The URL can be used to link to this page

20151117 Late Correspondence"It has been suggested that Green Hills presented plans and drawings, which were not always clear and created confusion on the part of staff." (Alshire Staff Report) "Nevertheless, the language of the condition itself changing the setback from 80 feet to 8 feet (a 90 percent reduction), was clear and contained in the staff report and resolution before the Planning Commission." TRUE ENOUGH, AS FAR AS it goes. WHERE IS THAT RESOLUTION? WHY IS IT NOT INCLUDED HERE AS AN EXHIBIT? IMPORTANT, MANY MORE POINTS BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ IT, YOU MUST CONCLUDE DIFFERENTLY, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS MISLED. IS THERE ANY "CONFUSION" THAT THE MAUSOLEUM WAS TO BE BUILT INTO THE EXISTING SLOPE IN FRONT OF THE CONDOMINIUMS? RECEIVED FROM U i Y'1 L=UAVI 1 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING C7F11 1(7 29A B® OFFICE OF THE CITY CL _RK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK GREEN HIL4S PEAL OF 51 PLANNI " G C MM -I ION t4o EMBE , CFMF.IEHYrWADWAV "- 50HEMATIC 51TE SECTION / WEST WING -A-- - 1. VI'1:\H'1'IY)DN Iu_ ,r' IWN'HI iA\II �I MAS LR DEW LOPMENT PIAN RANCHO PALOSGREEN IVERDESLLS CAI CRNA PARK MAST( I1 R AN AREA II MEMORIAI TERRACE WEST WINO 11-D RPV City Council Hearing November 17, "It has been suggested that Green Hills presented plans and drawings, which were not always clear and created confusion on the part of staff." (Alshire Staff Report) "Nevertheless, the language of the condition itself changing the setback from 80 feet to 8 feet (a 90 percent reduction), was clear and contained in the staff report and resolution before the Planning Commission." TRUE ENOUGH, AS FAR AS it goes. WHERE IS THAT RESOLUTION? WHY IS IT NOT INCLUDED HERE AS AN EXHIBIT? IMPORTANT, MANY MORE POINTS BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ IT, YOU MUST CONCLUDE DIFFERENTLY, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS MISLED. IS THERE ANY "CONFUSION" THAT THE MAUSOLEUM WAS TO BE BUILT INTO THE EXISTING SLOPE IN FRONT OF THE CONDOMINIUMS? RECEIVED FROM U i Y'1 L=UAVI 1 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING C7F11 1(7 29A B® OFFICE OF THE CITY CL _RK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 17, 2015 Deallonore6eCity Co i1m lb r" Green Hills provided this Cross Section 11 - According to the Staff Report pmp.md 1n connection with the upcoming l.nu.ry 20, 2015 City Counol hearing (the "Suf( Report"), the m ... uire of lelten, d t% D showing the Mausoleum's Western plain, testimony, "out-it.ti—..devMthingol composing the lengthy hi.tory Section was built into the Slope in front of of thin.ppe.1 inn M summed up into ..ingle question: Did Green 11111, ml.kiid the City when itePplied to,. dmenv tolt. 2007 M..ter Man Revision? and below the Lomita Condominiums The Planning Commission made its' YES, Ellen, Green HMIs Did Findings in reliance on this Green Hills' Mislead the City Planning Plan which completely explains why.. Commission! -There would be no View Impairment -There would be no Noise impacts *The setback reduction was ___... acceptable" to Staff -There was no need for any Silhouettes -"Just Say No" was a correct answer ' • Resolution PC 2007-33 states that the Mausoleum would be built into the L 9nE 9eGiipl / vE9r w.Ki slope 1, _ -• =~ 11-0 • Resolution PC 2007 - 32 states there would be no Significant impacts RPV City Council Hearing Novan4mr 1 /. 2015 On April 24, 2007, Chairman (Bill) Gerstner Closed the public hearing and the PC Adopted PC Resolutions 2007-32 and PC 2007 -33 by UNANIMOUS VOTE. CHAIRMAN GERSTNER IS A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT WHO CAN READ PLANS, INCLUDING the CROSS SECTION OF THE MAUSOLEUM'S WEST WING, SHEET 11-D. HE READ THAT PLAN! NOT CONFUSING, AT ALL! VERY CLEAR! IF THE PC WAS NOT MISLED, AS ATTY BERKOWITZ CLAIMS, HOW THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE "FINDINGS" (SECTION 3) THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE EFFECTS.. AND NO VIEW IMPACTS, ETC. SECTION 6. "THE MAUSOLEUM BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED ON SLOPED AREAS OF THE CEMETERY SITE THAT CAN FACILITATE BUILDINGS BY EXCAVATING INTO THE SLOPE, RATHER THAN MAUSOLEUMS BEING CONSTRUCTED ON KNOLLS OR HILLTOPS WITHIN THE CEMETERY SITE" 2 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER r7, 2015 Page 13 Nov. 17, 2015 Staff Report P.C. Resolution 2007-33 Section 6 Referenced Findings "gs Referenced Findings Are False, in l Error - made In reliance on GH Plan . sea...,e mµy uMiq...pew...mWe.ew.anasrrmumYrrrwsV.h.�+.ro-«n.«e..irr e. n ..•..e u....e. w..... ...pTM�t.pmrvuewusp.ap.Mnoar,er. Section 6. "The Grading will not adversely affect the Views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausoleum buildings and ground interments:' aM»ti Section 6. "..no mausoleum buildings are proposed along the perimeters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and south.:' 1:11=3`:;w.... Section 6. "Mausoleum Buildings are proposed on sloped a " " areas that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than..on knolls or hilltops:' — _ i. I I/t7/)01', RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 2015 Contrary to the November 17 2015 Staff Report Page 13 that a Variance is not appropriate, (Paragraph 2) because the PC made these "findings"'COM PLETELY MISSES THE POINT that THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS MISLED BY GREEN HILLS' CROSS SECTION 11-D of the WESTERN PORTION OF THE PRIOPOOSED MAUSOLEUM. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THEIR "FINDINGS" BASED ON A FAULTY AND MISLEADING PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT - THEY WERE MISLED!. OTHERWIUSE, IT WOULD BE INCOMPREHENSIBLE and ILLOGICAL FOR THE PC TO MAKE UP, OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH! *"'The Grading will not adversely affect the views from the surrounding properties" •"..Mausoleum Buildings are proposed on sloped areas that can faciitate buildings -into the slope". -An 8' Setback - vs. 80 or 40' is "acceptable to Staff" 3 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER r7, 2015 "Pattern and Practice" "Pattern and Practice" "The City Received complaints from On June 17, 2010, GH Officials Frew nearby residents -and a "Stop Work and Resich submitted a perjured Plan Order": was issued.." to allow interments within 25' of the "In response to further unauthorized NW cemetery border grading, the City issued additional "Stop Work" Orders between 2oo0 -_ - and 2002" (Nov 17, 2015 Staff Report page = 4) ourbg the remainder of 11990 and Into 10919. the City remived compWnfs ko .. aeeroy residents regad'mg al avail. end cher Impacts led to the rarrvMl,l gredkg opemnl two Ewuafty, Ne City became ewers (IM1lough Green Hillsown admissions) dal me remedial gradlog had ee aso No scope of .'"M.— u.a, Grading Penh No. 2050, and ,'Stop WWorder was Issued on October 27, ION After e nw,lirg between City Stall and Green Hilte, lhe'61, WOA' oder was liftad wah the - urdentand'mg at Green Hills would Mr.- at/ minor grading toco'Plot, emedlalbuttrass fill that was necessaryto Propedy complete the remediation, would Trot Import any ad,lJonal material, ead would propedy appy lar an amendment to the Master -- _ -- Plan. In response to fadher unauthorl,ed gliding, the City Issued sddit'ronal'Stop Work' odert between 2000 and 2002, which w unimatety lied hosed oa oonti ail rancea ham Green Hula that an a,and ment to Na Master Plan was fart'" itp. Ultimately, an February.19, 2003, Cele No. ZON2003-00006 was subnhlah. whIn was k3 t a Revision to On. Green Hills Mailer Plan. RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 015 *As documented here and in the following pages of this Presentation, Green Hills has engaged in a "Pattern and Practice" of deception, false submittal (perjury) of plot plans to the County Recorder, as well as probable fraudulent sale of illegal plots to the public. *The instant Staff Report demonstrates deceptions of improper grading that caused Stop Work Orders to be repeatedly issued. •On June 17, 2017, in Book 45, Page 54, Green Hills Principals falsely submitted a plot plan showing in -ground interments that were not authorized and that had been rejected THREE TIMES by the CITY Planning Commission. *They later admitted this "error" at a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. *But GREEN HILLS ENRICHED THEMSELVES, improperly I believe, BY SELLING OUT ALL 44 of the ILLEGAL PLOTS! 4 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 17, 2015 "Pattern and Practice" "Pattern and Practice" Green Hills's Attorney admits Green Hills's Attorney admits 13 illegal Sale of 44 Interment Plots illegal and un -authorized not authorized by CUP! interments in prohibited plots Green Hills' applications (3) to allow interments within 8' of the NW Cemetery area jected three se ara times_b-yrh -_ Planning Commission, the mosrecent being April 24, 2007 Condition No. 6 E.111. - -I- - . I -1-f .,i ■ 01.111. -I- - 1 -4 f Q �/ fOfENiMENNPf G' A ?M ixtEAMENI MD — FUM Gvdem ii/ii,., l,, I4 Y NfExINL FUT— IFRMEX. -D 1 P.Wk Gardens RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 2015 HERE ARE THOSE 44 PLOTS, RECORDED AND SOLD IMPROPERLY BY GREEN HILLS AS ADMITTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY. THE QUESTION ARISES, THEREFORE, AS TO THE RELIABILITY OF BOTH GREEN HILLS AS WELL AS STATEMENTS given by their attorney, Most recently the attorney's key question, slide number two — "Did green hills mislead the city when it applied for amendments to its 2007 master plan revision?" "YES, ELLEN, GREEN HILLS DID MISLEAD THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION" PLEASE SEE THE CRYSTAL CLEAR SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION/WEST WING PLAN 11-D UPON WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELIED TO PREPARE AND APPROVE THEIR "FINDINGS"/RESOLUTIONS! 5 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER r7, 2015 Admitted Fraudulent Sales Perjured Application "..subject to all rules and regulations governing Green H'lls Memorial Park now in effect.." 16'0° `.,a«... ✓.«w..«, �S OM� �• � MY/N Me.er�rvr.rq.�i«.« .wNr rsa ra.rtr««rrs °wrr.lmq ��✓Ns✓� M w �« .w Yaw,..... ✓«.«..««..w 11 / 17/ X01 S RPV City Council Hearing November 17. znle •This Page documents the Admitted Fraudulent sales and Perjured Application regarding improper sale and registration of 44 illegal interment plots located within 8 feet of their property -Green Hills had previously been rejected to be allowed interments closer than 16 feet to the NW perimeter of their cemetery property, a known Violation of their CUP No.6 -Green Hills Principals, on June 17, 2010 knowingly and falsely represented that this plot plan complied with and was "..subject to all the rules and regulations governing Green Hills Park now in effect.:' IN CONCLUSION.. -GREEN HILLS FAILED TO MITIGATE THE LOOMING DAMAGES KNOWN TO EXIST, EARLY IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE -HAVING A "PERMIT" DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONFER AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CREATE AND IMPOSE MORE DAMAGES GREEN HILLS PRINCIPAL (FREW) TESTIFIED HE WAS CONCERNED EARLY ON, WITH SUCH IMPACTSAND DAMAGES 1.1 CITY OF!RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2015 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material Summary of Changes to Conditions per Green Hills Compliance Review; Revised Resolution; Emails from: Nadia Gv; Revised Powerpoint Presentation Jim Gordon; Letter from Ellen Berkowitz Respectfullys bmitted, .f - 4- `✓L all Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Tuesday, November 16, 2015**. W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20151117 additions revisions to agenda.doc Attachment A CITY OF lLiRANGHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DAVE ALESHIRE, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2015 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO CONDITIONS PER GREEN HILLS COMPLIANCE REVIEW REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER 41W Project Manager: So Kim, Senior Planner' BACKGROUND On November 11, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-29, imposing a moratorium on ground burials/interments and sales of burial plots on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Building located in Area 11 and on above- ground burials within the 5' setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building, requiring a variance application for the encroachment of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum and encroachment of existing interments in the northwest corner of Green Hills Cemetery, and imposing additional conditions of approval. While this decision was being appealed to the City Council, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution nos. 2014-21 and 2015-09, approving improvements to the Administration Building and its parking area. As a result, the conditions of approval presented to the City Council on September 1St were the combination of aforementioned resolutions and Staff recommended changes to them. DISCUSSION As the City is now taking a different approach to the subject appeal on the Green Hills Cemetery, the conditions of approval has been modified accordingly. Below are proposed changes that includes those that were presented to the City Council on September 1St. It should be noted that similar conditions were consolidated resulting in re -numbering of the entire exhibit for simplicity. The new text is shown in bold/underline and deleted text in Major changes are discussed after each conditions of approval. 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. Grading 1991-2004. 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. Additional Gradina. Allow a total of 643,259 cubic yards of additional grading, which includes 97,964 cubic yards of import for all the various proposed mausoleum buildings, and all cut and fill associated with ground burials throughout the cemetery site for the life of the Master Plan. The imported fill material will be conducted in phases as each mausoleum building is constructed over an extended period of time over the next 30- to 50 -years, which will be phased as follows: Inspiration Slope (Area 2): Area 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): Construction will whic wautd not commence until completion of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, will include large excavations. Since the project will be phased and there will again be a need to import backfill for construction purposes, it is estimated that 14,000 cubic yards of imported fill will be required for this project. iii. Areas 7 and 11: Areas 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. Area 6: The final project that would require substantial imported fill would be the mausoleums proposed for construction in Area 6. The project will not be 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. v. Baseline: Since applicant has previously performed grading in excess M survey certified by an independent geotechnical firm approved b restrictions. Any gradingwill be measured against the baseline. The topographic survey shall be paid for by applicant. Staff's Comments: The applicant performed grading in excess of the approved conditions of approval for the Master Plan and the City currently does not know what exactly occurred on site. As a result, it will be difficult for Staff to track and monitor any changes in compliance with the conditions of approval without first obtaining a baseline survey. Therefore, this condition has been added to aid Staff in determining applicant's compliance with future grading on the property. Staff's Comments: As this condition only dealt with ground burials, it did not serve as a limit on total burials. As there was no regulation of annual burials, this did not serve to regulate annual usage of the cemetery. Staff does not see a need to regulate specific interments (family estates v. single -depth burials) as implied by this condition. c. 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; d. 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; :a a 21MINs .e Staff's Comments: This condition has been omitted as the construction of any mausoleums will require future Planning Commission consideration at a duly noticed public hearing per the modified condition no. 2 below. e. 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. Vi 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 Develo ment Manning, $t+Idtng arden, 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. above, €- the areas in the Master Plan Revision called out for ground burials; t -he r-ound--lamiafsmay include family estates which are areas designated for the burial of a group of persons who typically are related by blood or marriage, and which maynclude tine-eWdent try low garden walls less than 36 -inches in overall height around their perimeters to enclose them these burial es+., or more elaborate headstones tombstones that are built above- ground that are no taller than 6 -feet high , sept-fir-k-(.�her i ve-ground lFepafin"ese greunc-f��a��ll-s' �avat--u�--te-�-€eet�etsw di ;� if these aee4ncg4e-eF -double-depth-taw c"t4rMing air--of_sa -fir sa set t al t n sements wt+ere fi hn-�a-*e--of -the pr eu }clava d d1int is fill�s`d to rn atoh' pfe` '�..7�%Ua'vated rade Cvnr�nr. rarer,- nateriat `r��v`wl'tin from tYtc.. burial-�twt��r-anspa�-ter-Areas-��--t�Mas�er--�a�-�si��-Itt ,c-yard"f-ftiilleces003t--these--meas sate • u"nge d round burials; a a}^prppf-ep4a��t�}e-{d�ry ip,agyge�y "he-r�oadv�a :--This--qua-ntity-i+rcl�de"foun�g/� ern L'7' fough'4JY`.i�t`�"C ti:_i""'\7ti i'T'7�+ p `f i'Ci son ethrr;r--weas; ,in44mpaA-ef-additional-fllt-4�teiat-These garden walls and round structures includina, but not limited togarden walls and above- ground headstones shall not be allowed on the roofto s of any mausoleum building. Staff Comments: As placing a cap on the number of burial sites is no longer necessary as previously explained, this condition has been modified to allow garden walls and headstones to contain above -ground interments. Additionally, this condition has been further clarified to prohibit above -ground structures on rooftops of mausoleums. Furthermore, this condition has been bifurcated to separate out the excess earth material discussion to condition no. 1.h below. h. Burial Sites, Excess Material for Areas 5-6. Preparing t-hss, rg ound burial sites includes grading an area by excavating up to 8 -feet below, existing rade (depending, if these are sin le or double depth lawn crypts), filling WE, a layer of sand for erosion control purposes, constructingg concrete eneasemet+ts, e-oeffie e It m ly meed then outer burial conta taers containing burial vaults and then lacin 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. s a o cs -e MEw s. « mow« y � ,- r�,. �..,�. :- a �� •r See AQ'1 andte�, -a temporary frame silhouette must be constructed for each mausoleum building at least 30 -days prior the Director's Rlaing Oemmis�ra s consideration of the building and submission to the Planning Commission per Condition 2. Once the silhouette is constructed, a licensed engineer, land surveyor or architect must certify that the silhouette accurately depicts the location, height and outline of the proposed building. The certification must be submitted to Staff at least 30 -days prior to the Director's i +aferissieWs decision. j. Small Buildings. Except for mausoleum or similar buildings addressed in Condition 1.k or otherwise exemptepi r code, all other buildings less than 120 square feet in size, not exceeding 12 feet in height, located outside required setbacks not on an extreme sloe 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. k. Administrative Substantial Compliance Review. The Director of Communi Develo ment is authorized to make a determination i that improvements are in substantial compliance with the Master Plan substantially the same results as would strict compMiance with said plans and conditions iii) that the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission pursuant to Condition 2, or iv no review is re wired as it fully conforms to the Master Plan. Prior to new construction, modification or maior reconstruction of A-5 improvements, they shall be submitted to the Director for review. If the Director determines to conduct administrative compliance review to determine if the requested improvements substantially com i with the Master Plan as revised such administrative process shall comply with the City's Site Plan Review, as applicable, unless otherwise Rrovided herein. The administrative compliance review shall include review of an customary cemete -related features including but not limited to niches water features ard+en walls columbaria bench memorials walls gardens, upright memorial features statues stone features(including stone landscaping features),,cenotaph walls cremation and other burials topiaries, sculptures and other artistic works gazebos . ossuaries bridges, cremation benches outer burial containers and above ground vaults rovided that the height of such features shall not exceed sixteen 16 feet except that within any designated setback area such features shall not exceed six 6feet. The addition of trees throughout the Park shall also be deemed to be in substantial compliance with the Master Plan. The administrative compliance review shall also include rooftop burials at mausoleums. 11 Director on forms specified by the Director. Director of ComLnunity Development shall give a 15 day written notice to owners of roe within a 500 -foot radius of the site of the improvements, if any, to persons requesting notice to all affected homeowners associations and to the ro arty owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Develo ment Community Development shall make a written determination of substantial com liance or noncompliance, which may include i,mj19gLjnA da s to appeal the decision in writing to the Planning Commission. If a timely appeal is received the Planning Commission shall consider the matter under Condition 2 hereof. With respect to any conditions. procedure of this Section 1 k. Staff Comments: Conditions 1.k was added with the idea that when a proposed plan is submitted to the Planning Department, the Director shall have the authority to review the plans and determine if a proposed change is in substantial compliance with the Master Plan or not. If it is determined that a proposed plan is in substantial compliance with the Master Plan, the Director may approve the plan after proper notice is given to the public. This decision may be appealable to the Planning Commission. For those projects that the Director deems not to be in substantial compliance, they will require Planning Commission review at a duly noticed public hearing. ON #. Relocating Historic Church. 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. (i) All appropriate permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division prior to relocating the historic church building to the cemetery. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) Major additions to the church building or relocation of the church building to another location on the property are not allowed without prior Planning Commission approval. (v) 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 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department prior to relocation of the church. 1.1 Administration Building. 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 improvements to and around he existing Administration Building: a. Gnerall Construction of 3,323ft2 of single -story office additions, 648ft2 covered walkway extension, and 316ft2 covered entry to the Administration Building; b. Temporary Modular Buildings. 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. Parking Area. Reconfiguration of the parking area to add 22 new parking spaces (81 required, 95 proposed for the Administration Building), A-7 d. Gradings. Conduct 325yd3 of grading for the following emergency access and ADA access/parking improvements: (i) 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. (ii) 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 T tall retaining wall and the construction of a new replacement retaining wall measuring up to 4.45' in height. 1.2 Additional Conditions Pertaining to Administrative Building. Revision "E" shall be subject to the following specific conditions: (a) Setbacks (i) The following setback provisions shall apply: 25' front and street- side; (ii) 40' interior and side if abutting a residential zoning district and 25' if abutting a nonresidential zoning district. (b) Parking (i) Parking areas shall provide for a 25' outside turning radius within the facility. (ii) All parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic or cement concrete paving which is at least 3" thick. (iii) All parking stalls shall be clearly marked with lines, and access lanes shall be clearly defined with directional arrows to guide traffic. Except for parallel parking stalls, standard parking stalls shall be of a minimum 9' width by 20' depth in area. Parallel parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26' in depth. (iv) Disabled parking spaces shall be in accordance with the dimensions and specifications of the state amended Uniform Building Code. (v) 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. (vi) 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. G. Landscaping (i) All plantings shall be maintained free of debris and in conformity MOO with the accepted practices for landscape maintenance. (ii) A 6" high cement concrete curb shall be constructed at the edge of all landscaped areas. d. General (i) 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 of Community Development. (ii) 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. 1.3 Area 11. 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. Tractor Ramp. 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. Screen Rear Wall. 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 Develo ment and shall not grow above the wall. C. Landscaping. With the exception of ground cover, and-the-viae"R-the northem-wall-ofd no other vegetation shall be planted on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. For other areas within Area 11 that are outside the fO0t2 riot of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum #ulin w with _Tthe se► tag--Visia— 1�e��te- Ge�deminium Assaeiatie ; ne-vegetatien-.t, } "lented- i Ar 4--ef-the--Ma ef-Plein , �onl round cover, shrubs and other vegetation less than the hei ht of the existing wall on the orooerty line are allowed. Vines are allowed on the northern wall provided that they do not exceed the solid building parapet d. Ramp Guardrail. 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. Additions to Mausoleum. No additions or expansion shall be allowed to the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. No new mausoleum Fe eaiinc-asl� building shall be constructed within Area 11 without first obtaining Planning Commission ap,12roval at a duly noticed public hearing following the process set forth in Condition 2. Rriof-te-sub4 tale€ ��s-and/�--i�uikdtn�-p[,a�t�ae-Ic�itag-�-Safety-9i�is+slee Ghees �-any-imps-Gvements-�Area- 4-0 e.,the-nerthwe-st-area-of4he c-emeter-y-Ae-be-tweea--the weestem- perl.y4i-ne-and-the wntena yar",' oWd+ng-the-ex-isti g--Ra-,.44G-TermsA4emoFm4- r—a ladsdleum building);-#heappli�oant--shall- ubm"+v the prime-d4mpr emeat-plans- t e3ite-e Cemmanbye-llrrir Cels used---pu�lic�-hear�pg:----testi-- saad"-pob4ie hea�i�-shall�e��hed-and�r�av+dee--te-swne��y�with� 50G49o# radios; to -persons 1 uestir ►otiGiE- aWa#eete meownefs ; sseeiati s+neluding4he4isto-verde-Ge em+nium-AsseGiab n-lesated ih��-�ot�ita-}; -and-tc�--the-pr�pe�y--t�vwner--i�aeer�ase-uv l rGhe-P�alas Verdes- e4opmeat d"eetien--1-7--0:OW Staff Comments: This condition was modified consistent with condition no. 2 above to ensure that any new expansions or additions to the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum will be subject Planning Commission's consideration at a duly noticed public hearing. 1.3.5 Area 11 Rooftop.Burials. The following conditions are applicable to all burials on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building the following dditiGnai r-�itions-sha"pply: a. Pre and Post Service. Pre -service burial/plot preparation and post - service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday. See Condition 17) b. Hours. Burials and all associated services on the roof top ground interments of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Sunday. C. Haul Vehicle. UmWThe use of 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 feppre-service burial/plot preparation and post -service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground interments to UIWUI &unday-during the hours specified in Condition 1.3.f above. d. Sound. 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. e. Tentinq. 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. Sales. Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof -top ground interments plots on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11, only between the hours of 10:00am and 3:OOpm Monday through Sunday. g. Notice to Property Owners. €veFy ween—Small flags shall be placed on any burial site located on therooftop. of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum within 24 hours after a burial service has been ttwat-is-scheduled t _ ent for that site, to provide neighboring roe owners with advanced notice of scheduled interments and burial services unless burial will be in less than 24 hours from death in which case flags will be placed as soon as possible before the service w+tys t#erebyidaeer+ pfopefty ewners- ith--advan d4Atermen#s-and-b daf seNiees. Green Hills shall also post on its publicly accessible website (www.greenhilismemorial.com) additional details concerning the anticipated time and date of scheduled burial services. Staff Comments: This conditions was modified requiring a 24-hour notice for rooftop burials to notify the neighboring property owners. However, language was inserted to allow some deviations on those rare occasions due to religious beliefs or emergency situations where a burial service will need to occur within 24 -hours after being scheduled. h. Supervision. 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. Excluded Areas. In no event I;—iT,fe^fe,sshall below-grad A-11 interments be allowed on the roof of the PasifisT-erraseEMemorial 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. 2. RgyioLAL gf C . Construction and build -out of the Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery shall be in substantial compliance with the Master Plan Revision approved by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007 and July 22, 2014, and the Ci Council on november 17 2015, as indicated in these conditions of al2rproval Condition-Noo-1 g4-4-.� eve. 9eviafiGn4Fom4Ws M on Nle. , Substantial Comp Niance Reviews shall unless otherwise stated be performed et -and -approval by the Director of Community Development P4an Gommission through Site Plan Review subiect to appeal to the Plannin Commission or thereafter to the Cit Council a—subsequent-Uaster-1?4an wed public bearing. This is further described in Condition 1lc above. Certain Substantial Compliance Reviews as set forth herein are performed directly by the Planning Commission. Matters subject to direct Commission review include: i the construction of any mausoleum or other significant building,or the substantial reconstruction or reconstruction thereof, as determined by the Director,•(ii) any significant change in grading from that shown in the Master Plan(iii) to the extent any areas in the Master Plan are not shown as designated for specific uses or for burials the "Undesignated Areas" the specific use and development plan for such Undesignated Areas showing all planned structures. In addition besides performing specified compliance reviews any modification to the Master Plan or conditions of approval of this CUP must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission, The Planning Commission shall consider all such matters only through 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 determine there is substantial compliance or add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Any interested person may appeal, such action to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.80 of the RPVMC. Applicant shall make deposit and pay all City fees for compliance review or amendment. Staff Comments: This condition was modified for consistency with conditions 1.k and 2 above. 3. Grading Area 4. Prior to grading operations to prepare Area 4 for ground burials, the applicant shall submit a grading permit application, signed by an individual designated by the Green Hills Memorial Park Board of Directors for review and approval by the Director of Community Development P4ann ng, Building aeA r ^de FiRf^r^oment 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. A-12 However, if the Director of Community Development Wanni�ng, B ld+ng-and-{ale Enf„rGement finds that the project is not consistent with the approved Master Plan Revision, then it shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with the :provisions of Condition 2. Notice ---said-Rarvnin Com r is n -review -hearing - aU-be-p 4shed-an"fovided--to-owners pr -o y �tingo;e,-te atf#eeted-h�ameewrae sGGi ktlon&, atmW the er-*"Qooi`"nee SAN h- PvaA6 .Prak"ef6 Deve4{3pmen# Cede _eetao�l-1-19999 4. A2121iganj Aggg.12tance of Conditions. 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. Miligation NIgnitoring. 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 l ning, Be+ldiig-aod-Cede.-&�rcement. 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 n4auseleum 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 PifeGto ef---Manning; Biding -and-- e-Enfeement to ensure consistency with the approved Master Plan ;vision in accordance with Condition 2, 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 pr2pgrties. if4t_4ia -to-be-cons' a ' 'or�l�e-grading-per+�at�wili�l�e-app�evee--adm�a+stt�attiveiy; w4theut fuA-hef---publie---raga i__' earie s - l eve ; i# tl e 9ireete 'lannin�u ng-e+ad e loemeM4indsr tl he-prejecA4&-net- sistent wtt�e�-approved-ls�t�:;-T�l� �-�ne�asteF-I�lah-Rev+siert;--tfae�--it-�#�ali�u+re rev e and--appr_evat G-9Pin s Jen -r iew lea -.and-pmvided-ta-owner-s-of-propefty A-13 wii�t--a-�i{�9' r-at�i�s; te�-per�..�s---r�+esfir�r�atice; tom--alt-�a#�ed-#�e�neQwner-s Staff Comments: This condition was modified for consistency with condition 2 above, requiring Planning Commission review of new buildings. 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 (Le., 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 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. OW AQ -11: The confined fill locations described in mitigation measure AQ -10 above, shall be regularly watered to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site boundaries. AQ -12: A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s) responsible for the daily dirt movement to these confined fill locations and a phone number(s) to be called in the event that dust is visible from the confined fill locations described in mitigation measure AQ -10 above, shall be posted and displayed on the fencing. AQ -13: If stockpiling of earth material becomes necessary for ultimate use as backfill, stockpiling shall only be located in Area 5 and/or Area 6 of the Master Plan, and shall be subject to conditions AQ -10, AQ -11 and AQ -12 above. AQ -14: At the time any substantial compliance review is performed in accordance with Conditions 1k or 2 or if any applicant proposes an changes for the Master Plan the Director of Community Development can perform a com liance review for the whole proiect in accordance The-pr-ejeet l a e r viewed iy-t Pla ra ies+ew n ►al o in n4he-date ofirlppreval tov�ewhe�tieo►t'scemia+ with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that time, the P4a ing rr iso en City ap roving body may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as-well-as-iaGrease tk�-tinae�beeen-rew-per-ioc�s;--Pl�tise-cif-�a-itt-r�vaew-��it4�41-be-pu�l-ie�ed a�ad---previded-towers--of-preperty-u�itl�ir-�-a-58.9' radias, to tiny not+ to all-af t d # or e$w ers-afrsec io erid to - -c waer-ie aecerd��itl�--Ra r�ehe-Wiles-�r�es��e�e4s pr�e�ede-�e�Ytien-1�-£l4; Review procedure will be as set forth in Conditions Ilk or 2 as by the Director of Communlily Development. Staff Comments: This condition was modified for consistency with condition nos. 1.k and 2 above. 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. A-15 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 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, or his/her designee prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for any mausoleum building. N-1: Construction activity of the mausoleum buildings and grading operations shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. There shall be no construction on Saturdays, Sundays or federally observed holidays unless a Special Construction Permit is obtained prior to work on a Federally observed holiday. N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 am Monday through Friday and before 9:00 am on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. N-3: As indicated in mitigation measure AQ -13 above, the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date of final approval, to review the applicant's compliance with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. 6. Setbacks Below Ground. 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'-8" (except the northwest corner between the western property line and maintenance yard, which shall be 16 -OL, with exception of the thirteen f13) interments already placed within the northwest corner and the six (6) companion., plots which have already been sold East and West: 01-9" Staff Comments: As a variance will no longer be required for the 13 interments already placed within the northwest corner, this condition was modified to allow these to remain within the required setbacks. A-16 7. Setbacks Above Ground. 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 is+er, vuhih are addressed in Condition 8 and S.a) and crypts shall be as follows: North: 80'4P or no closer than the northern perimeter road, whichever is greater from the north property line that is north of the maintenance yard, and 40'4" (except for the Mausoleum constructed and finaled as of 2013 the setback shall be 8') from the north property line that abuts the Vista Verde Condominium complex in the City of Lomita. South: 40'-8" East: 25'-9" West: 5'-9-' Staff Comments: This condition was modified to further clarify that the constructed portion of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace may maintain an 8' setback. 8. Setbacks for the Pacifica Mausoleum Area 1). Setbacks for the Pacific Mausoleum are as follows: West: 15'--9" (existing) / 5'-0" for the northwestern addition North: 40'-9" (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) East: 25' South: If abutting a residential zoning district 40'. If a.bufting a nonresidential zoning district 251. Staff Comments: This condition was modified to include the east and south setback requirements. 8.a. Setbacks for Area 11. Setbacks for the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 shall be as follows: North: 8' for theortion constructed and finaled as of 2013. 40' for future expansions. West/South: If abutting a residential zoning -district. 40'. If abutting a nonresidential zoning district 25'. East: 25' Staff Comments: This condition was modified to further clarify that the 8' setback only applies to the constructed portion of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. Additionally, the west, south, and east setbacks were added. 9. Music. Any live and/or amplified music shall occur only during funeral services, community events, or visits. Funeral services music and community event music A-17 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. Signage. 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. 11. Standby Personnel for Complaints. ints. 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. 12. EM1212yoo Training. 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. 13. . 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. 14. Trash and Qebris. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. All landscape pruning, including but not limited to grass, leaves, branches, fertilizer, etc., shall 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. 15. . When not being used in the daily operations of the cemetery, equipment and supplies shall be stored in areas with minimal visual impact to adjacent homeowners or in the maintenance yard if possible. Equipment and supplies shall be neatly stacked so they do not pose a safety hazard or become a property maintenance issue. All landscaping equipment and vehicles, and all vehicles used for maintenance and/or burial preparation shall be stored in the maintenance yard. 16. Tomoorary Trailem. 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 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Further, the trailer shall be removed prior to building/grading permit final. 17. Hours of Operations a. General. This section shall govern hours of operations except for an provision concerning specific areas of the cemetery and Section 1.3.5a concerning rooftop burials. b. Hours of Facilities. 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. c. Construction Working Hours. 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. d. Non Construction and Burial Related Activity. 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. e. Construction In Proximity to Residential. Notwithstanding the foregoing, g�drils s#c,i oc �r-m- within 120 feet of any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District, no construction or grading, including grading operations to prepare sites for round burials shall occur before 9:00am or after 3:30pm. All equipment shall be equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels, 18. . All existing and future landscaping shall be properly maintained in a healthy and trimmed manner at all times. 19. j/, lg& In3 airme . 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 Develo went .?lar-E�tild¢r g- for review and approval prior to grading operations to prepare Area 4 for ground burials. A-19 20. Tree Ergseaafion. 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 nP4ng-Bu4di�n9-abode EnfGFGer +a„+ from a certified arborist supporting removal. 21. Hedges. When Inspiration Slope is developed, the existing hedge that separates Crescent Lawn and Vista Del Pointe from this area shall be removed. 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. 22. NQ Vegelation Am 2. 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. Drought tolerant, low maintenance and erosion controlling landscaping is required in the western setback adjacent to the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion. 23. jnspiralign S1212!2. The fly 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 Comm unit Develo meat Planning,Buiidi and ode --1 rtfor-Geme�nt—shall approve the exact location and height of this mausoleum building. The Director of Community Development may review and approve a retaining wall that contains niches for cremated remains extending from the mausoleum building not exceeding an average of 8'-0" in height connecting to the existing wall 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 sufficient in height to control the water and direct water down the roadway). 24. Landscaping and irrigation in all setbacks require review and approval by the Director of Community Development Riai; iii— apd- -€- 0ofeemeat 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 ming 4u i for review and approval within 180 days of final approval of the Master Plan Revision. 25. S.Igpe -GLadgs flfiaxin3um. Finish slopes and grades shall not exceed 3:1. On 4:1 or steeper slopes, erosion controlling plant material and other erosion control methods, such as jute netting, shall be required and installed. 26. ififigs. The site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All Los A-20 Angeles County Fire Department requirements shall be satisfied prior to building permit issuance for the mausoleum building. 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 27. Fencing. The existing chain link fence and wrought iron fence, which surrounds the perimeter of the cemetery site, shall be maintained. On those areas of the fence specifically owned by the cemetery, and where not directed otherwise by the adjacent water authority, no barbed wire on the top of these fences is allowed, and any existing barbed wire shall be removed within 90 -days of final approval of this Master Plan Revision. 28. Road Paved. 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. 29. Storage of Excavations. Temporary storage (up to 72 -hours) of interment excavations is allowed provided that such excavation is stored within an appropriate container. 30. Building Heights. The overall building heights for the mausoleums are limited to the heights approved by the Planning Commission depleted-a4ester-Plan i-evi-sien--bo"et-described--in- oc d erg ne- 4 -above. The heights of each nusGleum building shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Community Development Department prior to building permit final. 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 average highest elevation of the finished grade adjacent to the building at4he-fit ef4he-)u+ld to the highest point of the structure, and shall not exceed an overall hellht of 30 - feet when as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure. Once a building height has been determined by the Planning Commission a ride height certification will be required prior to Building Permit Final. Staff Comments: This condition was modified to allow building heights of new mausoleums only as approved by the Planning Commission. The building height measurements were also clarified so that it is enforceable by the City. Additionally, a ridge height certification requirement has been added to ensure that the constructed mausoleum complies with the Planning Commission approved height limits. 31. Compliance With Authorities. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the site. 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 A-21 embalming rooms in the Administration Building. Permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the crematory must also be provided. 32. Stato Porrnits. 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. 33. . 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. 34. Easements. 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. 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. 35. No Waiver of Law. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 36. -Cuflct of. 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. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 37. Revocation. 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. 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. 38.Submission Prooerty Line Survev Mans. Within 30 days from the date of the apl2roval of this Resolution the applicant shall submit a certified propertline survey to the Director of Community Development verif in that the existing,above ground interments and structures exceeding 6 -feet in height are located outside of the re uired five foot setback along the west property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building. (Area 1) 39. Fees and Costs. Except as otherwise specified, applicant is responsible for the costs of corn I inwith the provisions of the Mas er Plan Revised Master Plan and of this CUP. 40. Mediation with Homeowners. Owners in the Vista Verde Condominium Project have made objections and claims against the City concerning the fact that the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Mausoleum is constructed at the 8 foot setback line instead of the previous setback which existed before 2007. If reguested by the Vista Verde homeowners Green Hills will undertake an appraisal to determine if there has been a loss of real estate value resulting to the homeowners from the construction of the Mausoleum and what that loss might be. Green Mills will participate in a mediation process with the Vista Verde homeowners and ahem t to seftle claims by such homeowners for values up to the amount of the apgraisal differential using either the existing appraisal or a new appraisal requested by the Vista Verde homeowners. City representatives will also participate in this mediation on behalf of City. If the Vista Verde homeowners refuse to partici ate in the mediation or the mediation does not result in a settlement of the disputes, then Green Hills is responsible for defense of its entitlements pursuant to the indemnification provisions in Condition 41. 41. Defense of Claims A ainst Project. a. Non -Liability of City. The Parties acknowledge that. In the future there may be challenges to le-galit m validity and adegu.acy of the Project approvals-, and(ii) If successful such challenges could dela limitation the provisions of this Section Ci shall have no liability under the CUP for the inability of Green Hills to develoe the Property as contemplated by the Master Plan or the CUP as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date or at any time thereafter, the General Plan Master Plan, the Land Use Regulations, the CUP or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law. b. Revision of Land Use Restrictions. If for any reason the General Plan Master flan Land Use Regulations, this CUP or any part thereof of the Project approvals is hereafter judicially determined as provided, above to be not in compliance with the State or Federal Constitutions laws or re mations and if such noncompliance can be cured by an appropriate amendment thereof otherwise Master Plan and this CUP shall be amended as necessa in order to comply with such judicial decision. c. Scope of Indemnification. Green Hills shall agree to defend indemnify and hold harmless the Cily, its agents, officers and A-23 employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and the a2plication will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs, or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the Ci !y Aftorney. If the City fails to prompily notify Green Hills of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully, in the defense, Green Hills shall not, thereafter, be resRonsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without Green Hill's consent, but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except the City's decision to seftle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of indemnification rights herein, providing, however, that the adverse judgment or failure to appeal is not due to the City's failure to promptly notify Applicant or to cooperate fully in the defense. The foregoing includes, but is not . limited to, any and all claim(s), causes of action or lawsuit(s) brought by the Claimants, by their homeowners' association or by anyone else on their behalf. d. Limitation of Indemnity. Notwithstanding the generality of the legal defense costs, butthisrestriction shall not apply to future matters. Hold Harmless: Construction and Other Activities. Green Hills hereby agrees to, and shall defend, save and hold Ci !y and its elected and appoint dboards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims, costs (including aftorneys' fees) and liability for any damages, personal iniu!y or death, which m arise, directly or indirectly, from Green Hills or Green Hills' agents, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees' operations under the CUP, whether such operati2ns be by Green Hills or by any o Green Hills' agents, contractors or subcontractors orb anyone, or more persons directty, or indirectly em.12loyed by or acting as a -gen for Green Hills or any of Green Hills' agents, contractors or subcontractors. Nothing herein is intended to make Green Hills liable for intentional wrongful and/or reckless acts of Cit 's officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors. f. Survival of Indemnity Obligations. All indemni!Y Rrovisions set forth Staff Comments: The reasons for addition of these conditions are described in detail in the Staff Report. A-24 Cit t ar � »•Ing Staff Comments: This condition was deleted as it is covered in conditions 1.k and 2 above. A-25 C.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REGARDING THE APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK, UPHOLDING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW FOR THE GREEN HILLS CEMETERY AND ALLOWING THE MAUSOLEUM BUILDING IN AREA 11 TO CONTINUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS 2007 APPROVALS AND PERMITS AND REVISING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND AMENDING THE GREEN HILLS CEMETERY MASTER PLAN, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 27501 WESTERN AVENUE (GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK). WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2007-32, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33, approving amendments to the Green Hills Master Plan, which called for development of the Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills") over the next 30 to 50 years, and allowed grading and mausoleum buildings to be constructed at various specified locations throughout Green Hills cemetery; and, WHEREAS, Condition of Approval Nos. AQ -14 and N-3 in P.C. Resolution No. 2008-47 state that: "The project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission annually, commencing on the date of final approval, to review the applicant's compliance with all conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that time, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, as well as increase the time between review periods. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090.", thereby affording the Planning Commission the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate; and, WHEREAS, after review of the plans for consistency with the Green Hills Master Plan, Planning Division approval was granted on November 11, 2011, for the first phase of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11; and, WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Building and Safety Division issued a building permit for the construction of the first phase of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building, which is also known as the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum, in Area 11 ("Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum" or "the Mausoleum") and Green Hills commenced and completed construction of the building, and on September 11, 2013, Resolution No. 2015 - Page 1 of 14 the Building and Safety Division finaled the building permit for the 10,366 square foot Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building per BLD2011-00799 and thereafter commenced operations including sales of crypts and burial plots, including on the rooftop; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the construction and operation of the new mausoleum building, Staff received numerous inquiries and complaints from residents in the adjacent Vista Verde condominium complex in the City of Lomita regarding the Mausoleum's visual and view impacts, in addition to the proximity of the burial preparation and ceremonial activities on the roof of the Mausoleum building; and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to conduct an operational review of the Green Hills Cemetery to address the concerns about the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building along with any other concerns raised by the public regarding the Green Hills Master Plan, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, at the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission tentatively agreed to impose a 90 -day moratorium on all ground burials and interments on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 while Staff identified new or revised conditions to address specific noise, visual and privacy impacts identified by the Planning Commission based on public testimony, and continued the public hearing to the March 11, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to April 22, 2014, to allow Green Hills and the Vista Verde Condominium Association to come to an agreement on mitigation measures to address impacts associated with the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 which thereafter was further continued to May 13, 2014, and again to August 12, 2014, to allow the parties to continue their discussions and directed Staff to include a Resolution for consideration that could impose a temporary 90 -day moratorium on roof- top burials on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building; and, WHEREAS, at the August 12, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission conducted the continued public hearing at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present additional evidence, and directed Green Hills to apply for an after -the -fact Variance to seek approval to allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching into the required 40 -foot property line setback and directed Staff to review Green Hills' existing conditional use permit to make sure that they are in compliance with all of the conditions of approval, closed the public hearing and directed Staff to bring back a Resolution at the August 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting to impose a number of conditions on the cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining neighbors from burial activity Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 of 14 on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, at the August 26, 2014, meeting due to further controversy the matter was re -noticed for October 28, 2014, and at that meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and further present evidence, and to fulfill the requirements of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission directed Green Hills to submit a Variance application within 30 -days to seek approval to: (i) allow the existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building to remain encroaching 32 -feet into the required 40 -foot property line setback; (ii) allow certain existing below ground burials within the 16 -foot setback in the northwest corner of the cemetery site between the west property line and the maintenance yard to remain and to allow six additional interments in companion plots where individuals already are interred; and (iii) allow existing structures and certain existing above -ground interments to remain within the 5 - foot setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building; and, WHEREAS, additionally at the October 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission agreed to impose a moratorium on ground burials/interments and sales of burial plots on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building located in Area 11 of the Master Plan, and imposed a moratorium on above -ground burials within the 5 -foot setback area along the western property line in the area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building, which would remain in effect until final City action or further determination by the City Council is taken regarding these interments and structures in the required setbacks, and imposed a number of conditions on the cemetery to avoid/minimize impacts to the adjoining residential properties from burials and activities on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building in Area 11 of the Green Hills Master Plan, and directed Staff to bring back a Resolution memorializing its decision for consideration at the November 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, and continued the public hearing to November 11, 2014 at which time the resolution was revised and adopted; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2014, Ellen Berkowitz of Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council on behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park seeking to overturn the entirety of the Planning Commission's decision and followed this letter up with additional correspondence; and, WHEREAS, Staff mailed out notices to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the cemetery property, and published the notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on December 25, 2014 and on January 1, 2015, regarding the public hearing on the appeal, which was to be held on January 20, 2015, but when the hearing was opened on January 20, 2015, due to a substantial amount of information and materials that were submitted to the City Council just prior to the commencement of the public hearing, the Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3 of 14 City Council continued the public hearing so the City Council would be able to review and consider all of the additional materials that had been submitted; and, WHEREAS, during the course of the summer the parties conducted extensive discussions in an effort to resolve the dispute but no agreement was reached; and, WHEREAS, on August 12, 2015, Staff re -noticed the appeal hearing by mailing out notices to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the cemetery property and publishing the notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 13, 2014, regarding the public hearing, which was to be held on September 1, 2015, and was held with the Council directing staff to prepare a resolution upholding the Planning Commission action, which matter was scheduled to be heard on September 15, and was subsequently deferred to November 17, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Recitals. Each of the recitals set forth above is true and correct and is incorporated as part of this decision. Section 2: CEQA Findings. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. Seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. Seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), this decision by the City Council (i) imposes restrictions on the existing operations of the Memorial/Pacific Terrace Mausoleum to reduce the impacts of those operations on adjacent properties, (ii) constitutes minor alterations to existing structures or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use; and (iii) will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this decision is not subject to CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations Sections 15601(b)(2), 15301, and 15061(b)(3). Section 3: Municipal Code Findings for Granting Compliance Review and Modifications to Conditions. This is a de novo hearing where the City Council has considered the evidence before it. The City Council finds that this use dates back to 1948 and was annexed to the City in 1984 with the original Master Plan approved in 1991, and a revised Master Plan approved in 2007 and which has been updated from time to time. There is no expansion of the use beyond the Revised Master Plan, and additional mitigation measures have been imposed to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and protect community health, safety and general welfare. The changes to the conditions being proposed do not affect the validity of the findings made in P.C. Resolution 2007-33. Accordingly the Council finds: 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under Resolution No. 2015 - Page 4 of 14 this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood. To Green Hills Memorial Park entrance is located at 27501 Western Avenue in the northeast corner of the City, bordering the City of Lomita, the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and the City of Los Angeles. The property is approximately 121 acres in size, and is a privately owned and operated cemetery facility. Approximately 1,800 burials occur annually at the cemetery. The site is therefore of a size and shape that allows its use as a cemetery facility, including all required setbacks, landscaping and other features. The entrance is sufficient to accommodate traffic into and out of the cemetery. The cemetery abuts residential properties to the north and south, a church complex and reservoir land to the west, and residential and undeveloped land to the east (site of the proposed Ponte Vista residential development), across Western Avenue. The use of the property is thus consistent with surrounding uses and the adjacent neighborhood as a low density noncommercial/nonindustrial property. 2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. Green Hills Memorial Park has been in existence at this location since 1948. Its main entrance is located on Western Avenue, a major thoroughfare that comfortably accommodates the amount of vehicular traffic to and from the cemetery. The proposed changes to the conditions will not negatively affect the traffic on Western Avenue. The cemetery has an additional access road off Palos Verdes Drive North that leads to the cemetery's maintenance yard, which alleviates potential construction vehicle traffic congestion at the entrance on Western Avenue. approving- - no significant - effects - permitted usa The conditions imposed minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Conditions address, among others, parking, grading, noise, landscaping, setbacks, mitigation monitoring, Master Plan compliance reviews, dust, emissions by construction vehicles and equipment, construction, dirt storage, lighting, employee training and complaints, trash and debris, storage of equipment and supplies, temporary trailers, fences, signage and storm water mitigation. This is further described in Section 5 hereof. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 5 of 14 Green Hills Memorial park is consistent with the General Plan's Cemetery zoning designation of the site, and with the types of land uses permitted within the Development Code's Commercial -Recreational land use designation. Further, the site will also continue to have an open space ambience due to the size of the site and the location, proximity, architectural design, color, and other improvements associated with the mausoleum buildings and the Master Plan Revision. 5. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this Section, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and general welfare, have been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffers; b. Fences or walls; c. Lighting; d. Vehicular ingress and egress; e. Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; f. Landscaping; g. Maintenance of structures, grounds, or signs; h. Service roads or alleys; and i. Such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title. The Compliance Review, to gauge the effectiveness of the conditions of approval, led to the proposed modifications to mitigate the effects of decreased setbacks. Specifically, setbacks have been increased for any remaining portion of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11, to further protect the residents of the Vista Verde Condominium Complex from adverse impacts, and the setback for rooftop burials has been increased so as to ensure that burials do not occur too close to the complex. Section 4: Compliance Review. 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 Resolution No. 2015 - Page 6 of 14 the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Chapter 17.80 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission's decision has been appealed to the City Council. Section 17.80.080 A 2 and the aforementioned conditions allow the City Council to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval that have been imposed by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the conditions of approval that are approved by this Resolution, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby added to the Green Hills Master Plan. Section 5: Modification of Conditions. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are conditions governing this use, both existing conditions and new and modified conditions, all incorporated herein. As set forth above, 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. Major revisions to the conditions mitigate project impacts and are summarized as follows: 1. Baseline topographic survey. To assure accuracy of future grading, a baseline topographic survey will be required (Condition 1.b.(v).). 2. Administrative Substantial Compliance Review. Except for improvements consistent with the Master Plan or those subject to the Planning Commission, all improvements must be reviewed by the Director to determine if they substantially comply with the Master Plan, and the Director shall give notice to owners within 500 feet of the application. The Director may utilize Site Plan Review. Fifteen days is provided to interested persons to provide comment and the Director must give notice of any decision to the same persons who can appeal the decision to the Planning Commission, and thereafter to the City Council (Condition 1.k.). 3. Planning Commission Review. Certain matters are directly reviewable by the Planning Commission including (i) the construction or modification of a mausoleum or other significant building, (ii) any significant change to the grading, (iii) any development of a future phase of Green Hills where the Master Plan has not designated a development plan or uses, or (i) any amendment to the Master Plan. The same notice provisions for adjacent owners are required as for Director administrative review in Condition 1.k. (Condition 2). 4. Building Silhouettes. To give residents a better understanding of building impacts, the applicant is required to construct silhouettes and give notice to surrounding owners 30 days before Director approval (Condition 1.i.). 5. Annual Review. The review condition was modified so that review is required in connection with (i) a substantial compliance review, or (ii) amendment of the Master Plan, and may be submitted to the Planning Commission directly or through appeal. (Condition 5.AQ14). Resolution No. 2015 - Page 7 of 14 6. Area 11. A number of conditions are imposed concerning screening use of equipment, landscaping, sound amplification, tenting, during rooftop services, notice to owners concerning services, providing staff supervision and a complaint contact. Certain areas are excluded for burials. Service hours are limited to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Conditions 1.3 and 1.3.5). 7. Variance/Moratorium. Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission requiring the applicant to seek a variance and imposing a temporary moratorium are deleted (Conditions 1.f., 1.p., 53, 55). 8. Area 11 Setbacks. The 8 -foot setback only applies on the north for the existing Mausoleum as approved, and otherwise the 40 -foot setback applies. (Condition 8a). 9. Hours. Hours for construction and operation equipment, for opening buildings, for burial activity for services, are all comprehensively regulated. (Condition 17). 10. Building Heights. Building heights are limited to 20 feet from the highest finished grade or 30 feet from the lowest grade to the highest part of the building. (Condition 30). 11. Trash. Applicant is required to keep the site clean of trash and debris and keep appropriate storage areas, and maintain all landscaping. (Conditions 14, 15). 12. Employee Training_ Employees must be trained as to safety requirements and other laws concerning mortuaries and also compliance with the requirements of the CUP. (Condition 12). 13. Revocation. Applicant must agree to be bound to all conditions and a revocation process is provided for noncompliance. (Condition 37). 14. Fees. Applicant must pay all fees and costs of compliance. (Condition 39). 15. Indemnification. Applicant must defend all development approvals and enter building detailed agreement. (Condition 41). 16. Mediation. Applicant must agree to appraise value of any losses to Vista Verde Homeowners and participate in mediation unless Homeowners decline. (Condition 40). Section 6: Council Rejects Requirement For Variance. Green Hills' appeal challenges the City Council's ability to require Green Hills to obtain a Variance for the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum. For the following reasons set forth herein, the City Council finds that the provisions of the setback conditions of the CUP take precedence over the zoning setbacks and the applicant is not required to go through a duplicative public variance process which would create the potential for inconsistent legal proceedings. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 8 of 14 A. Zoning Ordinance Allows CUP to Supersede Zoning_ RPVMC Section 17.60.050(8) provides as follows: "Conditional use permits may be granted for such period of time and upon such conditions and limitations as may be required to protect the health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions shall take precedence over development standards otherwise required by the underlying zoningof f the subject site." The highlighted language gives the 8 -foot setback "precedence" over the underlying 40 -foot setback of the zoning. The Planning Commission was advised that this language permits variation from the underlying zoning only if it, in effect, promoted the general welfare. If the variation from the development standards was contrary to the general welfare then it could not be approved. To grant a CUP, the following finding must be made: "6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the planning commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffers ...." RPVMC § 17.60.050(A). In fact, in 2007 in Resolution 2007-33 the Planning Commission made these findings. The Planning Commission found that conditions have been imposed to protect the health, safety and general welfare, including concerning setbacks and buffers, and the 8 -foot setback was one of the approved setbacks. Legal counsel for Green Hills has argued that discretionary authority given by the ordinance in the granting of a CUP to vary from the underlying zoning contains no qualification that this only applies if it "promotes" general welfare.' It is a general rule of statutory construction that courts "are generally bound by a statute's plain text and are not permitted to add words to a statute to accomplish a purpose ... not apparent from the face of the statute. "2. Thus, in the absence of language in the zoning code that expressly restricts the "takes precedence" to where the change is more restrictive, and not less, it would appear that there is no basis for adding this qualification to the express provisions of Section 17.60.050(8). Accordingly, the Council finds that the conditions of the CUP modified the questioned setback to 8 feet. 1 See letter from Ellen Berkowitz dated September 1, 2015, attached as Exhibit F. 2 Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 241 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2015) (internal citations omitted). Resolution No. 2015 - Page 9 of 14 B. Green Hills has a Vested Right. Vested rights require validly issued permits along with substantial construction in reliance on the permit. A conditional use permit (CUP) can lead to obtaining a vested right, although the nature of the rights is determined by the conditions of the permit itself and the city's ordinances. In 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-7, which approved a master plan (the "Master Plan"), a CUP, and a grading permit for Green Hills Memorial Park, to govern the long-term development of their cemetery property. In 2007, the Master Plan, the CUP, and the grading permit were revised and updated, per P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33 (attached). This Resolution reduced the setback to 8 feet. Thereafter in February 2012, the building permit for the Mausoleum was issued with the City apparently of the belief that the issuance was proper. While grading permits might not produce a vested right, clearly, a validly issued building permit does under California law, as discussed below. Besides a validly issued permit, the second prong of the vested right test is that there has been substantial construction in reliance on the permit. This rule comes from the California Supreme Court case Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission.3. In that case, a developer of a subdivision, part of which lay within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone Commission, sought a writ of mandate to compel the Commission to grant an exemption from provisions of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 requiring issuance of a permit for any development within the Coastal Zone. The Supreme Court, held, that the developer had not obtained vested rights to proceed with the development by virtue of the fact that, prior to the effective date of a permit requirement, it had obtained approval of a planned unit development and had spent $3,000,000 to subdivide and grade the property, and to make certain improvements on the land, such as installing utilities. The Court stated that: "[i]t has long been the rule in this state and in other jurisdictions that if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the perm it. "4 However, while in spending $3,000,000 Avco had spent considerable resources to improve the property, it had failed to obtain the necessary building permits prior to the effective date of the Coastal Commission's requirements. Substantial expenditures in reliance on a building permit created a vested right but would not if based only on a grading permit. 31d. 4 Id. at 791. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 10 of 14 Following Avco, the rule has generally been that merely spending money, or even grading the site is insufficient. Instead the developer must advance to obtaining building permits and pouring foundations. Here, Green Hills had an amended Master Plan and a CUP which, consistent one with the other, permitted them to construct the mausoleum with an 8 foot setback. Green Hills submitted structural plans in November of 2011 and building permits issued in February 2012. These in and of themselves would not have created vested rights, but in April they began construction, and on September 11, 2013, the Mausoleum was completed and finaled by the City. Thus, unlike the situation in Avco, here the building permits have issued, and in addition, not only the foundations but the building itself has been completed and operations have gone on for over a year; thus, the substantial reliance standard articulated in Avco has been satisfied. C. Conclusion. In summary, Green Hills is not required to seek a variance because: (i) the express language in the Municipal Code states that the conditions in the CUP can supersede the zoning; (ii) the Planning Commission expressly found the CUP did not have an adverse effect on surrounding property and promoted health and safety when it granted the CUP, (iii) Green Hills obtained a vested right as described above, (iv) the equities between the developer and City do not support equitable estoppel, and (v) proceeding with a variance leaves the City conducting a pro forma hearing where a denial of the variance would subject the City to potential liabilities of millions of dollars (as described in Section 7 below). Section 7: Due Process Rights. Additionally requiring Green Hills to obtain a variance would deprive them of due process. Case law provides that for a hearing to afford due process rights, the hearing body must have the ability to undertake the requested action.5 Accordingly, a variance hearing would only be appropriate if the City Council could grant the variance. Here the argument seems to be that obtaining the variance is necessary as a technicality. But the reality is that if the City were to require the variance, it must be assumed that the variance could be denied (and in fact we see some legal arguments against the validity of a variance)6. But if the variance were denied, it would follow that the City's position would be that the Mausoleum must be 5 People v. Broad, 216 Cal. 1, 7, 12 P.2d 941, 943 (1932) ("The rule is well settled that to constitute due process of law in regard to the taking of property the statute should give the parties interested some adequate remedy for the vindication of their rights.") 6A variance is "an administrative or quasi-judicial act permitting minor deviations from existing land use regulations so that the landowner does not suffer undue hardship, but which does not violate the overall established land use regulatory scheme. Section 65906 of the Government Code limits the circumstances under which a variance is appropriate: a variance "shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (Emphasis added.) Nothing in the record suggests that an undue hardship exists as to Green Hills' property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. Thus there is a legitimate argument against the City Council being be able to make the necessary findings to support the granting of a variance in this case. The better argument is that RPVMC Section 17.60.050(B) contains sufficient authority to grant a CUP which alters the requirement of the underlying zoning without requiring a second potentially inconsistent legal proceeding of a variance. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 11 of 14 removed. This then would bring the City into litigation over the vested rights of the developer, Green Hills. We are unaware of the specific costs of construction of the Mausoleum, the revenues which have resulted from the sale of burial plots, or the anticipated sales of future burial plots. Nor have we attempted to estimate claims for interference with contract rights and pain and suffering of parties related to the burials within the Mausoleum if they are disturbed (were that even legal) and the disputes which would arise were the Mausoleum removed, but collectively these claims and the legal fees to resolve the claims could easily exceed many millions of dollars. It would seem the height of folly to pursue a legal proceeding where one of the two outcomes would expose the City to such legal proceedings and potential damages. This proves the point that given the construction of the Mausoleum two years ago, such a variance proceeding was in the order of a legal fiction as the City could not realistically deny the variance in light of the developer's vested rights. Section 8: Moratorium Has Not Come Into Effect and is not Appropriate. A. Stay in Effect. In its decision, the Planning Commission imposed a Moratorium on further interments within the required setbacks and on the burials and sale of plots on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11 during the period between the Planning Commission's decision and the City Council's determination on this appeal. Counsel for the Vista Verde Homeowners' Association, has stated that the moratorium should have been enforced during the pendency of the appeal by Green Hills. However, Section 17.80.020 states that.. "The filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to this chapter stays all activity on the project until a final decision on the appeal." This provision applied to all aspects of the Planning Commission's decision being appealed. Accordingly, the filing of the appeal by counsel for Green Hills stayed the effect of the moratorium that was imposed by the Planning Commission. B. Council Declines Imposing Moratorium. For the reasons stated above, it appears that Green Hills had vested rights to construct the Mausoleum pursuant to a building permit BLD2011-0079 issued on February 16, 2012, which has not been revoked, and that substantial expenses were incurred in good faith thereon, and the City on September 11, 2013 "finaled" the building and approved occupancy. Additionally, since that time Green Hills has continued its operations therein and sold numerous plots to patrons who have legal interests in the property and structures. C. Preemption. Although the City can regulate land use matters concerning a cemetery, State law controls the internal operations of cemeteries, and the potential imposition of a moratorium could have an unpredictable impact on such operations and subject the City to liability. Notwithstanding these considerations, nothing in here shall be deemed to restrict the City's future land use authority over Green Hills development or the Master Plan. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 12 of 14 Section 9: Revocation. It was contended on behalf of the Vista Verde HOA, and residents of Vista Verde contend, that the conditional use permit for the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum should be revoked. However, the revocation process would need to occur at a duly noticed public hearing specifically pertaining to the revocation process. (See, Municipal Code Section 17.86.060.) Furthermore, the Municipal Code allows property owners to file applications that will bring properties into compliance with the Municipal Code (See Municipal Code Section 17.86.050), which would be the objective of the Variance application. For these reasons, this hearing, which is an appeal by Green Hills from the Planning Commission's decision on the operation of Green Hills and Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of approval, is not the appropriate venue for consideration of the issues raised by the HOA and the Vista Verde residents, who did not file an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision. Section 10: Mediation and Indemnity. The City Council endorses a mediation process as a useful approach to the problem. The Council directs the City Attorney to pursue the following: 1. Indemnity: The City Attorney would add the conditions to this and future land use approvals that the applicant bear the expense of defending the validity of the actions. A condition would be added to the CUP and a detailed indemnity agreement would be negotiated between the parties. 2. Appraisal: The parties should consider obtaining an appraisal to determine the diminution in value of the Vista Verde units, if any. If the parties cannot agree on the appraiser, then Green Hills and Vista Verde would each select for and pay for an appraiser. The value of the loss would be fixed at the average of the two highest appraisals, with the old appraisal also considered. Green Hills would be liable for 100% of the appraised loss. The details of this process could be negotiated when and if Vista Verde chooses to proceed with mediation. 3. Mediation: With completion of the appraisal, the parties would participate in a mediation. In addition to Green Hills' participation, City would participate and would contribute up to $200,000 to any mediated agreement, being the estimate of what the City would save on legal fees if litigation is avoided. 4. Mitigation: The conditions primarily contemplated to minimize impacts shall be added to the CUP. 5. Principles: Vista Verde Homeowners and HOA should be encouraged to participate but are not required. Green Hills by the conditions would be required to participate, unless the Vista Verde Homeowners decline. The above requirements can be modified by mutual agreement of the parties. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 13 of 14 Section 11: Approval of Compliance Review and Modifications to Conditions. For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of proceedings in this matter, and pursuant to Condition of Approval Nos. AQ -14 and N-3 contained in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33 that grant the Planning Commission (and the City Council on appeal) the ability to add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby amends the decision of the Planning Commission and adds to the 2007 Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan, the conditions that are set forth within the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 12: Judicial Review. The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November 2015, by the following vote: Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No 2015- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on November 17, 2015. City Clerk Resolution No. 2015 - Page 14 of 14 From: Gabriella Yap Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:42 PM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: Fwd: Late correspondence for Nov 17th, 2015 meeting, GH and VVOA Attachments: Nov 17 2015.pptx Sent from my 5amming 0ala» Smm phone. -------- Original message -------- From: Nad Gv <nvgeorg@gmail.com> Date: 11/16/2015 7:12 PM (GMT -08:00) To: Gabriella Yap <gyap@rpvca.gov> Cc: Subject: Late correspondence for Nov 17th, 2015 meeting, GH and VVOA Hi Gabriella Please add attached to the late correspondence for the meeting on Tuesday, Nov 17th. Thank you Nadia Nov 17 2015 Shocked to learn that the small David was once again sacrificed for the big Goliath... After reading the staff report I'd like to point why we think that adopting the planning commission decision is the right thing to do. Citation form the staff report: "(2) Argument that building permit not validly issued countered by RPVMC permitting CUP to supersede zoning. A permit can be invalid if: it is issued in violation of applicable law; issued under misrepresentation of material facts by the applicant, or if obtained by fraud; in conflict with the general plan; and in conflict with public policy." The permit was issued under misrepresentation of material facts by the applicant! That was proved before the planning commission! Proofs : Redacting the existing discussed document to read 8 feet instead of 80 foot setback was done without discussion. The redacted text happened in between votes and it was a last moment change without discussion at all. It was somehow "sneaked in". Additionally, there was an internal investigation about misrepresentation of information about the plans, view, height, etc. Eduardo Schonborn was fired and you insisted that there was no violation of applicable law in this fiasco? What about law of honesty of planner people presenting the information to the planning commission? And the staff report says that the permit granted to GH in April 2007 was valid? Citation: "The Planning Commission action in P.C. Resolution No. 2014-29 (November 2014) requiring a variance was based on the theory that the 8 foot setback condition was invalid as being in violation of the zoning code because the 8 foot setback condition is contrary to the 40 foot setback requirement provided for in the zoning code. RPVMC § 17.28.040(A)(2)." • No, their action was based on the discovery of many facts, which proved that GH lied and misrepresented the information to obtain permission! • Lies (even caught on tape) that "no view would be impacted". • Misrepresented position of the mausoleum; it was depicted south of existing maintenance yard. • Misrepresented height of the building. Plans are showing building height in down slope (there is no such down slope!) south of maintenance yard. • Quiet rooftop burials (not discussed or even mentioned). • Missing proper notification to the neighbors. That's the whole point! That's why the planning commission was tricked to approve the CUP, because they were misled! That's why there was internal investigation and that's why a guilty person was appointed! If everything was right why someone should take a leave?! Citation: "On March 28, 1995, Conditional Use Permit No. 155, Revision "A" was approved by the Planning Commission. Revision "A" modified a condition of approval regarding mausoleum building height, thereby increasing the maximum downslope building height from 25'-0" to 30'-0"." • The mausoleum is NOT built downslope, it is on the leveled ground so — to get that height they lied that the building would be in the slope south of maintenance yard. Citation: "Accordingly the Planning Commission was advised to require Green Hills to obtain an "after the fact" variance. We have termed it "after the fact" because by the time this condition was imposed, November 11, 2014, the Mausoleum had been constructed pursuant to building permits issued by the City in February 2012 and where construction was completed in September 2013 (i.e., 14 months after completion of construction). These facts raise the question as to whether Green Hills had vested rights which could not be disturbed by the after -the -fact requirement to obtain a variance." 14 month "after the fact" happened not because we did not flag you (and the planning commission), they happened because no one paid attention at that in time! It happened because of bureaucracy and postponing from the authority. So then you term it "late claims" and "after the fact", so convenient! August 31St, 2013 They buried people somewhere else and moved them BEFORE opening date, so what's the problem moving already buried people somewhere else? They already did it! ! Was that legal back then and if so, how now it's illegal? PEW to ti We waited for an year for you to make decision, to see what's going on, to treat us as a human beings and still nothing! No, the questions about legality of that mausoleum was raised even before the end of the construction, so there is no such thing as "after the fact". If something is illegal, it doesn't become legal just because the "judge" (city or commission) cannot make decision or don't have time to look at it! You make us pay for the fact that you didn't want to spend time investigating the issue?! And, by the way, shouldn't the city know best if a variance is needed on the first place? Why did you issue a building permit in February 2012 without a variance? Why there was no environmental and health study? California law requirement is to have a proper setback from residential area when burring bodies! That's health issue! Thank you for your time. 4P'IHGEi GUART)nAll- N=-wGR,ADE.r39cuNr, BVRIALS )-5UUAXF TODD I.N(:- MAST ER 0EVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN At-IVA 11 agar HITI"cl I'kl-' GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING INT11*100.141 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CAL lFCRN, [A 11-D 2 R --J a (-,� L 1 0 2 20.15 GREEN HILL, f"K Al QGACIuN'P BJPiALSAT?lEZZAN'lNc- LLVEL )WEAL OF PLANNI G Mml SION CJTUNE OF z -X STING GPADE )-5UUAXF TODD I.N(:- MAST ER 0EVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN At-IVA 11 agar HITI"cl I'kl-' GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING INT11*100.141 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CAL lFCRN, [A 11-D 2 R --J a (-,� L 1 0 2 20.15 � � f a i[ � a i i � • i Dear Honorable City Councilmembers: According to the Staff Report prepared in connection with the upcoming January 20, 2015 City Council hearing (the "Staff Report"), the mountains of letters, documents, plans, testimony, minutes, notices, and everything else comprising the lengthy history of this appeal can be summed up into a single question: Did Green Hills mislead the City when it applied for amendments to its 2007 Master Plan Revision? YES, Ellen, Green Hillis Dild Mislead the Cilty Planning 5CHEMRTIG 51TE 5EGTiON / WEST NINE OEVELOPi1EN111N t1ARiFR PIAN -:i if ®tip ; iu rn V 1 FANCNO RALOS VERAESCALyFCRNA If:: gRiAL TERFACF. W1 1YVINDG Green Hills provided this Cross Section ii - H showing the Mausoleum's Western Section was built into the Slope in front of and below the Lomita Condominiums The Planning Commission s" Findings in reliance on this Green Hills" completelyPlan which s •There would be no View Impairment ®There would be no Noise impacts ®The setback reduction was "acceptable" to Staff •There was no need for any Silhouettes •"just Say No" was a correct answer ® Resolution PC 2007-33 states that the Mausoleum would be built into the slope ® Resolution PC 2007 - 32 states there would be no Significant impacts mom_. ._ � �.. . 2", .'L GREEN MEMORIAL PARK t i' i t . PLANNING DECISIONCOMMISSION NOVEMBER• I-01age 13 Nov. 17,2015 Staff Report P.C. Resolution2007-33 Section 6 Referenced Findings MEMORANDUM: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION November 17, 2015 Page 17 "6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the planning canan'sssion finds to be necessary to Protect the health, safety and general weffare, have been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffers ... "RPVMC § 17.60.050(A). In fad,. in 2007 in Resolution 2007-33 the Planning Commission made these findings. The Poanning Commission found that conditions have been imposed to probed the health, safety and general welfare, including concerning setbacks and buffers, and the 6 -foot setback was one of the approved setbacks. So the argument that R is not compatible is directly contrary to the recommendations of staff and findings of the Planning Ccotmisston. Moreover, legal counsel for Green Hills has argued that discretionary authority given by the ordinance in the granting of a CUP to vary from the underlying zoning contains no qualification that this only applies if it 'promofos" genemt welfare.• R is a general rule of statutory construction that courts "are generally bound by a statutes plain text and are not permitted to add words to a statute to accomplish a purpose ... not apparent frau the face of the statute.'e. Thus, in the absence of language in the zoning code that expressly restricts the "takes precedence" to where the change is more restrictive, and not less, a would appear that there Is no basis for adding this qualification to the express provisions of Section 17.60.050(8). Here, the underlying zoning was for 40 feet, but by the 2007 CUP, the setback was reduced to 6 feet It can certainly be argued that this reduced the general welfare of gra adjoining property owners. However, the Planning Commission found to the contrary in granting the CUP. Moreover, R is not clear that such a change imposed through the CUP was beyond the Planning Commission's authority in 2007. Section 17.60.050(t3) provides broad authority to vary from the zoning standards. There is no language that says the change can only be more restrictive. Accordingly, there are strong arguments that the granting of the CUP was sufficient and no variance was required. (3) The Reouirement of Substantial Construction is met. Resides a validity issued permit, second prong of the vested right test is that there has been substantial construction in reliance on the permit. What is -substantial construction"7 This rule comes from the California Supreme Court case Avco Community Developers, fne. a South Coast Regional Commission. te. In that case, a developer of a subdivision, part of which lay within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone Commission. sought a writ of mandate to compel the Commission to grant an exemption from provisions of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Ad of 1972 requiring -See letWfrom Elan 5wft M dared SawWabrr 1, 2015, atlechedaa Exhit t F. ° Lucent Feeenolcgies, lnq. v, State ed of Equalantion, 241 Car. App, 4th 19 (2015) (internal cbttens ..hied). w In.. 14 Referenced Findings Are False, in Error — made in reliance on CH Plan Section 6: The grading will not adversely impad any views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site far mausoleum buitdngs and ground intemtents. The residences to the Boum of the cemetery are at the same grade elevation as, or slightly lower than, the cemetery and do not contain views over the cemetery site. The residences to the north, in the Peninsula Verde area, are at higher elevations that allow for views of the harbor over the cemetery, site. Further, the locations of the mausoleum buikfings and the associated backfill Continue to be within the internal Portions of ft cemetery site, and no mausoleum buildings are proposed along tthe perimeters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and Louth. The mausoleum buildings are proposed on sloped areas of the cemetery site that can facititate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than mausoleums being constructed on knolls or hilltops within the cemetery site. Section 6. "'The Grading will not adversely affect the views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausoleum buildings and ground interments!-' I Section 6. `iieano mausoleum buildings are proposedalong the the eri eters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and south®a Section 6. "Mausoleum Bulith s are proposed on sloped meas that can facilitate buildings excavating into the slope, rather than-lon than-loknolls or hilltops®" -,- .0.i. _�'✓p / t..: i_.-- Cl GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 1-7,2015 "Pattern and Practice" "Pattern and Practice" "The City Received complaints from nearby residents -and a "Stop Work Order": was issued.." "In response to further unauthorized grading, the City issued additional "Stop Work" Orders between 2000 and 2002" (Nov 17, 2015 Staff Report page 4) During the remainder of 1988 and into 1999, the City received compiainis from nearby residents regarding noise, dust, and other impacts related to the remedial grading operations. Eventually, the City became aware (through Green Hills' own admissions) that the remedial grading had exceeded the scope of activity approved under Grading Permit No. 2050, and a 'Stop Work' order was issued on October 27, 1999. After a meeting between City Staff and Green Hills, the 'Stop Work" order was lifted with the understanding that Green Hills would perform only minor grading to complete the remedial buttress fill that was necessary to properly complete the remediation, would not import any additional material, and would property apply for an amendment to the Master Plan- In response tofurther unauthorized grading, the City issued additional 'Stop Work" orders between 2000 and 2002, which were ultimately lifted based on continued assurances from Green Hills that an amendment to the Master Plan was forthcoming. Ultimately, on February 19, 2003, Case No. ZON2003-00086 was submitted, which was ,a Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan. 1 6 / 2 -1, L OIL On June 17, 2010, GH Officials Frew and Resich submitted a perjured Plan to allow interments within 25' of the NW cemetery border GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 1-7,2015 "Pattern and Practice" "Pattern and Practice" Green Hills' s Attorney admits illegal Sale Of 44 Interment Plots not authorized by CUP! rMT �,T, "m 11, 4" AS OF AUGUST 22, 2024 M. y is XPOTENTIAL FUTURE 2nd INTERMENT Pacific Gardens I Green Hilk's Attorney its 1-3 illegal and un -authorized interments in prohibited Plots u recent being April 24,2007 AS OF AUGUST 22, 2019 V RP'f "-JIN Hear�,,Lmr Nove- ,ber 1 0 IL 0 1 XPOTENTIAL FUTURE 2nd INTERMENT Wow, Pacific Gardens GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 17, Z®15 Admitted. Fraudulent Sales Periured ADDlicatlon the Master Plan and Master Plan Revision. At that Nme. the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deems necessary and appropriate, Notice of said review hearing shah be published and provided to owners of propertywlNin a 500' radius, to pentons requesting notke, to as affected horn hers assodaeons, and to me property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes DeveWpmem Code Section 17.80.090. e. S ow ground interments sites, "Gallen' burial sites a'. be ows: North all South: B'-0" (except the northwest comer between the westem property line and maintenance yard, NO shall be 18'-01 Fart and West: 0'-0' 7- Sefhaeks for above ground structures, Including but not UnAad m=wsoleums(except the Padfica Maeso!eum) and crypts shall W as follows: Nora(: .® 'ge.subject to all rules and regulationsgoverning Green Hills Memorial Park now in effect.!' Ceb'R1rni2 dear harmby cacti/y, Mot PWAV41 to !hs Amvwfaes a toive n the Usetva(Kvt of Oadn'.roGan harenatfar •efavred to, o Poltiw of the R46;0 -x C44tvw JARK OV'tPi2i' CCAW ria Clkbel AWS ftdma'nr Part .Me Sooan mqP is toroled NnM of i94CFA:A A(W&Y eaW AtWN ,$yawn m m r Ned or Aft,, of Na -p .5i9'-SS9i1.'i recrrbRed ae *+ i' az AM ds L'mmalwy Vw Me 11,6 n the dhke of .0.�'®" tb+r em pty ReeweCv of(ar kwl" C}Wtg Co'rYaaix (hat "ie sxt;w ,(o iADkVW is the L'sr ' Caree(ay R'apm"fy' ra oxud » Rdak 2176(, Ptgst 263 wad rdr a dY M P! the taPaly Rscmrled of LPs Anyares tarnfjt taGkmra rad Z", hiss CmAred lis he Prepdrf74 w"rd [paPPoMp' (flat pled Ja algid( ft.r arlJfk'ot® Js alfa'ed.` Itat (ha pkat daarr he I mt cw^oc& $hors the focmtk % a"raapamonE and nansbma%+q of wlx gYrdEwt wag A"* esfates a stooled -#- Jbe boamse".s of Gear Aft flealabl Pb,* n said Cowe(x dS .scam w tsc vded_ West: The r*0 mid rownmY mfayrt 8. Sstbacksfori ehmgo a® a my part a perAw of "W PWW7C "WW LAIN! 0F)F 9 Sew4n West: hM, too arM(a6lsda tar¢ atfrxlirofe a oUlaravro Y lhe ad Noah: hmyUra mrmpameM ar aamdw"ry of k+L! PbLa fflW0W%A aetd(at of Omar 9. Any We andl i visitors Shah I dans tta"xrxl[d sdA. orrdb+t to a emanon% ihr !M ea; pa9wwr5iv� a filo common E pnaomafad hr Ms d6goAW ap+t4�far iimw eno of hrrellwr owe LndiA md/fv 10. TNa Director � ga®vtarp as afARAtt &W&A7 a minor madifi. # modifications m { Z Jp G .T A, *tae & said plans ar 2 le 0101 review and sF i} j 11. In the event a conflict with a1J POTENTIAL FUTURE 12. The cossteue 2nd INTERMENT materials rase constnutianl 1 ( atisa wraxr salol x ............... — — Pacific Gardens 'IX rwe "Al twee -W r"W'y ajamw mK aF to ptayarrs ",,@cf to Me resnrsotean r, &S cord psi r s dedk'oflon hw** bolero nr/eri'od tP drd J%4, of to (stat ale .s ybnvna bg Oi Aft AAWft ka' Fw1i n�vr it e,1*0 and (bass hen foot the Solo' SK/.izr v O srmhWe O/ tot iJ. Tract 1179? os ser ar 7 61201 "7- _.. The r*0 mid rownmY mfayrt dRnktrzx r4NW at(ar h skgpe a s"?x maeo oda67iaas !hm-efa wad/v om"-Vo (d ehmgo a® a my part a perAw of "W PWW7C "WW LAIN! 0F)F 9 Sew4n hM, too arM(a6lsda tar¢ atfrxlirofe a oUlaravro Y lhe ad a!7 hmyUra mrmpameM ar aamdw"ry of k+L! PbLa fflW0W%A aetd(at of Omar d4."M #,snit/) coed lm go amortised A%Wp4a7�moqps PIMS dr de.atkvls thereof, sed to arse 3+0 same !er Uro ametiw of and%' dv ePypuryaW v I dans tta"xrxl[d sdA. orrdb+t to a emanon% ihr !M ea; pa9wwr5iv� a �` pnaomafad hr Ms d6goAW ap+t4�far iimw eno of hrrellwr owe LndiA md/fv ^} a1Mr rnrstary pxvpatas tdys .ix as7/! ewmnatfs cord .tyrta o! ab Pxr and MW40 sad'praatlsss hr, cord the Aot and p7Weye of.hstaCny x.,zq aW ga®vtarp as afARAtt &W&A7 a or kr mY v&w peepars shy neanad Jbtw d:[1W",SArA0BW AW Z Jp G .T A, *tae & 2 le 0101 .N"seh .k. SwH M7 a ar 7 61201 "7- _.. From: Ellen Berkowitz <Ellen.Berkowitz@GreshamSavage.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:50 PM To: CC Cc: Doug Willmore; daleshire@awattorneys.com Subject: Green Hills' Submittal re: November 17, 2015 City Council Hearing Attachments: City Council -04 Re 11-17-15 City Council Hearing (3).pdf Dear Honorable Members of the RPV City Council: Please see the attached letter, submitted on behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park, in connection with tonight's hearing. Thank you. Ellen Ellen Berkowitz principal SharMolder• Gresharn Savage Dolan & _i ilden, PC 333 South Hope Street 35th Floor t...os Angeles, CA 90071. Office direct: (21 3) 873-8395 Office main: (2.13) 213-7249 i Fax: (213) 213-7391 I Cell: (310) 592-3479 www.GreshamSavage.com f. Prrviiaged and Confidential CaaimeUrftatioaa� T'Prc irafur,rtratron containers in th.s om i! ata{� any aatt<aa men , a��y r�� confirlentia[ or esu e�tto the Eatioway r(ient lariWe e o attorney vvor k procuct doctrine, !f yorl parr not the hilended rodpie.rlt of this ; ornnuniczation, you roaay not tzscs. dis:,i<,.,;o, prinit, copy :ar dssa rrina fo the, same. f yr: GRESHAM SAVAGE November 17, 2015 VIA EMAIL Honorable City Council Members City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Elleli.Berkowi.tzri,Gresliirn.Savige.com Los Aiigeles (21:3) 223-7249 • fax (21.3) 21.>-7;391. Re: November 17, 2015 City Council Hearing of Green Hills Memorial Park's Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Regarding Annual Compliance Review Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: As you know, this law firm represents Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills"). We have reviewed the Staff Report and accompanying Conditions of Approval attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit B ("Conditions"), issued in connection with the City's Council November 17, 2015 hearing considering Green Hills' appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding Annual Compliance Review. On behalf of our client, please be advised that Green Hills agrees to comply with the Conditions as currently drafted (i.e., as the Conditions appear on the City's website as of November 17, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.). I will be present at tonight's hearing and will be available to respond to any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Ellen Berkowitz, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation 5>(l hast },iospilalit�� [,anc. suite =00 - San F3;;rnaldfilo; California 92408 :375€i L;nil �.rsity iic�,nn.,. Suite SU � ! .i��erside, California 1)2501 a50 West C St€e•et, Suitc I SIU n San Diego, California 92101 33 South Hope St:ect, 35" Floor - Los Angeles, l alifoinia 90071 G583-000 -- 1971248.1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2015 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, November 17, 2015 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 1 Emails from: Matt Martin; Jeffrey Lewis; Veronica Lawlor; Sharon Yarber; Lori Brown; Jim Gordon; Joanna Jones - Reed; Email exchange between Staff and April Sandell 2 Discussion and Action by the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee related to Agenda Item No. 2 Respe submitted, arla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20151117 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:57 AM To: Carla Morreale; CityClerk Subject: PowerPoint for 11/17/15 meeting Attachments: GreenHillsPowerPointl.pptx Carla, Attached a powerpoint that will be presented at the 11/17/15 CC meeting. Please let the IT personnel know that video and Audio will be needed for the meeting as it was provided on 9/1/15 If there are any issues downloading the file please let me know. Also let the IT know they can contact me by email at this address if there are any questions. Thanks Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com--------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments. Green Hills did not correctly disclose their building plans to the City or to the public Existing Grade shown as dotted line. Mausoleum Height doesn't exceed it WaAWNE LEVEL I True Existing Grade I MIMS OF EXISTING GRADE sa 0'1411114 GUARDRAIL NEW GRADE GROUND BURIALS 5CHEMATIO 51TE 5ECTION / HE5T NIN6 No retaining wall here MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 11 "I'01)VINC. ,%xc-tjrrF(-1T'kh GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING INTFAMRS RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA PtANNIN't; -ANkAW n'; -W 44 JISTU 'A wlLAMYXIM 04M 11-D OUND BURIALS AT OAF27AMNE LEVI 5CHEMATIO 51TE 5ECTION / HE5T NIN6 No retaining wall here MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MASTER PLAN AREA 11 "I'01)VINC. ,%xc-tjrrF(-1T'kh GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING INTFAMRS RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA PtANNIN't; -ANkAW n'; -W 44 JISTU 'A wlLAMYXIM 04M 11-D NN:N/V f-.. N,..,.,,:,. ,.:..N,, .. f -....:I.,. L, -.-k (a Civil Enginezr) said on 10/28/14 Green Hills were inconsistent with 0� Green Hills tells Planning Commission that their plans will raise the existing grade anywhere in the 4 Former Planning Commissioner Lewis said on 10/28/14 that Green Hills bout their building plans and that he iad done so. 5 Burden of Proof Statements i, Explain how the site for the proposed use is adequate in Size and shape to accommodate the use. 4. Explain how the proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan, Q Aif�rl 4, tW R'kt-1 - .41 t lt4c' Mio- 0 C-SA12-4, ik 0 W4 MER5BY CERTIFY, under penalty of pejury, that the information and materials c, 4unWori wWh INQ innlir-Afinn xp M jP and rwred. Excerpt from Green Hills CUP Revision Application. It incorrectly states that the setback and heights are within the existing I aal KAnctor DInn A Green Hills Executive Ray Frew admits at 2/24/14 PC hearing that he knew the Mausoleum in Area 1 1 would have adverse impacts on neighboring residents. Return on Investment was more important Planning Commissioner Jim Knight asked if the Mausoleum in Area 1 1 on irdo Lomita residents and Joel Rojas Schonborn says no From: Sent: To: Subject: RPV City Council: Matt Martin <matthewhmartin@yahoo.com> Monday, November 16, 2015 10:46 AM cc Green Hills What is being conveyed by the new staff report is that a private business can provide false information to the city in order to get permit approvals and then reap the benefits of it. Their millions of dollars in profit will come at the expense of innocent homeowners that have had their homes and lives ruined. Is that the stance that the beautiful City of RPV wants to take? Matt Martin 1 I From: Gabriella Yap Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:40 PM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Green Hills 11/17/15 Meeting Question From: Matt Martin [mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 12:40 PM To: Doug Willmore; CC Subject: Green Hills 11/17/15 Meeting Question Mr Willmore, I was interested in knowing why the Green Hills item is back on the agenda. What exactly is at issue? As far as I know there has been no new information on the subject since the completion of the internal investigation nearly 6 months ago Thanks, Matt Martin MatthewHMarti n ahoo.com--------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments. From: Jeffrey Lewis <jeff@broedlowlewis.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:28 PM To: cc Subject: Green Hills Staff Reports Mayor Knight and members of the City Council, I am writing to you concerning staff's recommendations on the Green Hills staff report you will be hearing Tuesday evening. I would offer the following comments: 1. Staff is proposing that the City enter into an indemnity agreement with Green Hills in the event of future litigation, but no copy of the agreement or details about the agreement are mentioned. For example, would there be a cap or maximum limit on the obligation of Green Hills to indemnify the City? Would the indemnity cover just out of pocket legal expenses (i.e., costs of defense) or also include making the City whole in the event of a judgment against the City? Does Green Hills have the wherewithal to indemnify the City? What are the City's options if Green Hills goes bankrupt? Has the City done any due diligence of Green Hill's solvency? Does Green Hills have (or can it get) insurance or other security to fund this indemnity obligation? There are some hard questions that need to be answered about the proposed indemnity situation. I would suggest those questions be answered before any vote. 2. Staff's recommendation appears to be conservative and suggests that the most prudent route to minimize legal risk or financial exposure to the City. If those two factors are your only concern (legal risk and financial exposure), then it appears that staff recommendation should be adopted. I note that the staff report does not take into account: a. Whether Green Hills either negligently or fraudulently misled Staff and whether such actions impact the validity of the original permit to construct the mausoleum. If Green Hills misled staff, is it the right thing to do to approve staff s recommendation? If Green Hills misled staff and the City issued a permit under mistaken circumstances, is the permit even valid? b. Whether City staff mishandled the application from Green Hills. The investigative report suggest that there was mishandling of this matter by the City. Is it the right thing to do, for the City to wash its hands and tell the Vista Verde residents that they can simply file a lawsuit if they want relief? c. Staff recommends that the City contribute $200,000 towards payment of any settlement with the Vista Verde residents. Given the number of units at issue and the loss in property value, is that sufficient? If the City truly has responsibility for what happened, should it pay more? If the City has no responsibility, should it pay that much? d. City Council voted in September to uphold the PC's appeal in large part. The staff recommendation for Tuesday is a dramatic reversal. Will the long delays in getting the appeal resolved combined with approving this dramatic resolve undermine voter confidence and trust in government? Will people think there was a "back room" deal? e. If none of the Vista Verde residents support this approach, is the City doing the right thing by adopting staff recommendation? I do not know the answers to these questions but I would urge you to ask the questions of staff and of each other Tuesday evening. Thank you for your service. Jeffrey Lewis BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP 734 Silver Spur Road, Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 190274 Tel. (310) 935-40011 Direct (310) 935-4002 1 Fax. (310) 872-5389 Email: Jeff�BroedlowLewis.com I Web: www.BroedlowLewis.com Certified Specialist in Appellate Law The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges. Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please contact the sender immediately. From: Veronica Lawlor <vlawlor@la-lakers.com> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:52 PM To: CC Subject: Revised Submission for November 17 City Council Meeting RE: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW (CASE ZON-20030086); Success does not consist in never making mistakes but in never making the same one a second time. George Bernard Shaw November 13, 2015 Dear City Council Members: On September 1, 2015 this Council passed a moratorium on rooftop burials on the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and a requirement that Green Hills seek a variance for the illegally constructed mausoleum. While I applaud the Council on finally taking some action, the action taken does not go far enough. There should be a moratorium on all interments in the mausoleum. The mausoleum was built in violation of the 40 foot setback and without proper notice to the residents of the adjacent property. Upon reading the staff recommendation for the upcoming City Council meeting, it seems to me that your staff has learned nothing from their prior errors and omissions and is recommending an approach that will further exacerbate their original mistakes that were uncovered in the City's own internal investigation. According to that investigation, we are here today because the staff failed to do proper research, failed to properly notify residents and in their words "created the perfect storm of errors and oversights." In addition your investigation found that we are here today because Green Hills has a "historical practice of noncooperation, misrepresentation and a disregard for local law." Despite all of that, your staff has now submitted to you a new recommendation that can only be described as CYA politics. We are all here today because the Planning Commission blindly followed the staff recommendation; please don't make that same mistake. Pages 12 and 13 of the current staff recommendation rely on the Planning Commissions 2007 CUP changes to justify their position that a variance is not required. However, those changes to the CUP were part of your internal investigation, which clearly showed that the Planning Commission was misinformed and uninformed when they approved those changes to the CUP. Page 13 of the current staff report the alleges the following: "Here, the underlying zoning was for 40 feet, but by the 2007 CUP, the setback was reduced to 8 feet. It can certainly be argued that this reduced the general welfare of the adjoining property owners. However, the Planning Commission found to the contrary in granting the CUP". The Planning Commission made these findings based on staff recommendations, which have previously been found to be appallingly erroneous. If you look at the totality of circumstances under which the changes to 2007 CUP were made and I I. the 2011 and 2012 permits were issued, you will see that using those decisions to justify your opinion is unconscionable. The residents of Vista Verde are not lawyers, developers or city planners we ordinary people who, for two years and through no fault of our own, have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of our property and have been forced to spend all of our time, energy and effort fighting city hall. It's time for you to do the right thing and close down Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Thank you for your time, Veronica Lawlor Vista Verde Resident From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:12 PM To: CC; Dave Aleshire Subject: Fwd: Green Hills Dear Mayor Knight and Members of the Council, I appreciate very much the detailed legal analysis that Dave Aleshire has presented to the public in the staff report regarding Green Hills. We residents were rarely given a glimpse into the thought process and analysis that formulated the advice given to Council under the watch of the former City Attorney. I agree with the legal analysis of Mr. Alesire and, for the most part, I concur with the recommendations of Mr. Aleshire on this matter, and here is why. 1. I would much prefer to see the City spend its money compensating the victims of this disgraceful event, the condo owners, than spend heaven only knows how much money on legal fees. 2. As much as I am convinced that Green Hills (and perhaps certain members of our staff) have very unclean hands and should be punished in some fashion (such as being forced to seek a variance, have the application be denied and then be compelled to remove the Mausoleum in question), the likelihood of a court compelling removal of the mausoleum is slim, and we would waste time and money with protracted litigation when victory is not likely. More importantly, that punishment, should it be ultimately meted out, would result in significant emotional damage to the families whose loved ones, now buried in the mausoleum, would need to be disinterred and relocated. I would not want there to be a trickle down punishment that hurts innocents families. Certainly, on a go forward basis ANY request made by Green Hills for ANYTHING will get incredibly close scrutiny so that nothing like this occurs in the future. Green Hills can be adequately "punished" by knowing it cooked its goose in RPV and will never be able to bamboozle staff or anyone else again (particularly now that we have a new City Manager and new City Attorney). 3. The Green Hills arguments as to vested rights are far more persuasive than any of ours in support of a moratorium or other action. 4. It is pragmatic to focus on the real goal which, in my view, is to avoid litigation expense and promptly, fully and fairly compensate the condo owners, who are the real parties who have been harmed. That said, I would recommend three things. First, with the impending arrival of Mr. Ken Dyda to the Council, I would suggest delaying this hearing to the next meeting so that the new Council can make the decisions on this important matter, particularly since Mr. Knight was on the Planning Commission that approved the 2007 Master Plan and should recuse himself from hearing this matter in any event. I would welcome the sage input of Mr. Dyda. This matter has been dragging on for so long that I do not see the harm in waiting two more weeks. Second, I think that the City should sweeten the pot and contribute considerably more than $200,000 to an overall settlement with the condo owners. I would suggest not less than $1 million. In my view the wrongdoing by the incompetence of our staff justifies a larger contribution. Third, I would suggest that the City try to negotiate with Green Hills and the condo owners for an agreement to resolve their dispute by binding arbitration rather than simply agreeing to mediation. Certainly they can try mediation (which has already been tried unsuccessfully) but if that does not result in a settlement I think Green Hills should agree to binding arbitration thereafter. I recognize that you cannot compel either side to agree to that, but I also recognize and fear that Green Hills may not act in good faith in the mediation process. With no threat of a moratorium or variance application hanging over its head, how likely is it that Green Hills will mediate in good faith? If RPV contributes more to the settlement that may be sufficient incentive for Green Hills to agree to arbitration. I hope that Green Hills will finally do the right thing to restore their seriously damaged reputation in the community and come to a fair compensation settlement with the Vista Verde owners. Sharon Yarber 2 From: Lori Brown <lbislroadrunner@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:40 AM To: CC; gyap@rovca.gov Cc: Lori Brown; Matt Martin Subject: Re: RPVCC Hearing, November 17, 2015 - Green Hills Memorial Park Attachments: PublicNuisance.pptx November 16, 2015 (Sent via e- mail) City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 CITY COUNCIL: Susan Brooks Brian Campbell Jerry Duhovic Jim Knight, Mayor Anthony Misetich Attached are comments and photos (Power Point format) to be considered in preparation for the November 17 Public Hearing regarding Appellant, Green Hills Memorial Park. Thank you for time on this important issue. Rancho Palos Verdes Mission - "SAVE OUR COASTLINE" (Councilman, Ken Dyda). Respectfully, Lori Brown Vista Verde Condo Owner 2110 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Lomita, CA 90717 'LBisIRoadRunner@ gmail.com' ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Lori Brown" <IbisIroadrunner@gmail.com> Date: Nov 16, 2015 8:02 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: RPVCC Hearing To: "Lori Brown" <IbisIRoadRunner(cr�,gmail.com> Cc: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Matt Martin" <matthewhmartingyahoo.com> Date: Nov 15, 2015 4:47 PM Subject: Re: RPVCC Hearing To: "Lori Brown" <IbisIroadrunner 2gmail.com> Cc: whole powerpoint attached Matt Martin MatthewHMartin(a-)yahoo.com--------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments. On Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:16 PM, Lori Brown <Ibis1 road run ner(o)gmail.com> wrote: Matt, Confirming my e-mail address: 'LBis1 Road Runner(a-)-gmail.com' Lori Brown 310-995-1787 The Mausoleum in Area 11 is an existing and ongoing Definition of a Public Nuisance according to RPV Municipal code 8.24.030(F) "Public nuisance" means anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by a neighborhood or by any considerable number of persons in the city irrespective of whether the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals is unequal. The heavy diesel equipment that is used on the roof of the mausoleum provides offensive noise, vibrations, and exhaust emissions which are directed into the balconies of Vista Verde residents The unobstructed Funeral services and public gatherings that occur daily severely interfere with the enjoyment of our properties. We are uncomfortable using our balconies, pool area, and recreational area due to the proximity and nature of the activities. These issues were NOT a problem when the underlying zoning laws were properly enforced. The 40' setback for above ground structures provided an adequate buffer zone for residents. Burials on the ground level would NOT have had a detrimental effect on Vista Verde From: bubba32@cox.net Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 10:22 AM To: Doug Willmore Cc: CC Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park Appeal Hearing November 17, 2015 Attachments: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REV l.ppt City Manager Doug Willmore, et al Please see the accompanying PowerPoint presentation: "Yes, Ellen, Green Hills DID Mislead the City Planning Commission" and other malapropos.. Misrepresentations and violations are not their "First Rodeo" With Respect, Jim Gordon N/ GREEN HIL PLANNING 0��M NE 01� EkSTING Gf-ADE�O� --'TERY ROADWA My] MBE 4?' Ck,,ARDRAI�, ,, RADEORQ�jNG, S�.RWIS J, S I-1'AR-1-1"ODD INC, xms rF R oevELopwENT PLAN MASTFR f-' AN ARRA 11 kk(3jtTVC'1 I R1, GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MFMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING INTVAMRS RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNM ZkNMM, -t,% 1s1\PSGWE 11 - D 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 2015 jj SX GRC�-ND 8JA*.8, A" M�' AN!N-� LEVEL U P KF PEAL OF C�'T. � r:z% N Ij E %,-- ISION J, S I-1'AR-1-1"ODD INC, xms rF R oevELopwENT PLAN MASTFR f-' AN ARRA 11 kk(3jtTVC'1 I R1, GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MFMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING INTVAMRS RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNM ZkNMM, -t,% 1s1\PSGWE 11 - D 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 2015 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 17, 2,015 Dear Honorable City Councilmembers: According to the Staff Report prepared in connection with the upcoming January 20, 2015 City Council hearing (the `Staff Report"), the mountains of letters, documents, plans, testimony, minutes, notices, and everything else comprising the lengthy history of this appeal can be summed up into a single question: Did Green Bills mislead the City when it applied for amendments to its 2007 Master Plan Revision? YES, Ellen, Green Hills Did Mislead the City Planning Commission! SCPEMAT;G 51-e SEGTiON / k EST KN5 Green Hills provided this Cross Section ii -D showing the Mausoleum Western Section was built into the Slope in front of the Lomita Condominiums The Planning Commission made its' Findings in reliance on this Green Hills' Plan which completely explains why.. *There would be no View Impairment *There would be no Noise impacts •The setback reduction was "acceptable" to Staff •There was no need for any Silhouettes *'just Say No" was a correct answer • Resolution PC 2007-33 states that the Mausoleum would be built into the slope � � H fi °• Resolution PC 2007 - 32 states there 11-D would be no Significant impacts 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 2 2015 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER l7, 2015 Page 13 Nov. 17, 2015 Staff Report P.C. Resolution 200'7-33 Section 6 Referenced Findings MEMORANDUM: 4311E HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLAWNG COMMISSION DECISION November 17,2015 P." 13 `6. That cordtions regarding any of the requirements kaied in this paragraph, which the planning commission finds to be metessary, to prded the health, safety, and gerwiff welfare, ha" been imposed: a. Setbacks and buffets... " RPVMC § 17.60.OWA), In fad, in 2D07 in Resolution 2007-33 the Planning Commission made these fandings. The Planning Commission found that conditions have been imposed to protect the heath, safety and generat welfare, including concerning setbacks and buffers. and the &toot setback was one of rte approved setbacks. So the argument that t is not axnpatgdta a directly contrary for the reconnharWatan of staff and findings of the Planning Commission. Moeover, legal counsel for Green Hits has argued tat discrefbrhary authority given by the ordinance in the granlirg of a CUP to vary from the undenying zo N contains no gvafflio hn that this 0* applies if it 'promotes' gonemf weee .s It is a general rule of statutory construotton that eouns'are generally bound by a statue's plain text and are hat permitted to add words to a statute to accomplish a purpose ... not apparent from the face of the statute,' , Thus, in the absence of language in the zoning code that expressly restricts the 'takes precedence` to wham the change N more reauk,fte, and not less,. t would appear that there is no basis for adding this qualification to the express provisions of Section 17.60. Owe), Here. the underlying zoning was tot 40 feet. but by, the 2007 CUP. the sotbedc was reduced to B feet. It can certainly be argued that this reduced ft general welfare of the adjoining property owners. However, the Planning Commission found to the contrary in granting the CUP. Moreover, it is not clear chat such a change imposed through the CUP was beyond the Plannaag Comroissun's authority in 2007. Section 17.60.050(8) provides broad authority to vary from the zoning standards. There is no language tilt says the change 'an re omy be more restrictive. A000rdingfy, theam strong arguments that the granting of the CUP was sufficient and no variance was required. (3) The RedskreLq.?i gf Subslantai Cohstnction mei. Besides a validy issued pemd; second prong of the vested right test is that there has been substantial construction in reliance on the permit. What is `substantial constr:ctim'? This rule comes from the California Supreme Court case Avco Community Dmvaknpers Ina "South Coast Regionaf Commission. ^a. In that case, a developer of a subdivishon, pari of which lay within the Jurisdiction of the Ca�omia Coastal Tore Commission, sought a writ of mandate to compel the Commission to grant an exahropfron from provision of the California Coasts€ Zone Conservation AG of 1972 requiring <See kter horn Sten 8entwvuz dared Sepwroet t. 2045, alta^.hed as E hd it F. a LL vM TepinabgieS frac, v. Shlo Ed.. g'Epuetizurinn. 241 CoA A}y, 41h 19 =15) tnM -m ci'Ub— aroatdf. .eW 14 Referenced Findings Are False, in Error Section S: The grading YA not adversely impact any views from sufroundang properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausolaza turnings and ground interments_ The residences to the south of Use cemetery are at the same grade elevation as, or slightly lower than, the oemetery and do not contain views over them ceelary site. The residences to the north, in the Peninsula Verde area. are at higher elevations tat allow for views of the harbor over the cemetery site. Further, the Locations of the mausoleum buildings and ft associated bacMt continue to be within the internal portions of ft cat etefy Sita, and no mausokwm flings are proposed a€ong the paruneters of the cemetery that abut the residences to Use north and soiidln. The mausoleum buildings are € roped on sloped areas of the cemetery Site that can facilitate buddings by excavating into ft slope, rather than mauso€eums being constructed on knolls or hiltops within the cametery site. Section 6. "The Grading will not adversely affect the Views from surrounding properties since the requested earth movement will prepare the site for mausoleum buildings and ground interments:' Section 6. "..no mausoleum buildings are proposed along the perimeters of the cemetery that abut the residences to the north and south.:' Section 6. "Mausoleum Buildings are proposed on sloped areas that can facilitate buildings by excavating into the slope, rather than..on knolls or hilltops." 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 3 2015 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 1'7, 2.015 "Pattern and Practice" "Pattern and Practice" "The City Received complaints from nearby residents -and a "Stop Work Order": was issued.." "In response to further unauthorized grading, the City issued additional "Stop Work" Orders between 2000 and 2002" (Nov 17, 2015 Staff Report page 4) During the remainder of 1998 and into 1999, the City received complaints from nearby residents regarding noise, dust, and other impacts related to the remedial grading operations. Eventually, the City became aware (through Green Hills' own admissions) that the remedial grading had exceeded the scope of activity approved under Grading Permit No. 2050, and a "Stop Work' order was issued on October 27, 1999. After a meeting between City Staff and Green Hills, the "Stop Work" order was lifted with the understanding that Green Hills would perform only minor grading to complete the remedial buttress fill that was necessary to properly complete the remediation, would not import any additional material, and would properly apply for an amendment to the Master Plan. In response tolurther unauthorized grading, the City issued additional "Stop Work" orders between 2000 and 2002, which were ultimately lifted based on continued assurances from Green Hills that an amendment to the Master Plan was forthcoming. Ultimately, on February 19, 2003, Case No. ZON2003-00086 was submitted, which was �La Revision to the Green Hills Master Plan. On June 17, 201o, GH Officials Frew and Resich submitted a perjured Plan to allow interments within 25' of the NW cemetery border 1r •arr. 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 4 2015 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 17, 2,015 "Pattern and Practice" "Pattern and Practice" Green Hills's Attorney admits Sale Green Hills's Attorney admits 13 Of 44 Interment Plots not unauthorized un -authorized authorized by CUP! interments in prohibited plots Green Hills' applications (3) to allow interments within 8' of the jected Planning Commission, the mos recent being April 24, Zook Condition No.6 . / 1/ AE41'_ J� ' sr .^,j{ 6 - , ,� �..T .' r { C" ' POTENTIAL FUTURE tg� POTENTIAL. FUTURE X Q 2nd INTERMENT - - 2nd INTERMENT r t AS Of AUGUST 22, 2PM4 �... I AS Of AUGUST 22, 2014 -dab Pacific Gardens 410 Pacific Gardens 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 5 2015 GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION NOVEMBER 17, 2,015 11/16/2015 RPV City Council Hearing November 17, 6 2015 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Carla Morreale, CMC, City Clerk Carla Morreale Monday, November 16, 2015 10:27 AM Teresa Takaoka FW: PowerPoint for Joanna Jones -Reed Joanna.pptx ON OF t ANU-10 PALOS VERDES City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: Matt Martin [mailto:matthewhmartin@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 10:10 AM To: Carla Morreale Subject: PowerPoint for Joanna Jones -Reed Carla Attached is a powerpoint that homeowner Joanna Jones -Reed would like to present at the 11/17/15 CC hearing for the Green Hills item. She is not great with the computer and asked that I send it in on her behalf. There is no audio or video in the powerpoint. Please confirm receipt of the document attached. Thanks Matt Martin MatthewHMartin@yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attached documents contain information that may be confidential and/or privileged. The information herein may also be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message to include any attachments. / .1 The permit for the Area 11 Mausoleum was not validly B Their proposed changes were NOT within the 1991 approved Master Plan as they testified size, i s, t the proxo,, �3 ICC '47, V t i Green Hills said in multiple places on their CUP applications that modifications were within 1991 Master Plan it, E"xPlain how tht,� proposed use is not contrary to the General Ran, iN A T I r S IA, A l,r-'R[!BY CEE-RTIPY, under pe.nalty of perjury, la the anrd r1riateritals t:14-11taflod fhkz I r P I r, i i ri n n ('I (,Ar) rr e c, I vvith wArilinnfiWin ., . One of the CUP applications signed under penalty of perjury byJohn Resich as being true and correct is shown a ��x .« g xrm that I x,01 10 rl* gid"X54, ---, , -4111-1- Green Hills provided cross sections of the Area I I Mausoleum to the planning commission which represented it as being built into a large existing hillside and not extending above existing grade X, I J, 10-('AVVI-'F0DD IV: \k(AII'I P"At kIl SC,HENATIO SITE 5ECTION / NE5T NIN6 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAS Tr -,R PLAN AREA I I GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK MEMORIAL TERRACE WEST WING RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALMORNA 11-D RPV Municipal Code 1 7.86.060 gives the City complete authority to revoke a conditional use permit if it was issued on the basis of incorrect or fraudulent information supplied by the applicant 1 7.86.060 - Suspension or revocation of permits. 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. In Conclusion - Green Hills supplied false information to the city and public in order to obtain approval from the RPV Planning Commission - Multiple Planning Commissioners from the meetings have said publically that they would not have approved the permit if they were supplied correct information. - No variance was requested due to this false information being provided - The public notice given by RPV was incorrect and incomplete due to the false information supplied by Green Hills - The City is not forced recognize the permit because it was not issued validly. From: Leza Mikhail Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:02 PM To: hvybags@cox.net Cc: Gabriella Yap; Carla Morreale; CC Subject: RE: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western Avenue Enhancement update plan. Hello April, I hope you are well. I wanted to make sure that I let you know that Western Avenue Enhancement Strategy was moved to the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting. There will not be any discussion of the Strategy on Tuesday, November 17, 2015, We moved the item to December 15th due to a larger item that is on next Tuesday's Agenda and is anticipated to be 2-3 hours in length. We also felt it would be beneficial for the public to have more time to review the revised document that is now available on the City's website. Let me know if you have any questions between now and December 151h that you would like to discuss. Leza Mikhail Senior Planner City of Rancho (Pafos Verdes Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.Dalosverdes.com/rr)v/olanninR/olanninR-zonine/index.cfm (310) 544-5228 — (310) 544-5293 f lezam rpvca.gov From: April Sandell [mailto:hvybags@cox.net] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:37 AM To: Gabriella Yap Cc: CC Subject: Fwd: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western Avenue Enhancement update plan. Ms. Yap, Below are my responding comments to the Nov. 17, 2015 public hearing. Please include my comments with all other public correspondence for the official record as well as public review. Thank you and please respond with a quick confirmation you received this email. (note': I should have sent below message to you and cc'd the council members in the first place.) Thanks again.- April L. Sandell Begin forwarded message: From: April Sandell <hvybags(c- et> Subject: Nov. 17, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda items Green Hills appeal and Western Avenue Enhancement update plan. Date: November 12, 2015 8:26:25 AM PST To: CC <=D-rpvca.gov> Dear Mayor and Council Members, The staff report regarding Western Ave. agenda is not available at this time. I have previously scheduled plans for tomorrow and the weekend so I submit to you my most likely incomplete comments today. 1) The Western Ave Enhancement plan could impose a significant negative impact on my property interests. As you may recall, I wrote to you earlier regarding property title issues (seemingly unmarketable title to date) as well as a separate matter regarding lack of pubic notice to me having to do with the same Western Avenue (Fences, walls ordinance ) and my backyard, so to speak. That said, I urge the council to oppose this latest "enhancement " plan for Western Avenue. (Note: I could share endless supporting documents but I don't care to waste my time or yours explaining to you something you already know or should know. ) 2) Green Hills appeal agenda item. It appears the Vista Verde property owners due process rights were denied from the get go. 2 Two or threes days ago I visited with Vista Verde property owners. It's unbelievable what the city has permitted or allowed to have happened. So, you might imagine the distrust I feel regarding Western Ave. so called enhancements. Moreover, the Green Hills appeal appears to include Master plan updates that could impact other Rolling Hills Riviera property owners as well, so I hope these residents have received notice of the Nov. 17th meeting. If I am wrong about that please don't hesitate to set me straight on what seems Master Plans issues mixed within the appeals process regarding but not limited to after the fact variance, moratoriums, property rights of both Green Hills and Vista Verde residents etc. I can't help but point out the laughable big picture here. For crying out loud, a MAUSOLEUM was built and no one noticed any code violations? Unbelievable. Thank you for your time and attention. Regards, April L. Sandell 9 N CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MICHAEL THRONE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS (aj DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2015 SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE - NOVEMBER 12TH ACTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Staff Coordinator: Kathryn Downs, Deputy Director of Finance (G� LATE CORRESPONDENCE FOR NOVEMBER 17 2015 REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 On November 12, 2015, the City's Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) met and received a report on the Master Plan of Drainage and the Engineer's Preliminary Report for Storm Drain User Fee 2016 Renewal. After an oral presentation from Staff, the IMAC discussed the Staff recommendation to schedule a public hearing on January 19, 2016 to consider a mail -ballot election for extension of the storm drain user fee. The IMAC discussion included suggestions for public information, the additional potential costs of water quality mandates, and the insufficiency of City revenue sources for all infrastructure needs. At the conclusion of the discussion, the IMAC unanimously approved a recommendation to the City Council to schedule the public hearing on January 19tH