The URL can be used to link to this page

20160405 Late CorrespondenceSo Kim From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: So Kim Tuesday, April 05, 2016 4:47 PM Vince Reher CC; PC RE: Concerns about City Planning Process RECE IV ED FRO M __::~..._,:~..._---1 AND MADE A PART OF THE ~ECO~D AT TH E CO UNC IL MEET IN G OF ti G @Q/{,q OFF ICE OF THE CITY CLERK CAR LA MO RRE AL E, CITY CL ERK Attachments: 2007 Master Plan Excerpt.pdf; APPROVED PLANS .pdf Hi Mr. Reher, Thank you for your emails. Below is my response to your letter in sequential order of subject matter: MAY 26TH LETIER 1) " ... they are activity preparing this area for rooftop burials. This is confirmed by the presence of what appears to be a retaining wall on the roof instead of the railing depicted in the original plan." Staff's Comments -Both the 2007 and subsequent 2013 plans were approved with a rooftop parapet area with approximately 6' of fill. A 3.5' tall railing was also approved to be installed on top of the parapet wall. You are correct in that the railing has not been installed on the parapet wall yet, but they will be soon. 2) "It is my understanding that rooftop burials on the mausoleum were not part of the 2007 Master Plan, nor are they allowed by the current CUP ... " Staff's Comments -The 2007 Master Plan does show rooftop burials (see attached). The current CUP allows for rooftop burial requests to be reviewed administratively by the Director or the Director may refer it to the Planning Commission if it's identified in the Master Plan. Otherwise, new rooftop burials would require a revision to the CUP. 3) "I had also heard that GH had recently submitted, then withdrew an application ... rooftop burials ... city planning staff had intended to approve this permit, apparently not sharing my concern that this is a significant change that merits full and formal public review." Staff' Comments -GH did apply and subsequently withdrew their request for rooftop burials. Staff explained to residents over the phone, in-person, and at an informal resident meeting, as well as in a recent memo to the City Council that this would require public notification and it will be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission. 4) " ... Issue a stop work order to GH and send City employees ... contractors ... to independently ensure that all aspects of the project adhere to the CUP and city building regulations." Staff's Comments -There is an active building permit for the Inspiration Slope area and inspections by City Inspectors are on -going to ensure compliance with the approved plans and city building regulations . 5) "Order GH to remove the currently installed vaults from the roof, and then replace the solid rooftop retaining wall with the railing that was depicted in the original plan." Staff's Comments -The issue with vaults on roof will be addressed in a separate email. Regarding the retaining wall, as explained earlier, a railing was approved to be installed on top of the parapet wall. This will be installed by GH. 6) "Submit all future applications from GH ... notify the residents ... " Staff's Comments -Residents will be notified per condition nos. lk and 2 of the adopted Resolution No. 2015 -102. http://documents.rpvca.gov/Weblink/O/doc/47478/Pagel.aspx APRIL STH LETIER 7) " ... 2013 approved plans that contrasts significantly with the 2007 approved plans ... " Staff's Comments -The only difference between the 2007 and 2013 was the height of the overall building fa~ade, with minimal changes to the highest level of the building. I realized that the excerpt that was attached to the March 15th City 1 Council Report inadvertently cut off Staff's handwritten notes on the plans that stated that rooftop burials are not allowed. Attached APPROVED PLANS pages 1-3 are excerpts of the approved 2007 plans and page 8 is an excerpt of the approved 2013 plans for comparison purposes. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 -----Original Message----- From: Vince Reher [mailto:vreher@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:55 AM To: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <JerryD@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Concerns about City Planning Process Please refer to attached letter, which is a followup to my letter of March 26th. 2 't~ ]. STUART TODD INC. ARCHITECTUUE INTEIUORS PLANNING LAN DSC,\ PE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES , CALIFORNIA JANUARY 29. 200/ 04739 MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE 2-A 't~ --~I . ~ ··--- J. STUART TODD INC. ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING LANDSCAPE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 29, 2007 04739 MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE 2-8 '.t~ INVENTORYCQONT-:-{QMR LEVEL Of!O!Jlltl E1A1AL!i ~~11m>o OROUt."11~5 1=<L~°"1">'W' J. STUART TODD INC. ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PL.\NNING L.\NI>SCAPE ' I \ ,-i// I \,\,, ', ', ---,_ ..................... ' \ ............... ..................... EXISTING cErJE;TERY ROAD ' ' ' ' .... ,' ...... ', ................... ..................... ',, ...................... ------,,, ,, .................. -................... ................... -............................ ... ', ----- '---,,,'',,, ' \,',, ''a<'s,, \ ' ' I ' MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 29, 2007 04739 ', ~ ', ',, ',, \ \\ ' ' \ \ ' I srre Pl.AN -sTl'll!!Er 1..eva. ...____ ) \ \ \\, ., .......... , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \ ' ' \ \ MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE 2-C '.t~ HIENTORVCOON°r;TOWER LEVEl Cl'OIJl<tllWS'W,.S1~~Dt"'~' \IAU!DO~'Cll'fPfsPl.<:ES J. STUART TODD INC. ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS Pf.ANNING £.ANDSCAl'E ' ' , I ' , ' , \,'\. ' ' ' \ \ \ ' ./ ...................... -~~'.:,./ ' ' :;7·--...... ,_ '',>,__ __ ·"'C-o.--~. ,,, EXISTING CE~ERY ROAD \ --"'"+..:..:..· .";':-_~...J... \ I \ \ \ ·:-- MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 29, 2007 04739 $ ~>:,,~; ' -~f ... , ... ;. .... \ . -..:.' :" ' .. : ·-, . -~<--_,. "\.; ;;-·---\ -.. __ , '\ .. --i '\. Sl'IE PL.AN -6NICEN LEllEL -----I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ',,\, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE 2-D '.t~ J. STUART TODD INC. ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR'> L'l-.\NNJNG [_.\NDSCAVE ~ :::> ~ SS ~ u. 0 a: :i: w ~ "' <!> --; ~ a: d. "" ~ / ,,.. ... .,,. ...... 42" GUARDRAIL ~/mfl7.J,;wfa/Z7/!!/ifd?/4M//54' / ,,..,,.. ..... " ....... _,, -- ,,,.,,.. ...... ,,,.. .... "" ,/ ,,..,,..,,.."" OUTLINE OF~ EXISTING GRADE \ ___ , / / / ..,.,,.. ................. ' ..... / / ,/--//--/-II ~ SCHEMATIC SITE SECTION ~ ~ i-...i MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 29, 2007 04739 NEW GRADE MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE 2-E '.t~ J. STUART TODD INC. AIKHITF.cTUllE INTE!UORS PLANNING LANDSCAPE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 29, 2007 04739 MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE 2-G ~il'fll)JE~>~A<l(i'<>l~--·COf~.tWl.1a<.l<OOIOW.W.~""'l-"f .......... ~-~~-~JO-,,.PU __ ~rNl....,~<lb_fl'ol..,.._ ~· ~1!1! ~G ~ 11! ~ ~ -----F T~iitttt~-l[-----=-----M.-~.~HLINE 'C' . .. . .... -~ . . ... .. .. .... . . . I I :00000 =1 @5~--=rurnEJEJ-__________ _) ,DODOO :DDDDD DDDDD 1DDDDD 1DDDDD ~1 1 \1DDDDD 1 l 1DDDDD DODOO . ··~1~ ~I -' i -~ ~. j. / I I '· ...... ~.-~ ........... ::.:.:.:J 1--------------------r----1 I r---1 r---"I r----"I r---'I I !r:=::::Jll I i11 iDDDDD r 11 . ii; 1DDDDD I 1 ~ l.1 \DDDDD 1DDDDD iDDDDD :DODOO :DODOO ~DODOO t . ® ·nnnnn ' ii · · r--cttitl ---11 "G I . ... . . . I ~ L-~--,.----------------_____ j_J ·~ ~ ., ·1·' H -----------11111•••• ! ~11 !iiii )> ~1 MASTER RE;VELQPMENT PLAN ~ 1~ GREENHILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA ti .J. STUART TODD, INC.. AACHfTECTS-INTERIOR.S • W.USOll'.UM • t:EMETLllY • PL»UNG 291\IWEL.BORt./ atNWll.SHIREllLVO,MEZZAM~'C OAJ.lAS,TI:Xil'j'f62i9 LOOANGEl.ES.CA1JFORNIA,llQ()10 214522.~0:13 Z1~.631.7&18 ~ illl~ a ' ~ ~ WWW.JSTARCHITECTS.COM 214.522.4033 •'""""'""·"' I ~ -d-J:dd:J 111 111 11111111111 I ,V, 3NllHOl Vl'J t ----------------- H !' DODOO DODOO DODOO DODOO BBDDD: DD : DD ' 1---+-----uurnu; ---1 j . DODOO~ l i i L______________________________ _ ___ .J I@ cton.i:nit 61i9tsvx;u'sVTI'l'Q l-ll:IOIJW.\910Z ,9, 3NllHOlVV'l ·----- VINllO:lllVO 'S30ll3A S01Vd OHONVll N >l~'Vd l'v'l~OH=:!H SlllHNaa"'"e ~ ~ N"9'1c1 .J.N3Wdo13/\3a rnsYW i < l'<\lm'l'!l<Ml:t.151G<T7.lll1-t-~·~:l>M.1~Ul<[)O>!!)'/i'l.\~llQllS<1""1flolloJb.,-.U.~>1~l_:~•~f'W .... _~Tfl4P..,~<bJ*>'f'ilo u~ II I '---lr-----n-V·1 ll \ .. 'i1 ~lil![j[j[j[j[j 100000 I I ill ~ '~l'1 ·~ :J \~l, \\· 1 ~11 ··r··-·-~ ~ ;~ 2 ;~ ~ M6 ~ ; ~ r==---=r~·~ -. ~, g -111! ~6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ·-~~-IL~.~~l.l ··1···•••• ~~~ MATCHLINE'M r--------~~-------r----1 I DODOO I I ~-:Ill I I~ J;--: ---------____ _j_ _____ _J 1 lffiffil . I ~1· I ~ U i ··-····· I I f--/ I t11~ ~; I! I ~II !l/J i ------------1 --I r----I i i I i i i I I I I I i I I ! I I I I I I l l __________________________________ _J :a ~,II! ~6 .~ :i: ~ I ·00000 ' 'i=:m )DODOO iDDDDO 1 00000 11DDDDD :DODOO !DODOO ·~1: 1:00000 h :00000 :00000 1DDDDD :DODOO :DODOO :DODOO :DODOO :DODOO :DODOO ·--~g;Jgg :nnnnn I I~ I ill i~ J ••i··--·· MATCHLINE 'A' ~ i MASTE""' D"'" ~L ,,. .. ,,.,,,"' LAN ~ J. STUART TODD, INC.. .. )> ffir-.""":th-Oct;!ljjiliJ ~ ,,////J AACNITECTS·INTERIOll9·1MUS.OlellM-CEMaeRY-1'1..ANN!NG ~ Ul RANCHO PALOS VERDES CALIFORNIA ,,.. r~~~ '~2 1~ ~~~~~ro=-=~ 1 h-+111 rM-+I 111 TT.Till l~lll ~ :~' I ~ ~ <SREENHIL.L.S HEMOR.IAL. PAR.I< .. ~ • WWW.JSTARCHITECTS.COM 21'.522.4033 'a ' ~l~.522.4® 213.~1.7610 0 .l.STUARTTOO~ INC. U:;¥:::tS2!il~=::lid:!llllJJ!.._LlLJ111111JJJJLJ -----·-··---- """'""' ""'"""' "~ ""· Grac:llno Section A-A S;Qi« ,..,,. '" ~;~.:; .. ~ -1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Grading Section B-B (9\ ~...JiC.lr_,,s...,.., ~ __ S'?'. MAX. H:EGfT tdl!IJW. comFICA~<-f"l'"R'.:I wut~m<X1 ... ~ ~""'C:iiif~' If\ a-r~~~~~~~11~~ "or "' pa....;t-o-' f't...\-,.ot.p pf'\>-'e...fl. ~ l@tu.C. .. llf.J1 tat-r 0 PA<W'OSED ~ -----~ I t I ~' •~r I 4f' j ,I~~ l:::::r- -Gradi'\g Sectio ~~~.bit _n_~C-C"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~""'°"'~· ~"Kj""""':~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I .. r · 11 I' -__ ··- ('" ") .t J• .r . @"' ~·"'% ' c ~~ C2:4 :1:!.~~~F~~~lO r-; '0:~~r.--::E--:r fi~i:: :,~~~~~~~ffe ·~ ..:<-~;..'<'' ~~~,~~ 1 · ,.,. ....... ~/,,j,.,J A!.,..-....- 11/, ,I,, 1·~~13~!.}·l=" _,., ~-"' 6 0.. 0 ·;::: 0 E "' ~ gi :I: c: ., ., G .,, " N eo il": g~ "'" 0 ·"' ::q~ </) x.~ .~r)l2 ~ §~ l;l z o __. _g '5 5 O.c -.. ., '(..).Sa:: ~--~:~ -=--..: ~ ..... --· ~2.4 To: Mayor Ken Dyda Mayor Pro Tern Brian Campbell Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks Councilman Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman Anthony M. Misetich Planning Commission Chairman David Tomblin Senior Planner So Kim From: Vincent Reher 26918 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 March 26 1 \ 2016 RE: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Mausoleum Rooftop Burial Preparations To Whom It May Concern: My neighbors and I have have been on heightened alert ever since we became aware of the events leading to the debacle of the Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and its adverse effects on the owners of the adjacent Vista Verde Condominiums. In particular, we have been closely monitoring the development of the nearby Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. This communication is to raise your awareness of what might be a developing issue concerning that project. I would like draw your attention to the photographs below that were recently taken near the site of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum project. It would appear that Green Hills is currently in the process of installing uniformly spaced and precisely leveled concrete burial vaults on the roof of the mausoleum. Unless this is an unusual but permitted type of roofing material, one could reasonably assume that they are actively preparing this area for "rooftop burials". This is confirmed by the presence of what appears to be a retaining wall on the roof instead of the railing depicted in the original plan. It is my understanding that rooftop burials on the mausoleum were not part of the 2007 Master Plan, nor are they allowed by the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP). But the pictures seem to indicate that Green Hills has been planning for them for quite a while, and has designed and constructed the building and its roof in anticipation of eventually conducting these. In my opinion, this constitutes a significant deviation to a plan that had been agreed upon after significant public disclosure and discussion. I had heard that Green Hills had recently submitted, then withdrew an application for a permit to conduct rooftop burials. I had also heard that city planning staff had intended to approve this permit, apparently not sharing my concern that this is a significant change that merits full and formal public review. I personally have not yet fonned an opinion about rooftop burials on Inspiration Slope or how they would affect my neighborhood. But I do have a concern with what appears to be a surreptitious "if we build it, they will approve" maneuver. I am also concerned that Page 1 of6 other deviations from the plan might have taken place in this and other projects. If you share these concerns as well, I strongly recommend that you take the following actions: 1. Issue a stop work order to Green Hills and send city employees or city contractors to visually inspect as well as conduct detailed measurements in order to independently ensure that all aspects of the project adhere to the CUP and city building regulations. 2. Order Green Hills to remove the currently installed vaults from the roof, and then replace the solid rooftop retaining wall with the railing that was depicted in the original plan. 3. Submit all future applications from Green Hills for permits, variances, et cetera to very careful scrutiny and notify the residents of adjacent neighborhoods so they can provide comment and feedback before decisions are made. I would like to elaborate on the driving concern behind the 3rct recommendation. As stated earlier, I have been told that the Planning Department had intended to grant approval for the now withdrawn request for Inspiration Slope Mausoleum rooftop burials. Furthermore, two other development requests pertaining to the Inspiration Slope project were approved this month without prior notification. While my cursory review of those two requests seems to indicate that they were reasonable, I don't think it is very good idea to proceed with granting such requests without at least informing and seeking input from the affected local community, especially in consideration of what happened with the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Please do not misunderstand: my neighbors and I have no interest in pointlessly obstructing the progress of Green Hills development projects, nor do we wish to micro- manage the operations of the Planning Department. We are only requesting a "heads up" so we can avoid the costly process involved with disputing decisions made by the city after we are made aware of them. Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 of6 Photographs taken March 211d, 2015 Page 3 of6 Photographs taken March l1 11i and 1?1i, 2017 .--.--....-....-.--.--....--- Page 4 of6 Sketch of Inspiration Slope roof line from 2007 Master Plan Note: there is no retaining wall depicted on top of roof ). 8Tl'A~T TODD l>!C . ·\tll :t l l'ff.t.~J l!m: J:\lUUUll.>; l'S~\Nl\:INCI l ;\,'l;n\l :.\PP, • MASTER DEVE LOPMENT PLAN GflEC::N HILLS MEMORIAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VF-MES, CA LIFOA Nll\ Page 5 of6 MASTER PLAN AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLO PE 2-A Sketches from Green Hills Web Site showing mausoleum rooftop Note: there is no retaining wall depicted on top of roof Page 6 of6 To: Mayor Ken Dyda Mayor Pro Tern Brian Campbell Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks Councilman Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman Anthony M. Misetich Planning Commission Chairman David Tomblin Senior Planner So Kim From: Vincent Reher 26918 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Comment on City Council Meeting Agenda Item M To Whom It May Concern: April 51 \ 2016 Reference is made to my letter to you dated March 26 1h, 2016 alerting you to preparations Green Hills Cemetery is making to implement rooftop burials on top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Although I have not yet received a formal response to that letter, I see that city planning staff has prepared and submitted a report pertinent to tonight's City Council meeting agenda item 'M'. While the content of that report addresses some of the concerns I raised in my previous letter, one of the pages on an attachment to the report illustrates what I see to be a fundamental problem with the city planning process. I would like to draw your attention to a page excerpted from that report and attached below. The top of the page contains an excerpt from the 2007 approved plans for the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The depicted plan was congruent with the 2007 Master Plan that had been developed and finalized after much public input. This is what the residents of my neighborhood had agreed to. The bottom of the page contains an excerpt of the 2013 approved plans that contrasts significantly with the 2007 approved plans. In particular: 1. The picture shows the rooftop retaining wall and burial vaults that were described in my previous letter. It would appear that the city had approved construction of the mausoleum building with significant modifications that only make sense for specifically supporting rooftop burials. Yet the city did not specifically permit rooftop burials at that time? 2. Rooftop burials or not, the approved plans were a substantial modification to the 2007 approved plan and should have gone through a cycle of public notice and review. In fact, a search of the 2013 Planning Commission meeting agendas indicates that the members of that body were not made aware of this change. As I stated earlier, I have not formed an opinion on rooftop burials. However, I am very disappointed that the city planning staff agreed to let Green Hills pave the way for these Page 1 of3 in 2013 in a process that was hidden from public view. We could have and should have had an open discussion in 2013 of the proposed changes to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building, as well as their obvious purpose. But we did not. Some of my neighbors are resigned to the belief that rooftop burials are a "done deal" and that there is nothing they can say or do to influence matters. I do not agree with them but I think it is a terrible shame that they feel that way. I conclude this letter by repeating one of the recommendations made in my previous letter: "Submit all future applications from Green Hills for permits, variances, et cetera to very careful scrutiny and notify the residents of adjacent neighborhoods so they can provide comment and feedback before decisions are made." Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 of3 EXCERPT Of 2007 APPROVED PLANS FOR THE INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM -----.... __ -. -·- EXCERPT Of 2013 APPROVED 1PLANS FOR THE INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM t': ~ ' I I . ·+·-·-·-t~~ I -.~ )j 1.0. LlOCE ~----- B-6 Page 3 of3 So Kim From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear RPV Residents, So Kim Tuesday, April 05, 2016 5:55 PM Chuck Haas; norbertrs69@gmail.com; Laura.boudreau@att.net; Sanniwehbe@yahoo .com ; sblush@sbcglobal.net; Premprakash@netzero.com; robertgiedt@sbcglobal.net; afalawaba@hotmail.com; imtathome@aol.com; smithce29 @gmail.com; seancahern@hotmail.com; mandychaas@yahoo.com; debbieglenwright@gmail.com; katefaris@earthlink.net; ffaris@yahoo.com; franceenm@sbcglobal.net; boothtarkington@cox.net; CarBoat65@SBCGlobal.net; bagnew@msn .com; mnagnew@cox.net; jacres@cox.net; Bernadette Sabath; Nad Gv; Sharon Loveys; Vince Reher CC; PC; Doug Willmore; Terry Rodrigue; Ara Mihranian FW: Emai l to Peninsula Verde residents As you may be aware, the Inspiration Slope mausoleum building was approved with nearly 6' of fill on the rooftop. Earlier this year, GH submitted an application requesting approval of rooftop burial activities, which was withdrawn soon after. As a result, no rooftop burial activities are currently allowed. About a month ago, GH ordered 600 concrete vaults and the City authorized them to temporarily store it on the rooftop. Now, GH is requesting approval to permanently install these vaults on the rooftop and backfill over them. The end result will be consistent with the approved plans, except that the concrete vaults would be buried within the approved fill area. After much discussion between the City and GH regarding this matter, an agreement was reached to allow GH to store and bury the vaults on the rooftop, provided that GH signs a waiver agreeing that they have no entitlement to rooftop burials, must go through the City process to obtain approval (duly noticed public hearing), and will waive any claims against the City should future requests for rooftop burial activities be denied. Accordingly, should GH submit an application requesting rooftop burials and this be approved by the City, the concrete vaults may be utilized for that purpose. Conversely, should the request be denied, GH must not utilize the buried concrete vaults and release the City from any liability or damages to GH arising from such decision, and assumes all risks . In other words, with a denial, GH will not be able to conduct grading activities to remove the vaults that were buried. Please feel free to contact me with any questions . Sincerely, So Kim Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www .rpvc a.gov (310) 544-5222 1 RECE IV ED FROM __;;:""'"""..l-"llo"'°"-'---- AND MADE A PART OF Tl-j ~ ~ORD AT THE COUNCIL MEET IN G OF 't b::?J_'UJ/fo OFFICE OF THE CIT Y CLERK CARLA MORREALE , CITY CLERK CITY OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK APRIL 5, 2016 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 B Revision to the Minutes J Email from April Sandell M Letters from Vincent Reher 1 Emails from: April Sandell; Barry Hildebrand Respilitted, a~ft_ Carla Morreale **PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, April 4, 2016**. W :IAGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160405 additions revisions to agenda .doc 2) Authorized the expenditure of up to $60,000 for the remainder of FY 2015-16 with a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000 for any sing le project; and, 3) Authorized the Mayor and City C lerk to execute the agreement, subject to approva l as to form by the C ity Attorney. # # # # # # ITEM(S) REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: Register of Demands City Clerk Morreale reported that there was one request to speak regarding this item . April Sande ll, Rancho Palos Verdes, provided comments regarding the Core Logic Rea l Quest expend iture on the Reg ister of Demands, which a ll ows the C ity to obtain in format ion regarding properties in the C ity of Rancho Pa los Verdes. Councilwom an Brooks moved, seconded by Councilm an Misetich, to: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2016-09, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID . The motion passed on the fo ll owin g roll ca ll vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Campbe ll, Duhov ic, Misetich, and Mayor Dyda None None PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consideration and Possible Action to Approve a Code Amendment for the Regulations for Nonresidential Exterior Lighting (Case No. ZON2014-00320) [Location: Citywide) City C lerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, written protests in c lud ed with the staff report, and there were no requests to speak regarding this it em . Mayor Dyda declared the public hearing open . Sen ior P lanner Mikhail provided a staff report and PowerPo int presentation regarding this item; and read into the record a sma ll change to the Ord in ance on page A-4, paragraph B, lin e 4, to strik e the words "of 0.0 (zero)" and replace it with "less than .01." Discussed Discuss ion ensued among Counc il Members and staff. Draft C ity Counc il Minutes March 1, 2016 J3 Page 5 of 10 From: Sent: To: Subject: Apri l Sandell <hvybags@cox.net > Monday, April 04, 2016 8:56 PM cc APRIL 10, 2016 City Council Agenda Items /Comments Dear Mayor and Council Members , Re: Under Regular Business : #1 (User Fee election process) I urge the council to chose "B" as an alternative to moving forward at this time . Re: Consent Calendar item "J" and the related item "Change order regarding Marquerite Storm Drain Channel and Lower Barkentine Crossings at PVDS/Erosion problem etc. I would like to learn the council members understanding about this pending project as it relates to storm drain expenditures as well as the CIMP issue Yours truly, April Sandell 1 To: Mayor Ken Dyda Mayor Pro Tern Brian Campbell Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks Councilman Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman Anthony M. Misetich Planning Commission Chairman David Tomblin Senior Planner So Kim From: Vincent Reher 26918 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 March 26 111 2016 ' RE: Green Hills Inspiration Slope Mausoleum Rooftop Burial Preparations To Whom It May Concern: My neighbors and I have have been on heightened alert ever since we became aware of the events leading to the debacle of the Green Hills Pacific Terrace Mausoleum and its adverse effects on the owners of the adjacent Vista Verde Condominiums. In particular, we have been closely monitoring the development of the nearby Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. This communication is to raise your awareness of what might be a developing issue concerning that project. I would like draw your attention to the photographs below that were recently taken near the site of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum project. It would appear that Green Hills is currently in the process of installing uniformly spaced and precisely leveled concrete burial vaults on the roof of the mausoleum. Unless this is an unusual but permitted type of roofing material, one could reasonably assume that they are actively preparing this area for "rooftop burials". This is confirmed by the presence of what appears to be a retaining wall on the roof instead of the railing depicted in the original plan. It is my understanding that rooftop burials on the mausoleum were not part of the 2007 Master Plan, nor are they allowed by the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP). But the pictures seem to indicate that Green Hills has been planning for them for quite a while , and has designed and constructed the building and its roof in anticipation of eventually conducting these. In my opinion, this constitutes a significant deviation to a plan that had been agreed upon after significant public disclosure and discussion. I had heard that Green Hills had recently submitted, then withdrew an application for a permit to conduct rooftop burials. I had also heard that city planning staff had intended to approve this pennit, apparently not sharing my concern that this is a significant change that merits full and formal public review. I personally have not yet formed an opinion about rooftop burials on Inspiration Slope or how they would affect my neighborhood. But I do have a concern with what appears to be a surreptitious "if we build it, they will approve" maneuver. I am also concerned that Page I of6 M other deviations from the plan might have taken place in this and other projects. If you share these concerns as well, I strongly recommend that you take the following actions: 1. Issue a stop work order to Green Hills and send city employees or city contractors to visually inspect as well as conduct detailed measurements in order to independently ensure that all aspects of the project adhere to the CUP and city building regulations. 2. Order Green Hills to remove the currently installed vaults from the roof, and then replace the solid rooftop retaining wall with the railing that was depicted in the original plan. 3. Submit all future applications from Green Hills for permits, variances, et cetera to very careful scrutiny and notify the residents of adjacent neighborhoods so they can provide comment and feedback before decisions are made. I would like to elaborate on the driving concern behind the 3rc1 recommendation. As stated earlier, I have been told that the Planning Department had intended to grant approval for the now withdrawn request for Inspiration Slope Mausoleum rooftop burials. Furthermore, two other development requests pertaining to the Inspiration Slope project were approved this month without prior notification. While my cursory review of those two requests seems to indicate that they were reasonable, I don't think it is very good idea to proceed with granting such requests without at least informing and seeking input from the affected local community, especially in consideration of what happened with the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. Please do not misunderstand: my neighbors and I have no interest in pointlessly obstructing the progress of Green Hills development projects, nor do we wish to micro- manage the operations of the Planning Department. We are only requesting a "heads up" so we can avoid the costly process involved with disputing decisions made by the city after we are made aware of them. Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 of6 Photographs taken March 211 c1, 2015 Page 3 of6 Photographs taken March 111" and l?h, 2017 Page 4 of6 Sketch of Inspiration Slope roof line.from 2007 Master Plan Note: there is no retaining wall depicted on top of roof • J.:-n \'.\lffT<1nn L""iC. MAS!l:il Of:VELOPMENT PLAN c;m:cN H!tL$ M£M{)f·HAL PARK RANCHO PALOS VEHDF.S. CAI !FOflN!A J,\\V.~>tl ~~;-;;_;, Page 5 of6 \.\/ .. sn:n PLAN AHEA ~ IN~:lP!l"lAJION SLOPr 2-A Sketches.from Green Hills Web Site showing mausoleum rooftop Note: there is no retaining wall depicted on top o.f roof Page 6 of6 To: Mayor Ken Dyda Mayor Pro Tern Brian Campbell Councilwoman Susan M. Brooks Councilman Jerry V. Duhovic Councilman Anthony M. Misetich Planning Commission Chairman David Tomblin Senior Planner So Kim From: Vincent Reher 26918 Circle Verde Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Comment on City Council Meeting Agenda Item M To Whom It May Concern: April 51 \ 2016 Reference is made to my letter to you dated March 261h, 2016 alerting you to preparations Green Hills Cemetery is making to implement rooftop burials on top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. Although I have not yet received a fo1mal response to that letter, I see that city planning staff has prepared and submitted a report pertinent to tonight's City Council meeting agenda item 'M'. While the content of that report addresses some of the concerns I raised in my previous letter, one of the pages on an attachment to the report illustrates what I see to be a fundamental problem with the city planning process. I would like to draw your attention to a page excerpted from that report and attached below. The top of the page contains an excerpt from the 2007 approved plans for the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The depicted plan was congruent with the 2007 Master Plan that had been developed and finalized after much public input. This is what the residents of my neighborhood had agreed to. The bottom of the page contains an excerpt of the 2013 approved plans that contrasts significantly with the 2007 approved plans. In particular: 1. The picture shows the rooftop retaining wall and burial vaults that were described in my previous letter. It would appear that the city had approved construction of the mausoleum building with significant modifications that only make sense for specifically supporting rooftop burials. Yet the city did not specifically pern1it rooftop burials at that time? 2. Rooftop burials or not, the approved plans were a substantial modification to the 2007 approved plan and should have gone through a cycle of public notice and review. In fact, a search of the 2013 Planning Commission meeting agendas indicates that the members of that body were not made aware of this change. As I stated earlier, I have not formed an opinion on rooftop burials. However, I am very disappointed that the city planning staff agreed to let Green Hills pave the way for these Pa ge I of3 M in 2013 in a process that was hidden from public view. We could have and should have had an open discussion in 2013 of the proposed changes to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building, as well as their obvious purpose. But we did not. Some of my neighbors are resigned to the belief that rooftop burials are a "done deal" and that there is nothing they can say or do to influence matters. I do not agree with them but I think it is a terrible shame that they feel that way. I conclude this letter by repeating one of the recommendations made in my previous letter: "Submit all future applications from Green Hills for permits, variances, et cetera to very careful scrutiny and notifY the residents of adjacent neighborhoods so they can provide comment and feedback before decisions are made." Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 of3 EXCERPT OF 2007 APPROVED PLANS FOR THE INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM ;;l EXCERPT OF 2013 APPROVED PLANS FOR THE INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM B-6 Page 3 of3 From: Sent: To: Subject: April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net> Monday, April 04, 2016 8:56 PM cc APRIL 10, 2016 City Council Agenda Items /Comments Dear Mayor and Council Members, Re: Under Regular Business : #1 (User Fee election process) I urge the council to chose "B" as an alternative to moving forward at this time. Re: Consent Calendar item "J" and the related item "Change order regarding Marquerite Storm Drain Channel and Lower Barkentine Crossings at PVDS/Erosion problem etc. I would like to learn the council members understanding about this pending project as it relates to storm drain expenditures as well as the CIMP issue Yours truly, April Sandell 1 I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: bjhilde@aol.com Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:01 AM CC; brian.campbell@cox.net; jduhovic@hotmail.com kendelong_90275@yahoo.com; billpatton21@icloud.com; momofyago@gmail.com Vote NO Continuation of Storm Drain TAX Dear Mayor Dyda and Council: The time has really flown by, I mean those last 10 years since the public voted to abolish it. That's right: ABOLISH that unnecessary TAX on some of the RPV Public. What's that, you say? Well if you can reach back to 2005 (which I will do for you) you understand just what the voters thought about that TAX. Don Reeves (recently departed, so I'm speaking for him also) and I decided that it was more democratic to have the public vote on whether they wanted to TAX themselves in order to build a big coffer of cash for the city to unwisely use. We drafted a petition, got approval from the city's attorney, displayed it per government code, and obtained signatures from more than enough citizens to put the measure to a vote of the citizens. Our measure would have eliminated the TAX immediately. Sensing the popularity of this idea with the voters, the council decided that it should counter-attack. So the Mayor appointed a sub committee consisting of council members Long and Gardiner, who produced another measure that would end the TAX in 10 years. Their plan was to see if Terranea could really produce enough revenue to RPV to cover the future expenses related to storm drain repairs. Both measures would appear on the ballot with the one garnering the most votes to be declared the winner. You know the result: the Council-sponsored measure won echoing the public's feeling that "Yes, the TAX is needed, but let's see if Terranea's TOT could fill the void. It has, and to a greater degree than expected 10 years ago. So let the storm drain TAX die a natural death (as the public anticipated by their vote). I know that Don would agree with that statement. Thank you, Barry J. Hildebrand 3560 Vigilance Drive RPV, CA 90275 310-377-0051 I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERD ES HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK APRIL 4, 2016 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 5, 2016 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Email exchange between Staff and Bonnie Oseas 2 Email from Rick Anchan W:\AGENDA\2016 Additions Revisions to agendas\20160405 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mrs. Oseas: Kit Fox Saturday, April 02, 2016 10:39 AM Bonnie Oseas; CC Re: Solar Panel Project Pt Vicente Elementary Thank you for your e-mail. On the April 5th agenda, the City Council will receive a regular update on "Border Issues" (Item D on the agenda), which will include a brief status repo1i on the PVPUSD solar project. You are welcome to attend the meeting, submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk for Item D, and provide your comments to the City Council. You will be limited to a 3-minute presentation. Please forward your presentation slide to me so that it can be loaded on the City's laptop. You may also bring hard copies to be handed out to the City Council. Sincerely, Kit Fox City of Rancho Palos Verdes Sent using OWA for iPad From: Bonnie Oseas <camposeas@cox.net> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 3:15:31 PM To: CC Subject: Solar Panel Project Pt Vicente Elementary To Whom It May Concern - I am a concerned parent from the Point Vicente Elementary School Neighborhood. I recently became aware of the plan to put Solar Panels at the majority of schools in the PVPUSD School District. My husband went to a meeting in February along with a handful of other neighbors who knew about the project ONLY because someone who opposed the project had placed flyers on their doorsteps. I'm not sure how many people in our neighborhood even got those particular flyers because my daughter and I observed Superintendent Austin and Alex Smith remove the flyer from a neighbors home once they saw no one was home at the house. At this meeting, Superintendent Austin and Alex Smith agreed to place the panels on the blacktop area and the neighbors were willing to compromise. We got a phone call from a friend the morning of the March meeting telling us that there was going to be one more meeting at Point Vicente where neighbors could attend to oppose the meeting (the meeting was not posted anywhere). My husband asked me to go since the meeting was at 8:30 on a Thursday and he had to work. There were maybe about 6-8 people at this meeting because no one knew about the meeting. As it turned out, the purpose of the meeting was actually to tell everyone that the principal was not willing to put the panels on the blacktop and was putting them on the grass field in front of the play area as originally planned. I asked ifthe neighbors were okay with that and pointed to a few specific houses and Beth Hadley, the principal at Point Vicente, told me that "they all came to the meeting in February that we were not at and okayed the project". I knocked on all their doors to ask and not only did they not attend these meetings but they had absolutely no idea the school district had even planned to put in solar panels at the schools. At this point, I found the youtube recordings of the October and November Board meetings related to this project and was appalled 1 by what I saw as a lack of transparency and an unwillingness to work with the community on getting the best possible solar deal and aesthetics for our community. So my husband and I put together a petition (similar to what is being done in many of the other RPV schools that are very opposed to this particular project). We went around the perimeter of the school to talk to all of our neighbors and very few of them even had any idea about this. The vast majority of neighbors we talked to are strongly opposed to this and many of them use solar energy in their own houses. Many other RPV residents who do not live near the schools oppose this project as well. I only had one friend and neighbor tell me she would not sign my petition because "the principal told them they would get free electrical upgrades so they could eventually get air conditioning at the school" and she wanted the air conditioning for her son because it gets really hot in the classrooms a few times a year. Which brings me to my next point. If any of you attended or watched the recordings of the board meetings you would see that pretty much everyone who attended in support of the project was either from Ridgecrest or Point Vicente and they support this project because its going to give those schools free electrical upgrades and air conditioning. I reached out to a friend who spoke and asked her if she had any other reason for supporting this 25 year costly no bid deal and she didn't. Even Malcolm Sharp stated in yesterdays PV News article that his main reasons for supporting this deal were because of the shade they provide and the free electrical upgrades that three of the schools will be getting. 1 haven't found a single person who favors this project for its actual objective and I find that absolutely appalling and disconcerting. No one is against having solar energy at the schools but there is the sentiment that we want it done right. At one point, when Paul Mikos of PFMG is asked ifthe Malaga Cove District offices are included he states that "Malaga Cove is not included because the houses around here would cause you more issues than it is wo11h it for you to fight" (around 2:45 on the recordings). They also spend a lot of time talking about the need for Community Outreach (which as I mentioned was vitiually non-existent) and somewhere in that same time frame he states that "they run a risk of too much (Community Outreach) causing a problem". The fact that Lunada Bay Elementary is also not getting the panels is another cause for concern. I had heard that their usage was not enough to justify doing it but when I asked Lydia Cano why they weren't doing it at Lunada Bay she told me there is no place to put it and then added "The parents at Lunada Bay really want the solar panels but they can't have them so I'm having the opposite problem I am having with Point Vicente". I understand that the city council does not have jurisdiction over the schools but I am asking if we can come to the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, April 5th and just show a quick projection of the neighbors surrounding Point Vicente who are opposed to this project (during the public comments section). We are asking that the city ask the school to put flags up to show what the solar panels are going to look like in the field. I don't think there is anyone who believes that Malaga Cove and Lunada Bay aren't getting the panels because they are too small. I was President of Point Vicente PT A for 3 years and it was constantly drummed into my head that Point Vicente was the smallest school in the district and I would imagine Valmonte is even smaller. I could go on for several more pages about what I see as problems with this solar deal. I know I am not alone in my request as Vista Grande, Silver Spur, Mira Catalina, and Miraleste are all RPV schools that are trying to oppose this project. Thank you in advance for considering my request. :) Bonnie Oseas camposeas@cox.net 310-265-0050 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council Members Rick Anchan <anchanrj@cox.net> Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:36 AM cc APLR Readers for the Palos Verdes Penisula I am encouraged to see that further action is being taken in expanding the automatic license plate readers for providing our wonderful Sheriff's department with another tool to help reduce the ever increasing home burglaries we are seeing. I have been working on this issue with Council Member Brooks for three years including making a proposal to our HOA to provide reader cameras in the two entrances to our neighborhood. Key to the success of this program is that the readers be in proper locations to cover as much entry into our neighborhoods. I understand that the Miraleste Drive entrance to PV Drive East was not included in the coverage. This is one of the top three entrance points into the hill, particularly for those of us living in RPV, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. I am sure past traffic studies would support this point. ( If you doubt this, try and navigate the intersection at school time). There is a perfect location at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita (at the end of the median parkway) that would provide outstanding coverage of this entry point. I urge the council to move forward as soon as practical with the installation of the camera systems, but insist that the Miraleste Drive entrance be included for coverage to gain maximum effectiveness from this tool Thanks for your consideration. Rick Anchan 3312 Corinna Drive RPV 1