/
Environmental Information Form
Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
g} Place housing within a 1 OD-year flood
hazard area, as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area, structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Expose people or property to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
k) Have construction impact on storm
water runoff?
I) Have post construction activity impact
on storm water runoff?
Comments:
Sources
'Pa....e. p °' s 21) Qn-=~-SC...\S l."-.\81.A.'--'D B.E'
'S.o JI.':. 1:.:::. ~o~ tM P/>.L'T ,._ (:::, ~ A c.-c--.,.rr
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
//
./
/'
/
/
\)G~IC...N.:2~ \N "'-~fl.J) ~Ck L)J lTtt ~""a r .J I"-IN
?ri..... p~-(.•-:d~' p....in-1...S~ Coi-.1 s,.,-~ \J c. "Tl o~
p H·A 'S ~I c...o ,._} R>iLM A.-t-.H.-€" ~ 5-co~ I.A)"' -r: ..,,,-(.L AR.1'-C~M.£N°T p~ t.=-0-.J~ ""° C{,{ I 0
(3.=: ~() 1-\-c;-a...=-.') ,
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
/ contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to
v-' substantial pollutant concentrations?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard /' (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a /.
substantial number of people?
Environmental Information Form
Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
e) Conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of any applicable air
quality plan?
Comments:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated ..
' T~ f'[Lo Pe>~~ ~ f2-= ~ c:::-i::. I ~E'>. Nc>T' ~M fAc._f:: A.\~ 9-.'lAl...\1 .
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system?
b) Exceed either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in inadequate emergency
access or inadequate access to
nearby uses?
d) Result in insufficient parking capacity
on-site or off-site?
e) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment?
Comments:
A-v.. p(.l..o p,,,, I: <o:;-0 'D/2-:-..l~ ~ Jf.,:1-C~r..JA-<..... wVIH JJD AOO (\ L<:> Nv\-<.-
~~,c; (2.::: 9'1J;;. ·s:t ~ . ~ 'T~c_., v-.:i l \,<...,,. '62 \-1.~D '-"'-~ vSFT+\ I t-l
I ~€'(1-~ kt-C'...t M G= Te--lf2__L1 ~~ Si S-t'~.
No
Impact
/
~·
~
V"'
/
.._..---·
v,
_.,..-'
' °ft) e. '--t <...
"l" l+e
Environmental Information Form
Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands, as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ... ),
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impt::de
the use of native wildlife nursery sites
e) Conflict with any local polices or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Comments:
-r~"E": P~ Po ~ .e:-0 MA.~' >Cf2-. F~ lNl..<...·uDO
~l":.T{I-.!~ C.:, ll'\.AA2 "TE~ ? fl.-.D P-dl-"f ~ w ,\.+ /I.ft;>
,.,,,.,.,_p~-r.
Potentially less Than No
significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
~
/
/
/
/
[>c,""1 ~ p /\{ E}.i"f' &:==
B,o~ tL,..4L. ~~~{l..C..:C
Environmental Information Form
Page 11
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy
conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
General Plan, Specific Plan, or other
land use plan?
Comments: p~ T1.-\-€ Pfl..c.F °' i:;;~ fv\ A.. ... -r c-12-fr--l CA...u nEt;
~lSTl~~ ~--VU..CTi ~~Ps-<2-11-.llT~
bt-.l e;lZ..C..i ~Cl MI~= (2....~ ~ \2_ ~ ,
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
'Dru .5L.€>.P M cr-Sl' oF-
,._)!'::> I !"'\ p /i..c__ \ ""T=
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Would the proposal involve:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous material?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of and existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site, which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government / Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
No
Impact
v
~·
~/
~·
/
/
i./"'
Environmental Information Form
Page 12
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within tvvo miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss. injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent lo
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
Sources
Pa.e ..),t' c.-\ A-r.L2A &:>F \-\A~ ou~
'B.=1'J Mrf\C\ A -r-e1:J , Hc..\-r;:e-(.)_ p~
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
I
fU..A 'l.~p.. \hl.... ':>\.\'2
V\1\.../ lt.L:.::-~ G.f2..c..J"" r.:i
j:.fi".:,,, J £ --n~lo ' c_l><f \ lt~f.>\ HM\NC(. iJD 1>-tf~c_T Tb
[\}.A< cf2. I M..-<:, •
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundbourne vibration or
groundbourne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
v
~
./'
/
t-\ A:<; ,f¥-{:L.£ AO'i
~ fL1 A-<-,'). =N'-'l
~ 7-_J;.,(U:::, O..j <,;..
/
v
/
~
Environmental Information Form
Page 13
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or a public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Comments:
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
/
Tt¥f2.£ \.;'.) D\) ....... I') Ci<;;;"' 1-lD~S~S ,.., <;:.<;.,,,c..1 ~-Ce() vJ\\~ S'T,AtJf)~ c...t>N >T(2A:l <-I~~
<P (]..Ac:\\ u::s. ~(Lli-J Gi c..c...,,. '::::ft'.'"(2_0 .:_---(' ~ Cl .J 'Of-~ ~<;:;;::,1....,o;:SVMS. }J_,~= rJF
-fl~\? \.AJO<..>.._.r.;, G-'{.,(2~ ~v.J~i.,-b VE:Ye-<, .
11. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provisions of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
I) Fire protection? /
ii) Police protection? v
iii) Schools? y/
iv) Parks? V'
v) other public facilities? /
Comments:
l~ U:::M E--C-e ~1 t~<; ~o \MPf".cT Cl~ '11-tE ~<::>...J:;; L.l )'L-c:."-0
1fv~uC-<;"C\2..v 1 e:c---:::.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable / Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Environmental Information Form
Page 14
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
signlficant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g} Comply with federal, state, and local
statures and regulations related to
solid waste?
Comments:
\\-IE ' o P2'\.Lfl>.'l \;:;:;, r-::::. c!F-\'t-\-£
fi,. M1tJ1M~ \ M. ~fl.. c_. 'T
Sources Potentially Potentlally Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
/
v
~
v
v
?12-.a Po s~ C..:i: fU... E'"T d, IN oJ '--~ L4-~:;::
o~ S To/2.M_ w ""-. -t;"~ fLA...t N />...a, E ~r:;;,
SO~D w />. s 'i:""2 'l), -s Po '> kL-,
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic ~·
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historical / buildings, within a state scenic
highways?
Environmental Information Form
Page 15
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
~ /'J,.{L.vt4 \ -r..:;c_c-u ~ 61...-tMENT<,.. t-V::..iJ.C
~ ('J\ l r-1 0 n... tM f~C-"f t7 i-T '? u \l... ({.au r-.:.i o t r-J c::(
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
rncorporated ~
/
,_//
' ~~ Od'> 1.~N;;;;;f) '"Uo ~~.;;,
b;;>V""' t.-0 p M. -=!SC'S. ~ 1SJq_(
µ.Q.6,HL'~ p..~ tv LTl+lr-i A!.A..-Dv-l f><P.:.~ t.-\-6 l4L .\ --C c;. $¢1 FD .fl '"n,+ [r-t A-Pf fl.o J -"---{)
p_.._=;;::Q .__V[ \c. 1--> I M.M T ~ P.J.+J.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
/ resource as defined in §15064.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the ,_.,,.,/
State CEQA Guidelines?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or v unique geological feature?
e) Disturbed any human remains,
including those interred outside of ~
formal cemeteries?
Comments:
Tt.tt:: ff'H) fo s~ C-.E f\f\ E'\:' -<::1{2.1 M A-~ 'T'<::.---i<.. f~ IJ..:)01...) <-..<:::::, l~A..v'?-
~o t""'P~-r.
Environmental Information Form
Page 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Qoes the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Comments:
1\+o CA:i--,...., ~T~ril u ~==-C1F-
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
\~
PAP-1-L-s. e.(2. (2.c c r2.€ /Ir -r 1" D N ,.,.,..__
fruP=tLI
FAC-" J.-!S,\ E); •
16. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Fannland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland). as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment that, due to their location
or nature. could result in conversion of
Farmland, to a non-agricultural use?
Comments:
Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
/
~·
'r+ 0-i;;,b-S r-:>~T lMfR Ac_~
/
v/<
.,.......
-~-
' 1>.=v ri-0 PM CJJ! ot2-\\A-a Mt;:.c"'::.TC12-.p~ acoQ...S v.i ,\[{IN. &'f-t"'-Trt-.JG.,
~ n-..o P3f1-:l L-tM cc-s; ~ ~ t-\1"u_s I <tJ 1-\ I c.r-1t !-\i\-( ~~0'1 R.:::r:.--..J
A-A:' (\<:> J .:: ;::=\.>(.2.. t..-eM~-c e (LI \,_)~~
'
Environmental Information Form
Page 17
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a} Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Comments:
Tf-te, PeJ B..APM ENT
VPOP.TE cf 'Tt-lt:
Cl!"-T/-E MA":. T~ (-'Mt) t ~, A
M t>..·~:\t:::--P.... p~ Af'ffl,oJc:f"::::. I r-l
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
Comments:
C...ON\1 NU~TlON I
l°\9 ( .
\u.s c..vMuLA':f1v~ G-Pf'cc..Ts DP 1~ h.i~ ~'-.l~p.;;-0 MA~-c.,,.--fl-
P1..--1>.t-J ~ Ml N IMM._. f<.t:Ci ~ I ~Gi I M.. p Ac.. T oJJ \1-1rt f::;"NV ~ (L.:, ~Mt-Nf
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments:
Ti-it Cc:l'v\.t'Te:~~ MA.ST~ p~ L.\A-!.. MI Nl MM._. ~V\ ~.....JMt::NTA-L...,..
!MPAc.-r.
Environmental Information Form
Page 18
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
w:/forms/Environmental Information Form
STORM ~~'ATER PLANNING PP~GRAM ~ PRIORITY PROJECT CHEClt\.LIST
ANCHO PALOS VERDES
h A n awo.r Name I I -11 ' n D<lveloper Name
'LA-"'> tV~~(.L.Ztrt I""'~ Gl.,Cb"J'..\ !-+tvt..<". 1 \..\cl'i.t.<)(2.,AL/~ J. !:Tu/l.a-7 Tl;>C>O /i-:ic:.... t->;;-~'7'---~~'----'---"-"--'--"'-'-'--'-F'<"--'--°"'1101 Addll>SS Di>velopl!r Addmss--
"21 So I 'S'. IN<2i[ei:4.J kvc-'2"! \ W.?L....-c;,,,,a..,j
'-------------~-
Part 1 n Type of Project
Does the proposed project fall into one of the following categories? Yes No
·-
1) Ten or more unit homes, including single and multiple family homes, condominiums, apartments etc.* / -· 2) An industria! or commercial development with 100,000 square feet or more of impervious surface* /
3) An automotive service facility v -
4) A retail gasoline outlet / ··-·
5) A restaurant /
6) A parking lot with either 5,000 square feet of impervious surface or with 25 or more parking spaces* v
7) Single family hillside -*(one acre or more of surface area) ,,,/
8) Redevelopment projects as defined on back* //
9) Project located in, adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA (defined on back) AND creates 2,500* /
square feet or more of impervious surface area '.·~."; '~:CH:,
If any of the boxes in Part 1 is checked "Yes", this project will require the preparation of a Slandard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) along with a
Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back).
*Numerical Criteria will apply.
Pa.rt 2 w Project Specific Concerns
Does the proposed project include any of the folio wing elements? Yes No
·-
1) Vehicle or equipment fueling areas (retail or priva
2) Vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, includi
3) Commercial or industrial waste handling or storag
te) (..; "{-l c; -r 1 iJ C')) v -
ng repair orwashin~~ ( c'f1 s.--c ( i-rc) ......-
-
e v v
4) Outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materi als ....-" -·-
5) Outdoor manufacturing areas v
6) Outdoor food handling or processing ...---
7) Outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter --8) Outdoor horticulture activities --~
If any of the boxes in Part 2 is checked "Yes", this project will require the preparation of a Site Specific Slorrnwater Mitigation Plan
(SSSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer (defined on back).
lf boxes in Parts 1 and 2 are bolh checked "Yes", a combined urban stormwater plan will need to be submitted.
'PA-~ c.. &, L-t r::,.(L.2 Au)<:'.
Applicalltf.iame
cc: One copy of document to Public Works
Av....C{-t ( lc""L.T
Applicant Tiiie
Form HKA.PC;-ev.5102
Project Name G !'2.c-t:i"N \~VI...\ \\A.'71\l 0 tL!'A:<-_(JAf2..t'-
Project Location 1., 1 S>o I ~. W£STe CLN ~ ;" '2 ('v 1"1. 1 r"' General Project
Certification Company Name-----------·---------
Address---~·-------------·----
Contact Name I Title -------------------
Phone I FAX/Email
A completed original of this form must
accompany all SUSMP submittals
Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the design of this project to accomplish the
following goals:
1) Minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of Natural Drainage Systems and water bodies
in accordance with requirements under CEQA (Cal. Pub. Resources Code§ 21100), CWC § 13369, CWA § 319,
CWA § 402(p), CWA § 404, CZARA § 6217(g), ESA § 7, and local government ordinances.
2) Maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground.
3) Minimize the amount of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and to the MS4.
4) Minimize pollution emanating from parking lots through the use of appropriate Treatment Control BMPs and good
housekeeping practices.
5) Properly design and maintain Treatment Control BMPs in a manner that does not promote breeding of vectors.
6) Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in stormwater from the
development site.
! certify that this Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted. The information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accLJrate and
complete.
Property Owner I Developer (signature) Property Owner I Developer (printed) Titfe Date
[__ Post Construction I Maintenance Certification
Proper operation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is an important component of reducing pollutants in urban and
storm water runoff. As the responsible party, I certify that the BMPs will be implemented, monitored and maintained to
ensure their continued effectiveness. In the event of a property transfer, the new owner will be notified of the BMPs in
use at this site and must include written conditions in the sales or lease agreement, which requires the recipient to
assume responsibility for maintenance and conduct a maintenance inspection at least once a year.
Property Owner (signature) Property Owner (printed) Title Date
!Signatory requirements:
This section shall be signed by the landowner. If the landowner Is not an lndlvldual, the signatures may be from e corporate officer, a manager !f the
authority to sign has been d$legated to the manager, a general partner, 01 a sole proprietor.
Plann;·-1 Best Management Practicr-
BMP Name BMP Identification Nou Check if to
and Name be used
Car Wash Facility SC3, Vehicle and Equipment Washing and
' Steam Cleanina
Constructed Wetlands TC3, Constructed Wetlands
Control of Impervious Runoff Not aoolicable
Efficient lrrioation Not aoolicable
Energy Dissipaters ESC40, Outlet Protection
Extended Detention Basins TC5, Extended Detention Basin .
Infiltration Basins TC1, Infiltration
Infiltration Trenches TC 1, Infiltration
Inlet Trash Racks Not applicable
Landscape Design ESC2, Preservation of Existing Vegitation;
ECS10, Seeding and Planting; ESC11,
Mulching
Linings for Urban Runoff Not applicable
Conveyance Channels
Materials Management SC5, Outdoor Loading/Unloading of
Materials; SC6, Outdoor Container,
Storage of Liquids; SC8 Outdoor Storage
of Raw Materials, Products and By-Products
Media Filtration TC6, Media Filtration
Motor Fuel Concrete Dispensing SC2, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
Areas
Motor Fuel Dispensing Area SC2, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
Canopy
--=
Oil/Water Separators and Water TC7, Oil/Water Separators and Water
Quality Inlets Quality Inlets
;i:'!Mll ui;:;:w:-=.::ii=~; ~~
Outdoor Storage SC6, Outdoor Container Storage of
Liquids; SCB, Outdoor Storage of Raw
Materials, Products and By-Products
Porous Pavement and Alternative TC1, Infiltration
Surfaces
Protect Slopes and Channels ECS40, Outlet Protection; ESC42, Slope
Roughening and Terracing
wmwmtHT' "".......-!I.~~~ -~
Self-Contained Areas for Vehicle or SC3, Vehicle and Equip. Washing and Steam
Equipment Washing, Steam Cleaning, Cleaning; SC4, Vehicle and Equipment
Maintenance, Repair, or Material Maintenance and Repair; SC7, Outdoor
Processing Process Equipment Operations and Maint.
Storm Drain System Stenciling and SC30, Storm Drain Systems Signs
Sionaoe
~~· ==== Trash Container Areas SC9, Waste Handling and Disposal .. ·-.'ASC'~-·
Vegetated §_wales and ~!.r.!PM~ TC4, Bio-Filters
.... = ........ ==tg;,;
Wet Ponds TC2, Wet Pond
Please refer to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks for more information.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ellen Berkowitz < Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com >
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:18 PM
cc
Doug Willmore; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; 'Scott Noya'
(snoya@daleyheft.com)
Green Hills Submittal for September 1 City Council Hearing
City Council-03 Re September 1 Appeal.PDF
Dear Honorable Councilmembers:
On behalf of Green Hills, please see the attached submittal regarding tonight's hearing.
I will attend the hearing to present the material attached herein and answer any questions you may
have.
Thank you.
Ellen
Ellen Berkowitz
Pri11cipal Shareholder
Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC
333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 9007:1.
Office: (213) 213-7249 Ext.1802
Fax: (213) 213-7391.
www.GreshamSavage.com
i. Privi!090d and Confldcntia! Communication. The information contai:1ed in this email and attadvnents rnay be conlidentiol or subject to the atlorney client
p:iviioqe or attorney work doctrine. it you me not tho intended recipient of this you may not use. disclose. print. copy m dbsnrninate trie
'.iarno. it you have this in error, plea'.;o notify the sender and destroy all copio'.; ot ttli'.o rne%a}Je.
Notice re Tnx Advico. /\ny tax advice contained in tllis email, includir:9 any attachments. is not intended or written to be usod, and cannot he usecl, by you or
any other recipient for tho purpose of (a) avoidinu ponallics that may otherwise bo imposed by the iRS, or (bl supporting, promoting, marketing, or mcommundinp
any lrnnsactior or matter to any third party.
3. Transmission of Virnses. Allhouqh tl1is comrrnmic2lion, 2nd
resporr;ibilil.y oi tho recipient to ensure Uwt it is virtn free, ancl the
attached documcntc or fi!os. om holievcd to be free of any wun or ofrwr dcfod. il :s tl1c
doe& rut occopt any responsibility for any loss m darnaue arisinq in any way from it:,; use.
4. Sacurlty of EmzdL Uecti(mic mail ire\ senl over 1.he put.llic internet and rnc1y not be rncurc. Thus. we cannot qua.rantee lhe privacy or conticlenliali\y ol '"uch
inforrnation.
Ellen Berkowitz
Princip11! Slwrcho/dcr
Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC
333 South Hope Street 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071.
1 I
Office direct: (213) 873-8395
Office main: (213) 213-7249
Fax: (213) 213-7391 I Cell: (310) 592<3479
www.GreshamSavaqe.com
i. Privi!egHd and Co11fa!enti11I Communic11tio11. The infornrntion contained in thi;; email and atlochrne11t;; may bo confidential or subject to tho allorney client
pliviiogo or attorney work doctrine. !f you ore not tho int<'Hlcied rocipiont oi thh you may not use, discioso. print. copy or d!ssorninate trie
'.Hme. !f you have thii.> in onor, pleose •1otify tile sender and destroy all copies of thi'.> message.
2. Notice Tax Advice. Any tox advice contained in this email, induding
My other recipient for Flo purpose of (a) nvoidinq porultics that may otherwi~oo
any 1J1maaction or matter io any third party.
ottachrnents, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used. by you or
imposed by lhe IF'.S, or (b) supporting, promoting, rnmkoting, or mco111rnondinq
3, Transn1Lscion of Vfrusos, AHhouch this cornrnunicatJon, and any auachcd docurnenb or foes, believed !"o be free of !.VYi VHlif.:; or other defect, it the
re:sp(.msibillly of the recipient to en:;ure that it h; viru::; free, and tr1e sender does not accept any resprnLsibi!ity for any loss or danLJDe arising ln any v;ay frorn its
4, Socmlty of EmaiL F:lectr(mic rnail is sent over the putJlio 'nternet and m2y not be r;;,)GIJrG Thu,;. we cannot uuaantee the privacy or confider1tiahy ol such
infornnUon.
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
2
Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com · Los Angeles
(213) 213-7249 · fin; (213) 213-7391
September 1, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
Regarding Annual Compliance Review (Case No. ZON2003-00086)
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills"), thank you for your
consideration of Green Hills' appeal of the Planning Commission's November 11, 2014
decision.
We have reviewed the Staff Report issued in connection with the appeal hearing, and
have several comments on: (1) the proposed requirement to obtain an after-the-fact
variance for the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum (the "Mausoleum"); and (2) the suggested
modifications to the proposed conditions of approval (the "Conditions"). These issues
are briefly discussed below.
I. The Variance.
Green Hills' objections to the requirement to apply for a variance have been set forth
in previous correspondence to the Planning Commission and to this City Council,
including in Green Hills' November 25, 2014 appeal; these objections are hereby
incorporated by reference. In this letter, we respond only to the three reasons
articulated by Staff for rejecting Green Hills' objections.
A. 1991 Master Plan Condition No. 4 Required New Development to be
Approved via a Major Conditional Use Permit Revision.
Condition No. 4 of the 1991 Conditions of Approval simply states "[A]ny development
550 Fast Hospitality Lani:, Suite .100 e San Bernardino, California 92408
3750 (fnivcrsity Avenue. Suite 250 • Riverside. Cnlifomiu 92501
550 West C Slrcet, Suite 1810 $Sun Dicgu. California 92101
.i .L\3 South llop.; Slrc:ct. 35"' Floor@ Los Angeles. California 90071
G583-000 --1758008. l
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 1, 2015
Page2
beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition No. 1 shall
require the submittal of a major Conditional Use Permit Revision." The Mausoleum,
proposed as part of Green Hills' 2007 Master Plan Revision," constituted
"development beyond that depicted in the Master Site Plan referenced in Condition
No. l." By its terms, the 1991 Master Plan therefore required Green Hills to apply for a
Major Conditional Use Permit Revision for any new development. Green Hills did so.
While Staff may now claim that the 1991 Master Plan had intended to reference other
conditions (i.e., Condition No. 2), or that Conditions No. 1 and 4 were not intended to
apply to setbacks, the fact of the matter is -Condition No. 4 says what it says. Green
Hills followed the express requirements of the 1991 Master Plan by applying for a
Major Conditional Use Permit Revision in connection with its 2007 Master Plan
Revision. If the City intended Green Hills to also apply for a variance, it should have
said so more than eight (8) years ago.
B. The Municipal Code Provides that Conditions Take Precedence Over Other
Development Standards.
As quoted in the Staff Report, the City's Municipal Code (the "Code") provides that
conditions granted via conditional use permits "shall take precedence over
development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoning of the subject
site." (Staff Report at pg. 4, quoting Code Section 17.60.050B). Staff now claims this
provision was only intended to apply when "more stringent development
requirements" are approved, but not when less stringent development standards are
approved. Once again, the Code section says what it says: It does not reference more
stringent or less stringent standards -it refers to all conditions. A time-worn legal
adage known as the "plain meaning rule" provides that laws are to be interpreted
according to their plain language. Interpretations may not be read into statutes if the
language of the statute, as here, is clear on its face. Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45
Cal.3d 727, 735.
This interpretation does not nullify all of the requirements regarding variances, as the
Staff Report claims. Rather, it provides that in certain situations -for example, when
the City is already granting a discretionary approval, such as a conditional use permit
-the City will not require the applicant to apply for a second and largely duplicative
variance approval. Many cities have similar provisions. Nevertheless, if the City
believes this Code section is too expansive, then the City Council should take steps to
amend the language to contain the "more stringent development requirements"
limitation Staff would like it to say.
G583-000 --1758008.1
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 1, 2015
Page3
C. The Filing of the Application is a Futile Act.
Green Hills has advised that the filing of a variance for the Mausoleum would be a
futile act. Staff disagrees, claiming that the variance application would not be futile
because the City may grant or deny the variance. Staff misinterprets the point here.
True, the City could grant or deny the variance, but if the City denied the variance and
the City's denial were challenged in court, the City's denial would not stand.
Therefore, it is futile to engage in the exercise of applying for a variance when the end
result -no matter whether the City grants or denies the variance -would be that a
court would rule in Green Hills' favor based on principles of estoppel, laches and
vested rights.
II. Comments on Conditions.
For ease of reference, our comments follow the order and the numbering of the
Conditions in the Staff Report.
Condition No. l.f: Application for Variance/Restriction on Additions.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification, although as
explained above, Green Hills continues to object to the requirement to apply
for a variance.
Condition No. 1.i: Family Estates.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification, except for the
last sentence of this Condition, which prohibits family estates on the rooftops
of any mausoleum buildings. The term "family estates" generally refers to an
area reserved for the burial of a group of persons related by blood or marriage.
We do not believe the City intends (nor would the City have the legal authority
under State law) to prohibit persons related by blood or marriage to be buried
in close proximity to one another. Rather, we expect the intent of this
restriction is to limit above-ground structures that may impact views.
Accordingly, Green Hills requests that this last sentence be stricken or revised
so as not to interfere with the rights of family members to be buried near one
another in a reserved area.
Condition No. l.j: Preparation of Ground Burial Sites.
• Green Hills has no objection to this Condition.
G583-000 --1758008.1
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 1, 2015
Page 4
Condition No. l.k: Review of Mausoleum Buildings.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 1.1: Small Accessory Buildings.
• Green Hills has no objection to this new Condition.
Condition No. l.m: Customary Cemetery-Related Features.
• Green Hills has no objection to this new Condition, although it requests the
addition of niches, columbaria and sarcophagi. (For reference, sarcophagi are
box-like funeral receptacles, most commonly carved in stone, and displayed
above-ground, though they may also be buried.)
Condition No. 1.3.c: Limitation on Vegetation.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 1.3.e: No Expansion of Mausoleum without Planning Commission
Approval.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Introduction to Condition Nos. 1.3.f through 1.3.o.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 1.3.f: Burial Preparation.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 1.3.h: Limitation on Use of Mini-Haul.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 1.3.1: Flagging of Upcoming Burials.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Old Condition No. 1.3.n: Sales of Additional Plots.
G583-000 --l 758008. l
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 1, 2015
Page 5
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested deletion of this proposed
Condition.
Re-numbered Condition No. 1.3.n: No Interments Within 16-Feet.
• Green Hills objects to this Condition, and requests approval to use plots 540-
553, provided it complies with all operational Conditions imposed by this
Council.
New Condition 1.3.o: Limitation on Number of Burials.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 2: Reference to September 1, 2015 City Council Action.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 6: Reference to Plots in the Northwest Corner.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification, but see
comments under Condition 53.
Condition No. 7: Setbacks for Mausoleum.
• Green Hills objects to the reference to the setback for the Mausoleum as "40-
'0"." The Mausoleum, as it currently exists today, is not 40 feet from the
property line, nor was it approved at 40 feet from the property line in 2007 or
in any of the building permits authorizing its construction that followed. The
fact of the matter is that the City previously approved the Mausoleum to be
located 8 feet from the property line, and cannot undo that approval (and the
building permits that followed) for a building that has already been
constructed in reliance on those permits. The same objection applies to
Condition 8 and Ba.
Condition No. 37: Approval of Retaining Wall.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 38: Clarification of Height Measurement.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
G583-000 --1758008.1
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 1, 2015
Page 6
Condition No. 52: Submittal of Maps.
• Green Hills continues to object to this proposed Condition, but will agree to
comply.
Condition No. 53: Variance for Existing Burials in the Northwest Corner.
• Green Hills objects to this Condition because, as discussed in previous
submittals, the City already approved a variance for burials within the
Northwest Corner as part of the 1991 Master Plan Conditional Use Permit as
set forth in Condition 6. Therefore, rather than apply for a new variance,
Green Hills can submit an application for a modification to Condition 6.
Specifically, Condition No. 6 currently provides that setbacks for below ground
interments on the north and south are "8'0" (except for the northwest corner
between the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be
16'0")." Green Hills proposes that this language be further amended as
follows:
North and South: 8'0" (except for the northwest corner between
the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be
16'0" and except for the 13 interments and 6 companion plots
existing in the northwest corner as of September 1, 2015, which
shall be 8'0").
• Thus, Green Hills does not object to the submittal of a request to approve the
existing burials within the 16 foot setback as suggested by Staff; it simply
objects to the form of the request.
Condition No. 54: Verification of Setback along Western Property Line.
• Green Hills has no objection to Staff's suggested modification.
Condition No. 55: Submittal of Variance Application.
• For the reasons detailed above, Green Hills objects to the requirement to apply
for a variance relative to the Mausoleum's setback.
* * * *
0583-000 --1758008.1
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
September 1, 2015
Page 7
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Conditions. We will be
available tonight to answer any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
Ellen Berkowitz, of
GRESHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN & TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
EB:
G583-000 --I 758008. l
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
27501 Western Avenue (Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan)
1. This approval is a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be consistent
with the "Master Plan Amendment Submittal Package" booklet dated January 29,
2007, prepared by J. Stuart Todd Inc. Specifically, Revision "D" allows the
following:
a. Acknowledgment that the actual quantity of grading that has been conducted
between 1991 through 2004, which is 288,814 cubic yards (cut and fill), is
89,475 cubic yards more than originally approved by the original Master Plan
approved in 1991 through City Council Resolution No. 91-7;
b. Allow a total of 643,259 cubic yards of additional grading, which includes
97,964 cubic yards of import for all the various proposed mausoleum buildings,
and all cut and fill associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery site
for the life of the Master Plan. The imported fill material will be conducted in
phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over an extended period of
time over the next 30-to 50-years, which will be phased as follows:
i. Inspiration Slope (Area 2) will be constructed in a minimum of three phases
over a period of 5-to 10-years (as funding and budgeting become
available), with the initial phase commencing in 2007. The construction will
require adequate backfill to keep the adjacent ground burial section at a
consistent level. Cumulatively, upon completion, the project will have
produced 53,000 cubic yards of grading; however, each phase will require
between 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of import. Thus, it is estimated that
40,000 cubic yards of import fill will be required for construction of the entire
Inspiration Slope project.
ii. Reflection Mausoleum expansion (Area 3), which would not commence until
completion of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, will include large
excavations. Since the project will be phased and there will again be a need
to import backfill for construction purposes, it is estimated that 14,000 cubic
yards of imported fill will be required for this project.
111. Areas 7 and 11 will not require import of fill since the amount of excavation
far exceed the amount of backfill necessary for these mausoleum buildings,
and the excess dirt will be placed and compacted in Areas 5 and 6 of the
Master Plan (i.e., the southern and southwestern portions of the cemetery
site), which is not expected to be developed for another 30-years.
iv. The final project that would require substantial imported fill would be the
mausoleums proposed for construction in Area 6. The project will not be
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 1 of 20 I
constructed for at least 30 years into the future, and excess dirt from the
ground burials and other mausoleum buildings will have been placed and
compacted at this location. Thus, it is anticipated that approximately 34,000
cubic yards will be imported for construction purposes and backfill.
c. Clarify that the number of additional ground burial sites at Green Hills Memorial
Park is 14,000 Double Depth Burials (28,000 interments), 400 Single Depth
Burials (400 interments), and 408 family estates (9,792 interments);
d. Area 6 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Southwest Mausoleum): allow a
reconfiguration, relocation and additional area to the previously approved
mausoleum building, which was proposed under the original Master Plan to be
at the south side of the cemetery, from one mausoleum building with a 77,715
square foot footprint, to 5 separate mausoleum buildings with each footprint
measuring 23,653 square feet at a location that is approximately 300 -feet
farther west than approved in the original Master Plan;
e. Area 3 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Garden of Reflections
Mausoleum): allow a new 75, 131 square foot mausoleum building to the west
of the existing mortuary, whereby 9,871 square feet will be above grade and
65,260 square feet will be below grade;
f. Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum): With in 30-days from the date of approval of th is
Resolution, a Variance and a Cond itional Use Permit Amendment application
shall be submitted for the 10,366 square foot Pacific Terrace /Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum build ing already constructed pursuant to BLD2011-00799;
(AMMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014
AND PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPETEMBER 1, 2015)
g. Area 7 of the Master Plan Revision (known as Southwest Terrace Mausoleum):
reduce the size of the previously approved mausoleum building footprint at the
southwest side of the cemetery, from a 60,583 square foot building footprint to
a 37,820 square foot building footprint;
h. Area 4 of the Master Plan Revision: Only ground burials are allowed between
the north perimeter road and the 8'-0" setback from the north property line. No
garden walls for family estate burials, or other built-up structures are allowed in
this Area, and the grade/topography of this Area shall not be raised except by
written permission of the Director of Community Development. The applicant
shall provide the City with a "wet-stamped" topographical survey that illustrates
the existing topography prior to any grading to prepare this Area for ground
burials, and the applicant shall provide the City with a "wet-stamped"
topographical survey that illustrates the finish topography of Area 4 after the
Area has been prepared for ground burials;
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 2 of 20
i. Except for required setback areas and Area 4, where above ground structures
are not allowed pursuant to Condition No. 7 below, areas in the Master Plan
Revision called out for family estates , which are areas designated for the burial
of a group of persons who typically are related by blood or marriage , may
include low garden walls less than 36-inches in overall height around their
perimeters to enclose these family estates, or more elaborate headstones that
are built above-ground that are no taller than 6-feet high . These garden walls
and headstones are allowed to contain above-ground interments . Above -
ground structures including , but not limited to , garden walls and above-ground
headstones , Family estates shall not be allowed on the rooftops of any
mausoleum building. (MODIFIED PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON
SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
J. Preparing ground burial sites includes grading an area by excavating up to 8-
feet below existing grade (depending, if these are single or double depth lawn
crypts), filling a layer of sand for erosion control purposes, constructing
concrete encasements where coffins are ultimately placed, then a layer of the
previously excavated dirt is filled to match pre-excavated grade. Excess earth
material resulting from the burial sites will be transported to Areas 5 and 6 of
the Master Plan Revision. It is approximated that 137,000 cubic yards of fill will
be necessary for these areas to raise the grade to accommodate mausoleum
buildings and ground burials, and appropriate drainage to the roadways. This
quantity includes ground spoils from throughout the cemetery site, excess cut
material from mausoleum projects in other areas, and import of additional fill
material.
k. Prior to submittal of plans into the Building and Safety Division, all mausoleum
buildings construction of each building contained in the approved Master Plan
and Master Plan Revision, shall first be reviev.:ed and approved by the Director
of Community Development the applicant shall submit a grading permit
application , signed by an individual designated by the Green Hills Memorial
Park Board of Directors , for review and approval by the Planning Commission
to ensure consistency with the approved Master Plan , which shall include , but
not be limited to , grading quantities , height , area and location of buildings and
that the buildings will not have adverse impacts upon adjacent properties.
Notice of the Director's decision Planning Commission review hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius , to persons
reques t ing notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17 .80.090. Further, a temporary frame silhouette must be constructed for each
mausoleum building at least 30-days prior the Director's Planning
Commission 's consideration of the building. Once the silhouette is constructed,
a licensed engineer, land surveyor or architect must certify that the silhouette
accurately depicts the location, height and outline of the proposed building.
The certification must be submitted to Staff at least 30-days prior to the
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 3 of 20
Direotor's deoision Planning Commission's hearing . (MODIFIED PER CC
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
I. Except for mausoleum buildings addressed in Condition 1.k, all other buildings
less than 120 square feet in size, not exceeding less than 12 feet in height,
located outside required setbacks, not on an extreme slope (35% or more), and
not on the roof of a mausoleum building shall be subject to review and approval
by the Director of Community Development through a Site Plan Review .
(ADDED PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
m. Construction of customary cemetery-related features, including but not limited
to water features, niches, columbaria, sarcophagi , bridges, benches, upright
memorial features, statuary and cenotaph walls, that do not exceed are less
tRcm 6' in height shall be allowed, except in required setback areas, on an
extreme slope (35% or more), ora-00 on the roof of a mausoleum. Cemetery
features that exceed 6' in height and are outside required setback areas and
not on the roof of a mausoleum building or an extreme slope shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Community Development through a Site Plan
Review or other City approval process. (ADDED PER CC RESOLUTION NO.
2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
1.A. Revision "D" to conditional use permit of the Green Hills Master Plan allows the
placement of an historic church building that is currently located in the San Pedro
community of the City of Los Angeles, onto the cemetery property. The church
building will be located in Area 5 of the Master Plan, southwest of the existing duck
pond. The church building measures less than 1, 100 square feet in area, and has
a steeple at the front of the building that is 7-feet wide, 7-feet deep, and 38 -feet
tall.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.B. All appropriate permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division prior
to relocating the historic church building to the cemetery.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.C. Prior to the relocation of the historic church building, the Green Hills Cemetery
personnel shall inform City Staff of the date and time in which the historic church
building will be transported, along with a plan illustrating the route.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.D. The church building may be used for funeral services only, and is not allowed to be
used for congregational church services. Further, the existing bell may remain as
a decorative feature only, and the bell or bell recordings are not allowed to be used
in conjunction with the church building.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.E. Major additions to the church building or relocation of the church building to
Resolution No. 2015 -_
Page 4 of 20
another location on the property are not allowed without prior Planning
Commission approval.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.F. All approvals necessary to relocate the church from the San Pedro community of
the City of Los Angeles to the Green Hills Cemetery shall be obtained and
submitted to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Public Works Department and
Community Development Department prior to relocation of the church.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008)
1.1 This approval is Revision "E" to the Green Hills Master Plan, and shall be
consistent with the approved plans prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp. dated
April 9, 2015 (sheets C-0, C-1, ESCP, RW-1) and Anthony Frank Inferrera dated
April 4, 2015 (sheet A-0 only), that allows the following im Rrovements to and
around he existing Administration Building:
a. Construction of 3,323ft2 of single-story office additions, 648ft2 covered walkway
extension, and 316ft2 covered entry to the Administration Building;
b. Allowing the temporary modular buildings to remain on site, but be removed prior
to April 22, 2017 or Building Permit Final, whichever comes first. Any extension
requests shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to April 22, 2017 .
Failure to remove said structures will constitute as a violation and deem the
Conditional Use Permit Revision null and void; and
c. Reconfiguration of the parking area to add 22 new parking spaces (81 required,
95 proposed for the Administration Building).
d. Conduct 325yd 3 of grading for the following emergency access and ADA
access/parking improvements:
a. Widen the driveway (portion of Arroyo Drive) located south of the
Administration Building from approximately 20 ' to 26' supported by a 2.5'
tall retaining wall to accommodate emergency vehicles.
b. Widen the access and parking area to the north of the Administration
Building to accommodate adequate handicap van parking and ADA
access area; thereby necessitating the removal of the existing 3' tall
retaining wall and the construction of a new replacement retaining wall
measuring up to 4.45' in height.
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.1.a THROUGH 1.1. d ADDED AND AMENDED PER
PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014 AND PC RESOLUTION NO.
2015-09 ON MAY 12. 2015 ~
1.2 Revision "E" shall be subject to the following specific conditions :
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 5 of 20
a. The following setback provisions shall apply: 25' front and street-side;
b. 40' interior and side if abutting a residential zoning district and 25' if
abutting a nonresidential zoning district.
c. Parking areas shall provide for a 25' outside turning radius within the
facility.
d. All parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic or cement concrete
paving which is at least 3" thick.
e . All parking stalls shall be clearly marked with lines, and access lanes shall
be clearly defined with directional arrows to guide traffic. Except for parallel
parking stalls, standard parking stalls shall be of a minimum 9' width by 20' depth
in area. Parallel arking stalls shall be a minimum of 26' in depth.
f. Disabled parking spaces shall be in accordance with the dimensions and
specifications of the state amended Uniform Building Code.
g. A minimum of 5% of the paved parking area shall be devoted to interior
planting areas. All planting areas shall be at least 3' wide . Perimeter planting
shall not be considered part of this required interior planting.
h. Wherever a center divider separates parking stalls facing each other, tree
wells shall be established not more than 50' apart for larger trees, or not more
than 30' for small and medium sized trees.
i. All plantings shall be maintained free of debris and in conformity with the
acce12ted practices for landscape maintenance.
j. A 6" high cement concrete curb shall be constructed at the edge of all
landscaped areas.
k. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for
the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in
Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final
effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no
further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed
with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director.
I. Prior to plan check submittal to the Building & Safety Division, the
applicant shall provide an updated Master Plan reflecting the modifications to the
Administration Building and related parking area to the Planning Division.
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.2.a THROUGH 1.2.I ADDED AND AMENDED PER
Reso lut ion No. 2015-_
Page 6 of 20
PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22. 2014 AND PC RESOLUTION NO.
2015-09 ON MAY 12, 2015)
1.3 The following conditions are applicable to the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building and Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan and shall
supersede any inconsistent conditions that govern other areas of the Green Hills
property:
a. The entire length of the tractor ramp shall be left clear at all times when
not in use. No vehicles, landscaping equipment, construction equipment,
storage containers, etc. are allowed to be parked, stored or allowed to be
left on the tractor ramp.
b. The Northern (rear) wall of the mausoleum building shall be screened by a
type of wall vine landscaping. Said landscaping shall be planted and
allowed to grow on the wall only, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development and shall not grow above the wall.
c. With the exception of ground cover, no other vegetation shall be planted
on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum.
Else•Nhere For other areas within Area 11 that are outside the footprint of
the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, only 'Nith the exception
9f-ground cover, shrubs and other vegetation less than 4' in height are
allowed. V ines are allowed on the northern wall of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building provided that they do
(which shall not exceed the solid building parapet), no vegetation shall be
planted in Area 11 of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007.
(AMENDED PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1,
2015)
d. The guardrail fence along the tractor ramp and along the top of the
mausoleum building along the north (rear) shall not be a solid wall and
shall be maintained as a wrought iron guardrail.
e. No additions or expansion shall be allowed to the existing Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. No new mausoleum
building shall be constructed within Area 11 without first obtaining
Planning Commission approval at a duly noticed public hearing following
the process set forth in Condition 1.k. (AMENDED PER CC
RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
The following conditions are applicable to all burials on the roof of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building:
f. Pre-service burial/plot preparation and post-service plot backfilling of the
rooftop ground interments on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 1 O:OOam
Resolution No . 2015-_
Page 7 of 20
and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday, except for burial services
scheduled to occur at 1 O:OOam, in which case burial preparation may take
place at 9:00am on the day of the service, or the day prior to the service
between 10:00 am and 3:00pm.
g. Burials and all associated services on the roof top ground interments of
the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be
allowed between the hours of 1 O:OOam and 3:00pm, Monday through
Sunday .
h. The use of tAe a mini-haul vehicle (which is illustrated in Green Hills'
power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014)
shall be limited to pre-service burial/plot preparation and post-service plot
backfilling of the rooftop ground interments during the hours specified in
Condition 1.3.f above between the hours of 1 O:OOam and 3:00pm, Monday
through Sunday . (MINOR CHANGE TO MAKE CONSISTENT WITH
VERBIAGE USED IN CONDITION 1.3.fi)
i. The use of amplified sound shall be prohibited on the rooftop of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building. This prohibition shall not
apply to the amplified sound for the playing of "taps" as part of funeral
services for military personnel and for police, fire and other first
responders.
j. All services on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum building shall be conducted within temporary covered tenting
that is enclosed on a minimum of 2 sides, as illustrated in Green Hills'
power point presentation to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2014.
One of the two covered sides shall be the north side facing the Vista
Verde Condominium complex. Said temporary tenting shall be erected no
earlier than 2 hours prior to the burial service and shall be removed within
2 hours after the burial service.
k. Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof-fop ground
interments plots on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building in Area 11, only between the hours of 1 O:OOam and 3:00pm
Monday through Sunday.
I. Small flags shall be placed on any burial site located on the rooftop of the
Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within 24 hours after a
burial service has been scheduled for that site, thereby providing
neighboring property owners with advanced notice of scheduled
interments and burial services. Green Hills shall also post on its publicly
accessible website (www .greenhillsmemorial.com) additional details
concerning the anticipated time and date of scheduled burial services.
Resolution No. 2015 -_
Page 8 of 20
(AMENDED PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1,
2015)
m. At least one employee of Green Hills shall attend and monitor every
service occurring on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum for the entirety of all burial services to ensure that the services
are orderly and comply with these conditions of approval.
n. In no event shall below-grade interments be allowed on the roof of the
Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building that are within 16-feet from the
northern property line. Specifically, plots illustrated in sections 540
through 553, as depicted in the attached Exhibit C of this Resolution, are
hereby eliminated. (RENUMBERED DUE TO THE DELETION OF THE
ORIGINAL CONDITION 1.3.n IN PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29)
o. For any existing burial plot on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Terrace Mausoleum, either one casket or one urn (or other container for
cremated remains) shall be placed in each burial plot, and where there are
companion plots, one casket or one urn (or other container for cremated
remains) shall be placed in each companion plot. (ADDED PER CC
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.3.a THROUGH 1.3.o ADDED AND AMENDED PER
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014 AND CC RESOLUTION
NO. 2015-, ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
2. Construction and build-out of the Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery shall be in
substantial compliance with the Master Plan Revision approved by the Planning
Commission on April 24, 2007, July 22, 2014, afl€i-August 26, 2014, afl€i-November
11, 2014, and May 12, 2015 , and the City Council on September 1, 2015, as
indicated in these conditions of ap Rroval. Deviation from the conditions of approval
shall only occur if first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
through a subsequent Master Plan Revision at a noticed public hearing. Notice of
said public hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a
500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations,
and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code Section 17.80.090. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete,
or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2008-47 ON NOVEMBER 25, 2008; PC
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014; PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -29
ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014; PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-09 ON MAY 12, 2015;
AND CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_ on September 1, 2015).
3 . Prior to grading operations to prepare Area 4 for ground burials, the applicant shall
submit a grading permit application, signed by an individual designated by the
Green Hills Memorial Park Board of Directors for review and approval by the
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 9 of 20
Director of Community Development to ensure consistency with the approved
Master Plan Revision. If it is found to be consistent with the approved Master Plan
Revision, the grading permit will be approved administratively, without further
public notice, review or hearings. However, if the Director of Community
Development finds that the project is not consistent with the approved Master Plan
Revision, then it shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Notice of said Planning Commission review hearing shall be published and
provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice,
to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance
with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.
4. The applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing,
that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained
in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
5. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program
contained in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-32 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
shall be incorporated into the implementation of the proposed project and adhered
to. The mitigation measures are as follows:
A-1: No new light poles, light standards, or other form of lighting is allowed along
the roadways within the cemetery without prior written approval by the Director of
Community Development.
A-2: No exterior, building-mounted lighting is allowed on the fagade elevations
that are closest to and oriented towards residences. All other lighting shall be
arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of surrounding property.
A-3: All pedestrian-oriented lights along the exterior of the mausoleum buildings
shall be in the form of lights that are inset into the adjoining walls. Further, the
lighting shall be arranged and/or shielded as to prevent direct illumination of
surrounding property and prevent visibility of the light source.
AQ-1: Prior to construction of each building contained in the approved Master
Plan and Master Plan Revision, the applicant shall submit a grading permit
application, signed by an individual designated by the Green Hills Memorial Park
Board of Directors, for review and approval by the Planning Commission to
ensure consistency with the approved Master Plan, which shall include, but not
be limited to, grading quantities, height, area and location of buildings and that
the buildings will not have adverse impacts upon adjacent properties. Notice of
said Planning Commission review hearing shall be published and provided to
owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all
affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 10 of 20
AQ-2: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that all unpaved construction areas shall be watered at
least twice a day during excavation and construction to reduce dust emissions
and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond
the project site boundaries.
AQ-3: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that all clearing, grading, earth moving or demolition
activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15
mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
AQ-4: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that General contractors shall maintain and operate
construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.
AQ-5: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that on-site construction vehicle speeds are limited to a
maximum of 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
AQ-6: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that all on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic will
be watered periodically as necessary for dust suppression.
AQ-7: During construction of any improvements associated with the master plan,
the owner shall ensure that street sweeping will be initiated if visible dust is
deposited upon public paved roadways due to the project.
AQ-8: During the daily cemetery operations, the owner shall ensure that all
clearing and earth moving will be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e.,
greater than 25 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. This shall not
apply to excavations for individual burial plots prior to a service, or to filling of
individual burial plots after a service.
AQ-9: During the daily cemetery operations, the owner shall ensure that on-site
vehicle speeds associated with the transporting of earth materials are limited to
15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
AQ-10: The owner shall ensure that grave spoils are placed in Area 5 and/or
Area 6 of the Master Plan, which will be placed to fill the areas. A minimum 8-
foot high chain link fence with a mesh material to reasonably screen the fill area
from neighbors shall enclose and confine said area.
AQ-11: The confined fill locations described in mitigation measure AQ-10 above,
shall be regularly watered to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule
403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site boundaries.
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 11 of 20
AQ-12: A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s)
responsible for the daily dirt movement to these confined fill locations and a
phone number(s) to be called in the event that dust is visible from the confined fill
locations described in mitigation measure AQ-10 above, shall be posted and
displayed on the fencing.
AQ-13: If stockpiling of earth material becomes necessary for ultimate use as
backfill, stockpiling shall only be located in Area 5 and/or Area 6 of the Master
Plan, and shall be subject to conditions AQ-10, AQ-11 and AQ-12 above.
AQ-14: The project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission annually,
commencing on the date of final approval, to review the applicant's compliance
with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan
Revision. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the
conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as well as
increase the time between review periods. Notice of said review hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons
requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17.80.090.
GS-1: The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report for review and approval
by the City Geologist prior to the issuance of a building permit for each
mausoleum building or grading permit for any earth movement beyond that
associated with ground interment sites, unless the City Geologist deems that a
geotechnical report is not warranted. Further, prior to any additional placement
of fill in Area 5, a detailed grading plan with relevant geotechnical reports
supporting recommendations for grading in Areas 5 and 6 shall be submitted by
the applicant to the City for review and approval by the Building and Safety
Division and the City Geologist prior to issuance of a building permit for any
mausoleum.
GS-2: The applicant shall ensure that all applicable conditions as specified
within the geotechnical report and all measures required by the City Geologist
are incorporated into the project.
HW-1: The applicant shall prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) along with a Maintenance Agreement and Transfer. The SUSMP and
related information shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development, or his/her designee prior to the issuance of grading and building
permits for any mausoleum building.
N-1: Construction activity of the mausoleum buildings and grading operations
shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
There shall be no construction on Saturdays, Sundays or federally observed
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 12 of 20
holidays unless a Special Construction Permit is obtained prior to work on a
Federally observed holiday.
N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not
park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way
before 7:00 am Monday through Friday and before 9:00 am on Saturday, in
accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas
on -site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment.
These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities
and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
N-3: As indicated in mitigation measure AQ-14 ~ above, the project shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date of final
approval, to review the applicant's compliance with all conditions of approval
associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that time, the
Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as
deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons
requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17.80.090.
6. Setbacks for below ground interments sites, "Garden" burial sites with no above-
ground structures (other than benches for seating), and roads shall be as follows:
North and South: 8'-0" (except the northwest corner between the western
property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16'-0"
and as addressed in Condition No. 53)
East and West: O' -0"
(AMENDED PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
7. Setbacks for above ground structures, including but not limited to mausoleums
(except the Pacifica Mausoleum and the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace
Mausoleum shown in Area 11 of the Master Plan, which are addressed in
Condition 8 and 8.a) and crypts shall be as follows:
North: 80'-0" or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is
greater from the north property line that is north of the maintenance
yard, and 40' -0" from the north property line that abuts the Vista
Verde Condominium complex in the City of Lomita.
South: 40'-0"
East: 25' -0"
West: 5'-0"
(AMMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29, ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014
Resolution No. 2015 -_
Page 13 of 20
AND CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPETMBER 1, 2015)
8. Setbacks for the Pacifica Mausoleum are as follows:
West:
North:
15'-0" (existing) I 5'-0" for the northwestern addition
40'-0" (expansion northerly along the eastern edge of the existing
building shall be offset 8'-0" to the west from the existing eastern
edge of the building)
8.a Setbacks for the existing Pacific Terrance/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building
in Area 11 shall be as follows:
North: 40'-0", unless a Variance and a Conditiona l Use Perm it
Amendment is approved by the City for a reduced setback .
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29, ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
9. Any live and/or amplified music shall occur only during funeral services, community
events, or visits. Funeral services music and community event music shall be
limited to the duration of the service or event. In no case shall the live and/or
amplified music exceed 65 dba at the common property lines abutting a
Residential Zoning District. The noise level shall be enforced by the neighbors
through civil means.
10. The Director of Community Development is authorized to approve minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans
and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission .
11. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are
in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
12. The applicant shall supply the abutting neighbors with the name and contact
information for the Green Hills Cemetery personnel that can be contacted about
excessive noise or other activities that result in impacts to the immediate
neighborhood .
13. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may
include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. (AMENDED PER PC
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
14. When not being used in the daily operations of the cemetery, equipment and
Resolution No . 2015-_
Page 14 of 20
supplies shall be stored in areas with minimal visual impact to adjacent
homeowners or in the maintenance yard if possible. Equipment and supplies shall
be neatly stacked so they do not pose a safety hazard or become a property
maintenance issue. All landscaping equipment and vehicles, and all vehicles used
for maintenance and/or burial preparation shall be stored in the maintenance yard.
15. The road in Area 5 and Area 6 (of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24,
2007) that parallels the south property line shall be paved and maintained by the
applicant.
16. All landscape pruning, including but not limited to grass, leaves, branches,
fertilizer, etc., shall be properly stored in areas with minimal visual impact to
adjacent homeowners, and shall be stored in appropriate containers and disposed
of in a proper manner.
17. With the exception of ground cover, no vegetation shall be planted in Area 2
(Inspiration Slope) of the Master Plan Revision approved April 24, 2007.
18. The applicant shall install and maintain signage at various locations throughout the
Cemetery to inform visitors of rules that prohibit on-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages, prohibit excessive noise and amplified music, and disruptive behavior.
The applicant shall submit a signage plan for review and approval by Staff prior to
installation of any signage. The signage plan shall illustrate the locations, height,
design and content of the signs.
19. Temporary trailers are only allowed during construction of the mausoleum
buildings. The location of any such trailers shall be illustrated on plans for the
Grading Permit as described and required in condition AQ-1 above, and shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development. Further, the trailer shall be
removed prior to building/grading permit final.
20. Construction and grading activities, including but not limited to equipment warm up,
geologic investigations, interment excavation for placement of vaults and
installation or removal of large landscape materials shall be limited to daytime
working hours (7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) on weekdays only.
21. Excavation for removal and replacement of vault tops for funeral service
preparation, individual placement of vaults for funeral services and operation of
landscape maintenance equipment shall be allowed in any area of the park
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and Federally observed
Holidays.
22. No construction or grading, including grading operations to prepare sites for
ground burials, shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. within 120 feet of
any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District. All equipment shall be
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 15 of 20
equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels.
23. All existing and proposed landscaping between the north property line and the
northern perimeter road shall not significantly impair any near or far view as
defined by the Development Code. A landscape plan limited to plants, trees and
foliage that are 48-inches or taller for this Area shall be submitted to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval prior to grading operations to
prepare Area 4 for ground burials.
24. All existing and future landscaping shall be properly maintained in a healthy and
trimmed manner at all times.
25. The existing eucalyptus trees on the west side of the Administration Building
Parking lot shall not be removed unless required by the holder of the easement in
which the trees are located or acceptable evidence is provided to the Director of
Community Development from a certified arborist supporting removal.
26. When Inspiration Slope is developed, the existing hedge that separates Crescent
Lawn and Vista Del Pointe from this area shall be removed.
27. The existing hedge located on the applicant's property on the south property line
adjacent to the rear yards on residential lots located on Avenida Feliciano shall be
pruned and maintained so it does not exceed the height of the chain link fence,
which is 8'-0" high. The existing and future screen planting in the 8'-0" setback
along the northern property line shall be maintained no higher than the fence
height unless specifically requested in writing by the appropriate adjacent property
owner.
28. Any new sewer and water facilities must tie into local main lines. The usage of the
site may be limited by the size and type of sewage and water systems that can
legally be installed
29. The site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities as determined
by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All Los Angeles County Fire
Department requirements shall be satisfied prior to building permit issuance for the
mausoleum building.
30. Any grading, construction, placement of structures, including but not limited to
walls, fences, and interments on any easement, requires prior written permission
from the easement holder.
31. The owner shall submit a title report within 90-days of final approval of this Master
Plan Revision. All easements shown on the title report shall be clearly delineated
on an accompanying site plan.
32. The existing chain link fence and wrought iron fence, which surrounds the
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 16 of 20
perimeter of the cemetery site, shall be maintained. On those areas of the fence
specifically owned by the cemetery, and where not directed otherwise by the
adjacent water authority, no barbed wire on the top of these fences is allowed, and
any existing barbed wire shall be removed within 90-days of final approval of this
Master Plan Revision.
33. Hours of public operation for the flower shop are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Monday through Sunday. The Administration Building public hours are limited to
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The Chapel may be open to the
public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The cemetery
grounds for visits shall be open from 7:00 a.m. to dusk.
34. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities
and agencies that provide public services to the site.
35. Should the applicant fail to comply with any of these conditions of approval or
mitigation measures, the City may initiate revocation procedures for this permit,
which shall include a public hearing. Notice of said public hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons
requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property
owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section
17.80.090.
36. The overall building heights for the buildings are limited to the heights approved by
the Planning Commission. The heights of each building shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to building permit final. (AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO.
2014-29, ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
37. The family mausoleum on Inspiration Slope shall be located as shown on the
Master Plan Revision so as not to impair views from the Peninsula Verde
neighborhood. The Director of Community Development shall approve the exact
location and height of this mausoleum building. The Director may review and
approve a retaining wall that contains niches for cremated remains extending from
the mausoleum building not exceeding 8'-0" in height and a maximum 42" high
guardrail and pilasters on top. The top of the retaining wall shall not exceed the
height of the adjacent road level (other than a small curb). (AMENDED PER CC
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER1, 2015)
38. With the exception of the mausoleum building on Inspiration Slope and Lake View
Terrace (Area 6), all mausoleum buildings shall not exceed 20-feet in height as
measured from the highest finish ed grade elevation covered by structure to the
highest point of the structure, and shall not exceed an overall height of 30 -feet as
measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest
point of the structure , provided that there are no adverse impacts to adjacent
properties. Once a building height has been determined by the Planning
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 17 of 20
Commission, a ridge height certification will be required prior to Building Permit
Final. (AMMENDED PER CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; ON SEPTEMBER 1,
2015)
39. Temporary storage (up to 72 -hours) of interment excavations is allowed provided
that such excavation is stored within an appropriate container.
40. Finish slopes and grades shall not exceed 3: 1.
41. On 4: 1 or steeper slopes, erosion controlling plant material and other erosion
control methods, such as jute netting, shall be required and installed.
42. Drought tolerant, low maintenance and erosion controlling landscaping is required
in the western setback adjacent to the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion.
43. Landscaping and irrigation in all setbacks require review and approval by the
Director of Community Development prior to installation. Irrigation systems shall
be designed to provide adequate coverage with no over-spray, runoff, or excessive
quantities of water output. Use of drip irrigation systems is required wherever
possible. A low water use turf shall be used in all new lawn areas. Such
landscape and irrigation plan for the setback areas shall be submitted to the
Community Development for review and approval within 180 days of final approval
of the Master Plan Revision.
44. On an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the City with copies of permits from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and Los Angeles County Fire
Prevention Bureau for storage of fuel. The applicant shall also provide copies of
permits from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Hazardous Maintenance
Division Section and Fire Prevention Bureau, for the chemicals stored in the
embalming rooms in the Administration Building. Permits from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District for the crematory must also be provided.
45. The applicant shall continue to provide for new employees, training programs on a
regular basis, in accordance with Cal OSHA recommendations on the proper
handling and safety requirements of equipment and material in the mortuary and
crematory.
46. On an annual basis, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of permits
and/or licenses from the State Cemetery and Funeral Board.
47. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts,
dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the
applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
48. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
Resolution No. 2015-_
Page 18 of 20
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. (AMENDED PER PC
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
49. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform
to the Cemetery development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but
not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. (AMENDED PER PC
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
50. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. (AMENDED PER PC
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
51. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste
and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be
removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or
temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable
bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
(AMENDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 ON JULY 22, 2014)
52. Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit maps depicting the locations of the current and proposed interments within
the cemetery property. (ADDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON
NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
53. Within 30-days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance and a Condit ional Use Permit Amendment application to allow,
within the 16 -foot setback area in the northwest corner of the cemetery site
between the west property line and the maintenance yard, only the 13 existing
below-ground interments and 6 below-ground companion spaces identified in
Exhibit B of this Resolution. (ADDED PER PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON
NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
54. Within 30-days from the date of the approval of th is Reso lut ion, the app licant shall
subm it a certified property line survey to the Director of Community Development
verify ing that the existing above ground interments and structures exceeding 6-feet
in height are located outs ide of the required five foot setback along the west
property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mauso leum build ing . (ADDED PER
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014 AND AMENDED PER
CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015)
Resolution No . 2015-_
Page 19 of 20
55 . Within 30 -days from the date of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall
submit a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment application to allow
the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain
encroaching 32-feet into the required 40-foot property line setback. (ADDED PER
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014)
Resolution No . 2015-_
Page 20 of 20
i ldf~ f.itJJL"f/-i"
I
403
D I A I B I C I D I A
I
404
AS OF AUGUST 22, 2014
405 406
B I CIDIA I B ll C I D I A
408 410 411
DIAIB I C I DI A D IAI B I C I D I L!LULL.Q
X POTENTIAL FUTURE
2nd INTERMENT
SOLD
~T
Pacific Gardens
~ :=. --~ -~
~
3.M
H
. 4,2 : . . :-·413 . :·:414 . ·4,5 .· . '416 . :417 .. : : : :4,8 . . 4,9 : :
A: :2~c 1 D
. 14 1 .. 422 423 I 424 I 425
·p;J s:-c · 17 A 'B' ·c D ·A ·B'.·c ·o . ... "Er ·c-0 ·.-; ·s ·c · ·.-; ·s . ·c ·17 A 'B C ·17 ·A ·s .·c ·o ·o A B c D A s !c l o Ale l c r o A l e l c 10
........
443 ·442 . . 441 · 440 .. . ·.·439 ·. L 4J8 :: ·.437 436 ·: ·435 ·.· 434 433 432 I 431 I 430
A I BJ.:_j D .A. .S: :c jo .A. B c :o· :1.. :e· :c: .o: :A .B. :c: :O: I;. :~ :c: D .... ·a · c :o: A. c • :e :do. ;.J e l c l o .. 1 B I c I 0 Aie l c l o A!e l c r o Ale l c 10
' . . ' ''.
.-.468 ' .. : 469 : . 470 . ' :471 .: : : : 472 .·' . 473 > ·. . · :4 4 . . . . 478 . 477 478 419 o I 481
;..1.&1:c; :~ . . . . .
B cj o B c o Als l c l o ·A ·B ·C ·D .;. B c ·D A 8 ·C ·!> ·A ·B ·C D ·A ·B c !> ;., !I : ~ ·!> ·I. ·ll c .(> ·i:;. ·D " D A A
' :499 : . :4911 '4'7-.·· :-:-:496 · ·.· . : :49!i .. ·: :·:494 . :-:49l ..: .. 4&2 :-:-1 488 411 I 486
1.1·8 l d i:i id B'l'cl o ·i.-h l ·clo .l.hl-Cl o ... ·u ·c ·17 .... ·u ·c ·o ·A ·e .·c ·o ... 'B' ·c . ·o .. 0 A 0 A e j c l o A e l c l o A l elc l o . -. . . . . . '.' ....
s22 · ·s23 .-.· . . . -. . . 527 · .. ' ....
533 534 535 SZ4 . -.525 .. · ... -.·s25 · · · S28 .< . 529 ·. 530
:A. f s".c A Ii :c· o· ·,;, e: :c :~J!JcJo .A B :c. 0: .A B. ·c: :o A. :e :c: :o. A. :e :c: o .. B C D A D A 0 A e c D A B C D A B C I D . . . . . . .
. 553 > : . :552 ss.1 '550 .. ' :-MS :· -.-548 ·547 . -: ·548 .. _. 545 544 543 542 541 540
i..J &:l~l ;.:.l e f c J o i>f &11:;.J. AJej.~J·!> -A j.e f ~j.o : f rj J ~f~. 11 f c j .o :J.j s l 1:;.f c) Ale l c l o Alelclo Alelclo Ale l c l o Ale l clo Alelc l o
AS OF JULY 31, 2014
Pacific Terrace Rooftop -Interments
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
AUGUST 31, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, September 1, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
0-N Email from Sunshine
D Email from Sharon Yarber; Email exchange between Senior
Administrative Analyst Fox and Madeline Ryan
E Memorandum from Senior Analyst Fox
M Email from Jarel Wheaton; City Manager Willmore response
to Jarel Wheaton
1 Email from Dr. Lisa A Pierson
W:IAGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150901 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Monday, August 31, 2015 11:55 AM
CC; Doug Willmore
September l, 2015 Consent Calendar
TO: RPV City Council. Copy to City Manager and interested parties
RE: September 1, 2015 Council meeting Consent Calendar
Once again, the Consent Calendar is loaded with items which really should be heard as NEW BUSINESS.
Since they do not require the publication of Public Notices, you and the public, have very little time to bring up
errors and omissions. Staff has very little time to come up with valid answers.
Item D. Purchase of tax defaulted property. I support this recommendation simply because it might cause Staff
to look further into the other possible solutions to restoring/enhancing this trail connection. Plus, this property,
10 Chaparral and the Cake property are identified in the RPV General Plan as a potential park site. The
granting of entitlements on 10 Chaparral does not guarantee a completed project.
Item E. Letter opposing Assembly Bill No. 57. I support this recommendation because I oppose anything
which might usurp local control. I am appalled that Staff is not in a position to defend the citizenry as a routine
activity.
Item F. Letter of concern about fire sprinkler system connection fees collected by? I support this
recommendation because nobody except the City should be able to charge such fees.
Item G. Amending Ordinance No. 574 regarding residential rooftop solar energy systems. I support this
recommendation and ask why does it not apply to small ground mount solar energy systems? You might ask
Staff to bring this back when it does.
Item H. License agreement for use of City property. I object to this approach since the Staff Report does not
disclose how much it costs the City to maintain this facility. Does Los Serenos de Point Vicente pay rent on the
portion of the Pointe Vicente Interpretive Center which they use exclusively? What I particularly object to is
the one year term. The Portuguese Bend Cooperative Nursery School has a very long track record. The City
should encourage them for many years to come, not take money from them. Renegotiating an Agreement on an
annual basis is a burden on a non-profit.
Item I. Ladera Linda RFP. I do not support this recommendation. Buying another Master Plan "fancy
document" is not going to change what Staff has already decided should become of this site. The Council
should get to talk about it when a grant is available.
Item J. Open Space deed restrictions. I strongly oppose this recommendation as presented. The City should
not impose restrictions on the use of publicly owned property except when clearly required. In this case it is not
clear. Where is the map? See separate MEMO.
Item K. RFP to upgrade the Community Development Department's pitiful administrative procedures. Yes,
"receive and file". Thank goodness somebody is looking into it.
1 J)-;t/
Item L. Employee classification request. This requires a Council Resolution? We don't have anyone
Supervising our Accounting?
Item M. Approval of City Attorney Contract. I support this recommendation only if the text is exactly what the
Council has previously approved.
Item N. Assumption of Redevelopment Agency assets and liabilities. The State of California givith and the
State of California taketh away. If this is the best the City Attorney can come up with then go for it. This
should require an Amendment to the RPV General Plan Land Use Map. When?
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
sharon yarber < momofyago@gmail.com>
Saturday, August 29, 2015 9:50 AM
cc
8 Chaparral
PLEASE approve submission of the application for the acquisition of the property at 8 Chaparral. We erred by
not applying to buy the tax defaulted property lying adjacent to and below 10 Chaparral. Let's not lose this
opportunity to acquire an important and strategically situated parcel that will enable the City to further
implement and enhance trail access on the east side of the hill.
Thank you!
Sharon Yarber
1 /)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Madeline:
Kit Fox
Monday, August 31, 2015 10:34 AM
Madeline Ryan
Joel Rojas; CC
RE: Acquisition of #8 Chaparral Lane
Conceptual Bronco Trail Easement Alignment.pdf
Actually, the acquisition of 8 Chaparral Lane would not provide City ownership directly to Bronco Road. As shown on the
attached exhibit from the September 1st Staff report, there are 2 vacant lots on Bronco Road over which the City does
not have an easement or ownership. Neither 8 Chaparral Lane nor 10 Chaparral Lane has direct access to the public
right-of-way of Bronco Road. However, if such access was eventually obtained, it could enhance access to the PVPLC
Nature Trail as you suggest.
KHFox,AICP
Senior Administrative Anahist
City Ma.11a5er's OHice
City of Rancho Palos V ercles
30940 Il-nvthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
T: (310) 544~5226
F: (310) 544-5291
E: kitf@rpvca..5ov
t.. f(;NUlO i'Al(~I Vt IUS
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. IF YOU HAVE ME IN YOUR CONTACTS,
PLEASE SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM KITF@RPV.COM TO KITF@RPVCA.GOV.
From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:19 AM
To: Kit Fox <KitF@rpvca.gov>
Cc: joelr@rpvca.com; cc@rpvca.com
Subject: Acquisition of #8 Chaparral Lane
Hello Kit
I absolutely support the City Staff's recommendation to the CC to acquire this extremely
important property that would connect the Chaparral residents and neighbors and
joining Bronco neighbors to the Nature Trail in Rolling Hills Estates.
Not only would this be a critical neighborhood connection but a direct connection for the
Chaparral homeowners to Bronco and the Martingale Trailhead Park that now extends to
the Lower Willow Springs Trail in Rolling Hills.
1 D
I'm wondering, too, if the City were successful in acquiring this parcel, and thus, would
own to the street, could there not be a future trail connecting the city-owned easement
next to #7 Chaparral Lane and providing direct trail access to the PVPLC Nature Trail for
the Chaparral Lane residents but would also allow neighbors living outside Chaparral a
trail from Bronco to the Nature Trail without having to traverse Chaparral Lane? I
sincerely hope this can be worked out, since the development of# 10 Chaparral Lane will
cut off current access to the Nature Trail, even for the Chaparral Lane residents.
Thank you for your continued trails support.
Madeline Ryan
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
2
..... c:
Cl>
E c:
C>
<i ..... c:
Cl>
E
Cl>
t/) ca w
ca
'-.....
0
CJ c:
0
'-al
ca :::s ..... c.
Cl>
CJ c:
0
(.)
MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANAL YSv;1\
SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 ~
LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING ASSEMBLY BILL
NO. 57 (AGENDA ITEM 'E')
On August 27, 2015, the State Assembly concurred with the State Senate's amendments
to Assembly Bill No. 57 (AB 57). The bill will now be engrossed and enrolled for
presentation to the governor for his signature or veto. Therefore, Staff has revised the
letter of opposition to AB 57 that was originally attached to tonight's Staff report to be a
veto request addressed to Governor Brown.
Attachments:
Draft letter requesting veto of AB 57 (page 2)
M:\Legislative lssues\AB 57 (Quirk)\20150901_ CC_LateCorrespondence.docx
£_
September 1, 2015
The Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor, State of California
State Capitol Building, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 57 (Quirk). Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
VETO REQUEST
Dear Governor Brown:
Via FAX: (916) 558-3160
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is respectfully opposed.to AB 57 (Quirk}, and requests your
veto when this legislation comes before you. AB 57 wo'uldtirinecessarily and slgnificantly impact
cities' authority to regulate the placemenfof certain wireless telecommunications facilities.
AB 57 goes beyond the requirements of Federallaw by deeming approved any application for co-
location or siting of new wireless facilities if a jurisdiction does not act on the application within
the timelines required by the FCC. In 2009, the FCCCldopted rules that require local governments
to review and act on applications for the establishment of wireless communications structures.
During this rulemaking process, wireless carrie.rs requested that the FCC adopt the "deemed
approved" requirements that are now included in AB 57, but the FCC refused to do so. When the
issue was raised again in 2014, the FCC again refused to enact a "deemed approved" rule.
AB 57 is silent on several aspects relating to tolling the FCC "shot clock," including whether the
shot clbck is tolled for environmental review, public notice and appeals. AB 57 would also shift
the burden to local governments to file suit in Federal court to prevent a permit from being deemed
approved, thereby shifting the burden of proof and responsibility for seeking a remedy from private
industry to public agencies.
For the reasons described above, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully urges your veto
of this bill.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Knight
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
cc: Assemblymember David Hadley (661h District)
Senator Ben Allen (261h District)
Jeff Kiernan, Los Angeles Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.org,
FAX: (916) 658-8240
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarel Wheaton <jwheat2007@gmail.com>
Friday, August 28, 2015 4:01 PM
cc
Carla Morreale; Megan Barnes
Comments to RPV City Council About Plan to Drop Longtime Law Firm
I reached most of the council by phone today to discuss this topic, but I'm following up to cover the ones I
wasn't able to reach.
I read the staff report last night recommending that we change law firms representing the city and had some
concerns, but my concerns increased when I read Megan Barnes' article in this morning's Daily Breeze.
First, let me state that as a resident I'm offended that Megan's first sentence tries to place RPV in the same
category at Bell with the reference to bringing in "another official credited with cleaning up after corruption in
scandal-rocked Bell." Is she implying we need a clean-up crew to replace existing RPV city staff due to some
potential Bell-type scandal? That would shock me because as long-time residents we've been very impressed
the ethics and overall management of the city.
Second, the staff report doesn't appear to be well thought out and the logic behind the staff recommendation
doesn't sound very solid. Specifically:
A) The report states that the selection will allow the city to CONTINUE to receive the highest quality legal
work at "slightly lower cost." So, cost seems to differentiate the finalists.
B) There is less than a 7% difference in cost IF THE NEW FIRM billed the same number of hours as the
current firm. This cost difference was achieved during final negotiations ... and appears to be due to an initial
billing rate reduction. There is nothing that addresses how long it will take the new firm to bring their EIGHT
people up to speed with our complex legal issues. If you divide the $60K "savings" by their billing rate, it
becomes clear that the eight new people will quickly burn through the slight savings. How long will it take for
each of them to review on-going issues, meet/establish relationships with RPV, and learn our city? Many of the
RPV senior staff are no longer around to help bring them up to speed. There also is no indication that transition
costs incurred by the city are considered as part of the decision.
C) There is no discussion of transition plans for how to complete any on-going legal actions. Will the current
city attorney still be available for continuity, or will the new city attorney take over immediately. It sounds like
this could rapidly erode any projected savings, especially when you consider paying hour rates for the old and
new attorneys to meet and transition things.
D) If this is truly a decision based on "slight savings" alone, why would we change and lose the decades of
experience/memory from the current law firm and city attorney?
If there are other reasons than the "slight savings," then maybe the staff report should be more transparent about
the criteria used.
Speaking of transparency, I find it rather odd that Doug Willmore was conducting the final negotiations since in
the winning proposal Doug's email address was listed as the contact for the City of Bell's Mayor and City
council member names. I recognize Doug would be an excellent contact since he was their city manager, but he
1
H
should be listed if he is a reference. I assume the mayor and city council member was contacted during the
selection process. It would be good to address that in Tuesday's meeting to avoid any lack of transparency in
the negotiation process. Doug has a stellar reputation we need to protect. If he wants to "bring in his own
team" so his prior relationships will improve efficiency in RPV, then we should be transparent about the
criteria.
Regarding transparency, this is a major change that should be more visible to residents. If I wanted to bury an
item so it slips through the Council meeting with little notice, I'd probably place it on the consent calendar for a
meeting during a holiday week that had a high-visibility contentious topic such as Green Hills. Tuesday's CC
meeting meets those criteria.
Respectfully,
J arel Wheaton
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Jarel,
Doug Willmore
Friday, August 28, 2015 5:51 PM
Jarel Wheaton
CC; Carla Morreale
Re: Comments to RPV City Council About Plan to Drop Longtime Law Firm
Thank you for communicating your thoughts and questions. Given that I am the one that wrote the staff report, I
thought I should respond to you.
I certainly can't answer any of the questions that you posed about Megan's writing, although, I have to admit, I certainly
didn't think her writing implied any problems whatsoever with RPV, but rather just writing about something that Dave
Aleshire is known for. Nevertheless, your opinion is certainly valid as opinion's go.
(A) In considering David Aleshire as the new City Attorney, I didn't believe that anyone was denigrating the work that
Carol Lynch had done over the past 25 years. That's why I used the word "continue." I meant to communicate that the
City had received good legal work in the past. That doesn't mean, however, that some or most involved in this analysis
didn't believe that there would be a difference in quality of legal work. So, I believe that your assumption that this was
solely a decision on cost is incorrect.
(B) The key phrase here is "if the new firm billed the same number of hours". Moving behind the quality of the work and
just looking at finances, there are two key parts of the equation: hourly rate and numbers of hours billed. To compare
the proposals, we had to normalize one part of the equation and that was hours billed. We assumed every firm would
bill the same hours and that allowed us to compare the various hourly rates in the proposals. However, just because we
had to do that to compare the hourly rates, doesn't mean we are assuming that the new firm will bill the same number
of hours.
In analyzing these proposals, we benchmarked the legal fees that RPV spent last year (and previous years) compared to
10 surrounding cities, and our fees were more than double the average of the other cities. Not because of the hourly
rate, but because of the hours billed. I believe, and Aleshire & Wynder firmly believes, that they will bill for less hours
than the previous City Attorney firm. That should result in significant savings. There is simply not a sufficient explanation
for RPV spending more than double the average of other surrounding cities.
Nevertheless, this reasoning isn't in the staff report, because I try to put facts and contractual commitments in the staff
report, not possibilities or probabilities.
(B) this is not the first time that Aleshire & Wynder has transitioned into a new city. And while they will work hard
getting up to speed, I want to assure you that it is also not the massive, complex undertaking that you fear that it might
be. Those transition issues were thought through, and the two law firms are coordinating very closely to assure that
nothing is dropped. I am confident that nothing will fill fall through the cracks.
(C) This is a very good point that you've brought up, however, this is a staff report explaining the process leading to the
possible selection of a new City Attorney. I didn't treat it as an action plan for the transition. Carol Lynch is a complete
professional and she will continue to do necessary work to transition to a new City Attorney. In addition, at the choice of
the City Council, she may stay on as counsel on some cases to see them to their completion. This would be done for
efficiency or continuity reasons.
1 M.
The email address listed as a contact for the City Manager and City Mayor for Bell was my old email address. The City of
Bell has an interim City Manager and any email sent to my old email address goes to the interim City Manager. I was not
listed as a reference in their proposal, despite my old email address being used as contact information. This was simply a
contact address for the the interim City Manager of the City of Bell.
Finally, there is no attempt at all to bury anything or hide anything. Certainly not on my part,and not anything I have
heard of from anyone. This is simply how the timing worked out. Carol Lynch informed me that she was going to be
absent for the 9/15 Council meeting because of a vacation she scheduled out of the country. So, in speaking with both
attorneys, we thought the best process to follow for the contract and for transition was to have Dave Aleshire be RPV's
City Attorney at the 9/15 Council meeting. To do that, the contract needed to be approved on 9/1, with Aleshire &
Wynder starting on 9/2. That is what the subcommittee and I are recommending to the Council. There were no other
reasons other than schedule of the respective attorneys and timing of the transition. I can't speak for the Council
members, but I can say that my impression of what they have stated is that this is a process they are proud of, and while
very grateful and appreciative of Carol Lynch's service and work for the last 25 years, they are also very proud to be able
to get someone of Dave Aleshire's stature with such an accomplished firm behind him.
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions and thanks a lot for your email.
Doug
P.S. Please forgive any misspellings, I typed this on my iPad.
Sent from my iPad
>On Aug 28, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Jarel Wheaton <jwheat2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I reached most of the council by phone today to discuss this topic, but I'm following up to cover the ones I wasn't able
to reach.
>
> I read the staff report last night recommending that we change law firms representing the city and had some concerns,
but my concerns increased when I read Megan Barnes' article in this morning's Daily Breeze.
>
> First, let me state that as a resident I'm offended that Megan's first sentence tries to place RPV in the same category at
Bell with the reference to bringing in "another official credited with cleaning up after corruption in scandal-rocked Bell."
Is she implying we need a clean-up crew to replace existing RPV city staff due to some potential Bell-type scandal? That
would shock me because as long-time residents we've been very impressed the ethics and overall management of the
city.
>
>Second, the staff report doesn't appear to be well thought out and the logic behind the staff recommendation doesn't
sound very solid. Specifically:
>
>A) The report states that the selection will allow the city to CONTINUE to receive the highest quality legal work at
"slightly lower cost." So, cost seems to differentiate the finalists.
>
> B) There is less than a 7% difference in cost IF THE NEW FIRM billed the same number of hours as the current firm.
This cost difference was achieved during final negotiations ... and appears to be due to an initial billing rate reduction.
There is nothing that addresses how long it will take the new firm to bring their EIGHT people up to speed with our
complex legal issues. If you divide the $60K "savings" by their billing rate, it becomes clear that the eight new people
will quickly burn through the slight savings. How long will it take for each of them to review on-going issues,
meet/establish relationships with RPV, and learn our city? Many of the RPV senior staff are no longer around to help
2
bring them up to speed. There also is no indication that transition costs incurred by the city are considered as part of
the decision.
>
> C) There is no discussion of transition plans for how to complete any on-going legal actions. Will the current city
attorney still be available for continuity, or will the new city attorney take over immediately. It sounds like this could
rapidly erode any projected savings, especially when you consider paying hour rates for the old and new attorneys to
meet and transition things.
>
> D) If this is truly a decision based on "slight savings" alone, why would we change and lose the decades of
experience/memory from the current law firm and city attorney?
>
> If there are other reasons than the "slight savings," then maybe the staff report should be more transparent about the
criteria used.
>
>Speaking of transparency, I find it rather odd that Doug Willmore was conducting the final negotiations since in the
winning proposal Doug's email address was listed as the contact for the City of Bell's Mayor and City council member
names. I recognize Doug would be an excellent contact since he was their city manager, but he should be listed if he is a
reference. I assume the mayor and city council member was contacted during the selection process. It would be good
to address that in Tuesday's meeting to avoid any lack of transparency in the negotiation process. Doug has a stellar
reputation we need to protect. If he wants to "bring in his own team" so his prior relationships will improve efficiency in
RPV, then we should be transparent about the criteria.
>
> Regarding transparency, this is a major change that should be more visible to residents. If I wanted to bury an item so
it slips through the Council meeting with little notice, I'd probably place it on the consent calendar for a meeting during a
holiday week that had a high-visibility contentious topic such as Green Hills. Tuesday's CC meeting meets those criteria.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jarel Wheaton
>
>
>
>
3
Dear Council members,
I'm Lisa Pierson and have lived in the Vista Verde complex for 31 years.
I feel like this is deja vu since 25 years ago, my husband and I spoke to the RPV City
Council to plead with them to decline Green Hills' request for a variance which would
allow them to encroach into the existing 40' setback with an above-ground structure and
to bury people 8' from the property line.
I am very grateful to the members of that council for their wise decision to deny Green
Hills' request. The council members recognized the very obvious and very significant
negative impact that granting the request would have had on Green Hills' neighbors.
However, please note that Green Hills blatantly disregarded the City Council's 1990
decision and went ahead and buried people 8 feet from our property line anyway.
I don't think that Green Hills lost their measuring tape. They knew exactly what they
were doing when they violated their CUP as it pertains to the 16' setback for below-
ground burials.
Fast forward to 2007 and the issue of the mausoleum. I am reminded of a child that
was originally told "no" by a parent. The child then starts trying to figure out how to get
their way either by flat-out lying, using deception, or committing a sin of omission.
Knowing that their request for a variance was denied in 1990 Green Hills got to work
being sneaky and then were subsequently aided in their deception by the RPV planning
staff either out of clear negligence or, worse, malfeasance.
I have this mental image of Green Hills' responsible parties giving each other a 'high
five' the minute they received their permit to build the mausoleum -no doubt with some
laughing about the role that the RPV planning staff/commission played in their victory.
With regard to the planning staff's role in all of this, the phrase "planning staff
administrative errors" is being used but that does not reconcile with dialog that
transpired between the Mayor Knight and planning staff member Eduardo Schonborn as
he was coached, by Joel Rojas, into giving a deceptive and obviously false answer to a
critical question during a PC meeting in April of 2007.
To refresh your memory and to also enlighten the public, Mayor Knight -at the time you
were on the PC and you asked planning staff member Schonborn
"Is there anything being proposed that will affect that building -whether it is their views
or anything else?"
/.
There was a long pause. During the silence, Rojas whispered the fateful phrase "just
say no."
Upon Rojas' prompting, Schonborn answered your crucial question with "no" and then,
adding insult to injury, he quickly went on to state "as a matter of fact, that building is in
the city of Lomita" inferring that residents of any city adjacent to RPV do not warrant
consideration and respect.
Why was the city that we reside in even brought up? How was that pertinent to Mayor
Knight's question given the role that CEQA plays in protecting ALL California residents'
living space -not just RPV residents?
And further, what person, in their right mind, would even for a nanosecond NOT
consider the huge impact that that this mausoleum would have on the residents of
WOA?
In closing, I would like to ask all parties involved with the city and Green Hills who are
responsible for critical decisions going forward to think about how you all feel when you
are in your own home. I will assume that, above all, you enjoy the sense of privacy that
a home affords its owner.
Now imagine funerals, mourners, and constant grave site visitors literally a stone's
throw from your living room. Not a very comforting thought, is it?
The RPV Planning Commission and staff made crucial mistakes that seriously impacted
the lives of your neighbors. Plain and simple. Please do not rub salt in our wounds by
allowing Green Hills to bury more people on the roof of an illegal structure.
Dr. Lisa A. Pierson