20170131 Late Correspondence•
_ - ,. v . • • fr ... _ .• - it
- 14111M.-
- i _ �'• _`, "
401
r
- 0,1�
f
:Js
�
R
, - 311t�•.ls
Photo of truck on Burma Road, a vehicular access road, demonstrating the
problem of vehicles pulling off the side of a trail or road. Even as wide as this
trail is currently, this truck's tires are in the vegeta 'z E in wider
•
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
and wider trails. cou ic►L MWTD , I 1 Dand seri
OMCE OP THE 011-Y CLERK
T .K44-�tr1+
CITY CLERK
t��✓�41F
J
:Js
�
R
, - 311t�•.ls
Photo of truck on Burma Road, a vehicular access road, demonstrating the
problem of vehicles pulling off the side of a trail or road. Even as wide as this
trail is currently, this truck's tires are in the vegeta 'z E in wider
•
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE
and wider trails. cou ic►L MWTD , I 1 Dand seri
OMCE OP THE 011-Y CLERK
T .K44-�tr1+
CITY CLERK
~•7f• y ir'.'.r : ae w.. -F aR ,j� t �y. q °M"1�°' 4.
.'.
C.
qt { a { 6 .4' a ri "''.is �4t `C>• ;� < ¢p 3 s �e .y�'
riw'` ty ti hZ. �M�,+tt,.`�`
Wk
�� �eI'�5c e , � �, �- � 7' ,::itt rf`���y \ - - t7� `�ra,�.•}3�r r�,..P %�FRrt'�, "'-`. - a���"t •" �`�.�
as Z t4
,:�- _•ai. � w' }� 'F/M �` .��r ",is,r�a��Y,ps"'�r �s' '� �,0� .f� f - a >� ����
n
r' 7a�• ipY` 7.
C'
1�
<2,P t y„
Mw_!
r•w.rt*. .,ars IUWLAI _ _ _ i •�` yr ya,• -,s
i'
�� � ✓ r .
#'•.sem SY7 i@t
f t�'`SS
��
kN
ssr is `:� p� "> { r Vit:: ,-•_.-----�
x i4t C� n om
s Aih1C ;P i A' -!?AR OF ?1V wtk to 1J'1-Nk
r + � � y •C.. 't ,V F ) � . e..wi.+.�+{enw...yw�.yp.Nrral�r.hin.rk...:�sA�e�+�,. t'#
As a volunteer for the Volunteer Trail Watch, I'd like to ask you, the CC, to agendize a public
hearing on the Recreation & Parks Department's developing plan for a vehicular access road
system in the PV Nature Preserve. Myself and others would like to participate in the
development of a policy to limit vehicular access to essential needs and not for convenience
and ease of operations. There is so much to think about and consider when modifying trails in
the Preserve.
When we asked for help with enforcement, we didn't know the City staff and Sheriffs would be
using vehicles to ride daily through our wildlife corridors. That's worrisome for a number of
reasons. Look at Burma Trail and McCarrell Canyon Trail. Erosion naturally happens on steep
terrain which forces the trucks to drive up and around it to avoid having their axels break in a
deep rut. I think about the noise they make. Bill and I see the Preserve as our quiet place to go
to enjoy the tranquil beauty. Having vehicles driving through the Preserve on a daily basis is
most definitely going to impact the habitat and disturb the wildlife that we vowed to protect.
Many equestrians have lost use of their favorite trails due to multi -use and now horses & their
riders have another scary thing to deal with.
I believe effectiveness of the Volunteer Trail Watch has been largely due to complying with the
council's expectations of having "boots on the ground." You asked for data and we have
delivered complete with thousands of photos. RPV and the Land Conservancy have made
great strides in protecting the Preserve, especially over the last 4 years with the establishment
of the Volunteer Trail Watch.
VTW has 40 volunteers and 38 more are being trained now. Many Conservancies would love
to have these numbers and this kind of volunteer loyalty. Our presence on the ground, backed
up by the Sheriff's availability and willingness to issue citations promises to bring the kind of
changes we were looking for in enforcement.
Vehicular access is such an important issue and can impact this gem of open space for
generations to come. We will see ever -widening trails that will only encourage heavier traffic
(boots, bikes, horses and vehicles) that will degrade more habitat. Today is a critical time to
hold tight the vision for maintaining peaceful solitude, protecting our sensitive wildlife corridors
for plants and animals to thrive and resist seeing the PV Nature Preserve become an urban
ark.
In summary then, Bill and I and others ask you to please agendize a public hearing to develop a
policy on vehicular access in PV Nature Preserve.
Barbara Ailor
VTW Volunteer
PVE
'RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A FART OF THE RECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING Of / ,
OFFICE OF THE'CIT��K--
E, C CLERK
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK
DATE: JANUARY 31, 2017
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
1 Additional Revisions to the Conditions of Approval; Emails from:
Bob Nelson; Sharon Kalani; Tom Frew; Leslie Dilbert; Steve
Napolitano; Noel Weiss; Roma Khan (Letter from Ellen Berkowitz)
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, January 30, 2017**.
Respectfully submitted,
C1111&)�4Mkx-4A2-.1--11)
1-11
Teresa Takaoka
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170131 additions revisions to agenda.doc
EXHIBIT `A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
27501 Western Avenue (Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan)
1. General; Consistency Master Plan: 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., SpeGifinally,
Revision "n" which allows the following:
a. Grading Between 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 Grading. 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 bur earth
interments, including rooftop interments, throughout the cemetery site for the
life of the Master Plan. Since the applicant has previously performed grading in
excess of the provisions of the Master Plan, within 18rr days of the date nc�c
approval of this CUP, appliGant shall submit a topographic baseline surveyoerf+fied
by an in`JnnnniJon+ geotenhninol firm approved by prepared by Bolton
Engineering Corp. showing all existing grades in a level of detail S, iffinien+for was
accepted as the baseline topographic plan by the Director City to determine
applTiGan+'SC nGe with the fnronninn - adinn reStrintinns on April 12, 2016.
ARy All future grading will be measured against the City -accepted baseline
topographic survey. For Area 6, any future grading will be measured against
plans titled "Existing Conditions", prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp.
showina all existina arades and stamped anaroved by City Staff on October
17, 2011. I[sKljPrior to any Grading Permit final, the applicant shall submit an
as -built topographical survey prepared and wet -stamped by a licensed
engineer depicting the finished grades. The tnnnnraphin survey shall be
for by appliGant.. 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, as allowed herein., `"'hi„h will be phased as follows:
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION 1.b and 1.b.v OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
c. Storage of Excavations. Temporary storage (up to 72 -hours) of Interments
excavations is allowed provided that such excavation is covered or stored within
an appropriate container.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION 1.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
{40490797;1 }
d. ',Slope Grades Maximum. Finish slopes and grades shall not exceed 3:1 and shall
include the installation of . OR 4,1 nr steeper slopes erncinn nnn+rnlrng plant
material aprJ other erosion control methods, such as jute netting and plant
material., shall he required anrJ ino+oll"Cl li[SK2]
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION 25 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
Ground Bu-ria4 Earth Interments Areas. EXnep+ for required ce+haGk areas and
D,rea�areas On the nater Dla., Re„isinn r --.-;;"ed out Earth
Interments are permitted throughout the cemetery. rri-a„ innl„iJe Family estates
are also permitted, including enclosures, ,whish aro areas designated for +he
burial of a group of persons who typiGally are related by blood er marriage, �_
,whish may innlude with -low garden walls leCrc s than up to 36 -inches in overall
height, as measured from adjacent grade am„nrJ +heir Veihnetperimeters +n ery Iese
them or more and elaborate headstones that aro built above ground arenono
taller than.up to 6 -feet in height 4igh. These garden walls and headStORnc Above
ground structures are allowed to contain above grey interments and/or
niches. Above -ground structures including, but not limited to, garden walls and
above -ground headstones, shall not be allowed in required setback areas and
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION 1g PER RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
Roofton Interments. Rooftop interments shall be subiect to Citv Council
review as described in Condition No. 2b. Except as may otherwise be
permitted by City Council, there shall be no above ground structures,
including but not limited to, garden walls and above -ground headstones on
the rooftop. Guardrails, pilasters and/or parapet walls approved as part of
the buildina and benches un to 36 -inches in heiaht are permitted on the
rooftop.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
g. Additional Interment Areas. Mausoleum building and garden areas shall be
permitted to be retrofitted to accommodate niches and vaults throughout the
property.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
h. Minor Cemetery Improvements. Minor cemetery improvements. includin
but not limited to, water features, garden walls, bench memorials, gardens,
upright memorial features, statues, stone features (including stone
landscaping features), cenotaph walls, topiaries, sculptures and other
artistic works. ossuaries. bridaes. cremation benches. outer interment
containers and above ground vaults, and similar features up to 361[SK3]inches
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 2
in height and outside of the required structure setbacks and Area 4 [sK4]shall
be permitted and exempt from Condition No. 2.
Inconsistency of Conditions. Below are specific conditions for individual
areas (Areas 1-13). In the event of any inconsistencies between the -general
provisions of this Conditional Use Permit and the individual areas, the
conditions of the individual areas (Areas 1-13) shall supersede any other
conditions that govern other areas of the Green Hills property.
Review of Future Improvements rempl an -c -e with Master Plan: 1 !OSSA in+iron and
build out ofthe rooms ernerial Park Gernetcrp Future improvements 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 City Council on November
17, 2015, as indicated in these conditions of approval and will be reviewed by the
Director of Community Development ("Director") under Condition No. 2a or the
Citv Council under Condition No. 2b, as described below. Substantial
a. Director Review.
d oin;strafive Substantial rem^lia„ce Regie: Unless the Director refers
the application directly to the City Council as described below, the following
improvements may be reviewed by the Director Of I rlmml ini+„ Deyelnnmon+
through a Site Plan Review, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission
(or thereafter to the City Council): is authorized to make a determina+iron (6) that
M m !nts are in substantial GOMplianGe with the Master Plan ("substan i-
GemnlianGe review"),
,
(1) that Minor Modifications. Minor modifications to the approved plans or any of
the conditions that aro 1-1 d and will achieve substantially the same results
as would strict compliance with sa+d such plans and conditions.
(2) Small Buildings. Except for mausoleums or similar buildings addressed in
( GRdi+ir,n 1.k er ethonn,iso ovomn+ per r ede or unless otherwise addressed
herein, all other buildings structures less than 120 square feet in size,
including but not limited to gazebos and shade structures, not exceeding
4-2 16 feet in height located outside of the required setbacks, nofi[sK5] on an
extreme slope (35% or more), and not on the roof of a mausoleum building.
shall be subjeGt tO review and approval by the DireGtOr of Gemmunit
Development through a Site Plan Review nrnGesS.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.j OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 3
Cemetery Related Features. Customary cemetery -related features over
inches in heiaht. incl
limited to. w
i
walls, bench memorials, gardens, upright memorial features, statues,
stone features (including stone landscaping features), cenotaph walls,
topiaries, sculptures and other artistic works, ossuaries, bridges,
cremation benches, outer interments containers and above ground
vaults, and similar features, provided that the height of such features
shall not exceed 16 feet. In setback areas, such features are not permitted
unless specified in the respective Area conditions (Areas 1-13).
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1 k OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
4) Fences and Walls. Freestanding fences and walls, including perimE
walls, up to !8 feet'I[sK71in height shall be permitted throuqhout the prope
Fences and walls (excluding perimeter fences and walls) located outside
of (structure setbacks may accommodate niches or vault interments and
are not subiect to interment setbacksrsK81. Perimeter fences and walls
shall be solid.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
5) Retainina Walls. Retainina walls shall be permitted throuahout the
property and may accommodate niche or vault interments.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(6) Grading. Grading shall be permitted throughout the property, provided
that the Director determines that the grading substantially complies with
the Master Plan and conditions. Any grading associated with new
mausoleum buildings shall be subject to City Council review under
Condition No. 2b. With the exception of Areas 1, 4, 5, 6, and 11, permitted
grading includes grading of areas for mass installation of vaults. Prior to
commencing any earth movement, the property owner shall obtain a
grading permit as required by the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
Grading permit shall not be required for individual interments.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
Iffil•
■ ■ ..
..
_ r .
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 4
The review shall i'Gnteed by the Gity's Dircntnr of Community Development
and appliGant shall provide any information required by the DireGtor on fer
snenified by the Direntnr Prior to considering a Site Plan Review application,
the Director of Gemmunit„ De„elenment shall give a 15 day written notice for an
opportunity to comment on the matter to owners of property 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 property owner in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. Copies of any
nnmments removed will be given to the annliGaTt who shall have 7 days to resnnnrJ
�g. Direntor of Community Development shall make a written determination
of ssubs�tarnTtaTnn ane er nienm
gn�nliarnrne whish may innGli de imnnsinn
cnn�'�, �dit;ons to assure Gemplhan e, a.nd—shall l give wrh Upon the Director's
determination, Notice of the Director's decision shall be issued to the aforesaid
parties and the applicant, who shall have 15 days to appeal the decision in writing
to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council. If a timely anneal is
reGehved, the Planning Commissien shall Gonsider the matter under Genditien-2
above With resnent tv too any Genditions herein whiGh provide for Administra
CompliarlGe Review or refer to Site Plan Review,
suGh GonditiORS shall require
In lieu of Director Review as specified above, the Director may refer future
improvements directly to the City Council in accordance with the procedure
in Condition No. 2b below.
b. City Council Review.
Significant changes to the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to direct
review and approval by the City Council. Such changes shall include the
following: are performed dirently by the Planning Gnmmissin MaatterssabjeG
to rdirent ('nmmissinn review innlUrJe-
(1) the New construction or reconstruction of any structure over 120 square feet
in size and/or taller than 16 feet in height, including mausoleum
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 5
rWl
r
11
The review shall i'Gnteed by the Gity's Dircntnr of Community Development
and appliGant shall provide any information required by the DireGtor on fer
snenified by the Direntnr Prior to considering a Site Plan Review application,
the Director of Gemmunit„ De„elenment shall give a 15 day written notice for an
opportunity to comment on the matter to owners of property 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 property owner in accordance with
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. Copies of any
nnmments removed will be given to the annliGaTt who shall have 7 days to resnnnrJ
�g. Direntor of Community Development shall make a written determination
of ssubs�tarnTtaTnn ane er nienm
gn�nliarnrne whish may innGli de imnnsinn
cnn�'�, �dit;ons to assure Gemplhan e, a.nd—shall l give wrh Upon the Director's
determination, Notice of the Director's decision shall be issued to the aforesaid
parties and the applicant, who shall have 15 days to appeal the decision in writing
to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council. If a timely anneal is
reGehved, the Planning Commissien shall Gonsider the matter under Genditien-2
above With resnent tv too any Genditions herein whiGh provide for Administra
CompliarlGe Review or refer to Site Plan Review,
suGh GonditiORS shall require
In lieu of Director Review as specified above, the Director may refer future
improvements directly to the City Council in accordance with the procedure
in Condition No. 2b below.
b. City Council Review.
Significant changes to the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to direct
review and approval by the City Council. Such changes shall include the
following: are performed dirently by the Planning Gnmmissin MaatterssabjeG
to rdirent ('nmmissinn review innlUrJe-
(1) the New construction or reconstruction of any structure over 120 square feet
in size and/or taller than 16 feet in height, including mausoleum
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 5
•
• •
(2) Rooftop Interments.
(3) 00 Any significant change in grading, including but not limited to quantities
from that shown in the Master Plan and the contours shown in the
tonoaraphic baseline survev prepared by Bolton Enaineerina Cor
• 1 1 0 Mira.ffimmr-WERILWHEY.W.F."P.
(4) Any modification to the Master Plan or conditions of approval of this GUID,
including but not limited to, new structures in undesignated areas of the
Master Plan, which shall be processed as a revision to the Conditional
Use Permit (not Site Plan Review) must be submitted te ani, apprnvo�d�hy
the Planning Commission
The Planning (`nmmiccinn City Council shall consider all such matters only
through a noticed public hearing. Notice of said the public hearing shall be
published and provided to owners of property within a 500 -foot 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 City Council may determine
that the proposed improvements are in there is substantial compliance or add,
delete, or modify the conditions of approval or the Master Plan, as deemed
necessary and appropriate. Any interested nn m appeal, S„nh a„+inn to the
City GeunGil pursuant to SeGtion 17.80 ef the RPVMG. Written notice of the City
Council's decision shall be given to the property owner. Applinant shall make
deposit and pay all City fens fer nnmplianne reg _vv nr amendment
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
3. Building Silhouettes. Prior to construction of any ea, ---h building Gnntained in the
Prov aster Plan aster Plan Pe�iisinn
a�� �,--r�-rr— �,. �,�,�, including any substantial
modification or reconstruction of such buildings, the applicant shall installsig a
grayling plan (See Q1), and a certified temporary frame silhouette rr',-n
construnter) fnr eanh mai isnleum build at leo st 30 -da pfiGr before the City can
deem the application complete. to the Planning Commission's nnnsideratien per
Gnndition 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 he submitted to Staff at least
20 days prier to Planning Commission's denisien
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 6
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1i OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
4. Building Heights. The everall building heights fer the b iildingsare limited toethe
heights approved Building height limitations are determined by these conditions
by the Planning Commission. The heights of each building shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to Building Permit Final. New mausoleum buildings (including Inspiration
(ISlope Mausoleum) shall not exceed 20 -feet in height as measured from the highest
IFini existing/preconstruction [sK9]grade elevation covered by the structure to the
highest point of the structure (including railings and/or pilaster caps), and shall not
exceed an overall height of 30 -feet as measured from the lowest finished grade
adjacent to the building to the highest point of the structure (including railings and/or
pilaster caps). nGe a building hit has been deterred by MaRning
Final.Commission, ridge height GeFtifiGatien will be requ red prier to Building Permit
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 30 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
5. Area 1 (Pacifica):
a. Structure Setbacks for the Pacifica Mausoleum: are as follows:.
West: 15 feet{e�'i�+gig; (except for portions previously approved
at 5 feet and 8 feet which may not be further modified) !
for the northwestern addition
North: 40 feet tnvnoncion northerly along the easteFR edge of the
evicting building shall he offset 8' to the west from the eviction
eastern edge of the b uiliding\
East: 25 feet
South: If abutting a residential zoning district, 40 feet. If abutting a
nonresidential zoning district, 25 feet
b. Earth Interments:
West: 0 feet
North: 16 feet except for the 13 interments in the northwest
corner and 6 plots alreadv sold.
c. Supervision. During every burial service located between the north
Property line and the adjacent roadway, at least one employee of the
cemetery shall attend and monitor services to ensure it is being conducted
in compliance with these conditions of approval and the cemetery park rules.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 7
d. Vegetation. Except for the existing hedge, drought tolerant, low maintenance
and erosion controlling landscaping is required in the western setback adjacent to
the Pacifica Mausoleum expansion.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 8 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
6. Area 2 (Inspiration Slope):
a. Grading. 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
GnmmenGing in 2007 completed in 2017. The construction will require adequate
backfill to keep the adjacent ground buria4 earth Interments section at a consistent
level. Cumulatively, upon completion, the project will have produced
approximately 53,000 cubic yards of grading; however, each phase will require
between approximately 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of import. Thus, it is
estimated that approximately 40,000 cubic yards of import fill will be required for
construction of the entire Inspiration Slope project.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.b.i OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
b. Mausoleum. The 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. ThThe-DmeGtG f Community Development shall approve theioeXaG
leGatien and height of this mausoleum building Any new construction or
expansion of the mausoleum shall require City Council review as described
in Condition No. 2b.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 23 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
c. Rooftop Interments. Rooftop interments shall be subject to City Council
review as described in Condition No. 2b.
d. Retaining Wall. The Director of Community De„elnnmen+ niay shall review and
approve a combination ret wall up to 14.16 feet in height (Building Permit
No. BLD2016-00206)I[SK10], as measured from the lowest adjacent finished
grade to the highest point (including railings or pilaster caps). A
combination wall shall be permitted to that contains niches or vaults for
cremated remains extending from the maysele,,m building not eexGc r-liccrin-rg an
average of 8' 0" On height GenneGfing to the existing wall and a maximum 42" high
guardrail and pilasters harrier on ton The ton of the retaining wall shall not exGeed
the height of the adjaGent road level (other than a small Gurb suffiGieRt in heig
Gontrn��nieter and Aire water down the roadway).
vv�ccr-crr� a--c(rr ccr-c`vvvrrcr r��va a Ora yT
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 8
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 23 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
e. Hedges. Wr '^c^iratiOR Slepe is deveioPrior to building permit final of
the mausoleum, the existing hedge that separates Crescent Lawn and Vista Del
Peinte Inspiration Slope from this ar shall be removed.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 20.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 20.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
g. Supervision. During every burial service, at least one employee of the
cemetery shall attend and monitor services to ensure it is being conducted
in compliance with these conditions of approval and the cemetery park rules.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
7. Area 3 (Reflection Mausoleum Expansion):
a. .• • Mausoleum,..-
- prejeGt will be phased and
there will again be a need te . r
estimated A total of approximateiV 14,000 cubic yards of imported fill shall
be permitted for the mausoleum construction,will be required for this prejeGt.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.b.ii OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
b. Area 3 ef the Master Plan RevisiOR (known as Garden of RefleGUOPS Mai4sele—IUrTTV
Square Footage. Allow a new 7F� approximately 75,000 square foot
mausoleum building to the west of the existing mortuary, `"'hey approximately
10,000 9,87-1- square feet of which will be above grade and approximately 65,000
65,260 square feet will be below grade, subject to City Council review as
described in Condition No. 2b.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.d OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
8. Area 4 (North Terrace Drive):
a. Grading. Prior to grading operations for new ground bur earth interments
areas, the applicant property owner shall submit a grading plan, prepared by
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 9
and wet -stamped by a licensed engineer Permit appliGation, signed by an
ndividual designated by the Gr..,, i Meniornal Park
Beard DoreGtOrS
•
approval by the Director of Community Developmen to ensure
GensistenGy with the approved Master _
vision. if found to be Gonsisten
-- - •. -_ . . •. •. _. • _
■ ■ _ _
and approval by the Planning C n aGGOrdanGe with t
Condition 2—.The existing grade elevation shall not be raised without prio
2aproval bV the Director, pursuant to Condition No. 2a.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31. 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -
Structures. QRly ground burials are allowed between the north perimeter read artd
the g' setbaGk from the north property No above ground structures are
permitted within the 8 foot setback from the north property line. includina
• •
■ve
VIA
..
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.f OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
c. Earth Interment Setbacks:
East: 0 feet
North: 8 feet
ADDED ON JANUARY 31. 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
d. Perimeter Fence or Wall. An ',8 I[sK11]foot tall freestanding solid fence or wall
shall be installed along the north property line abutting the rear yards of the
residential properties on Peninsula Verde Drive. Notwithstanding existing
encroachments by the abutting residents, the property owner shall be
responsible for installina a perimeter fence or wall by January 31. 2018.
subject to Condition No. 2a.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 10
View impairment Landscape Screening. In areas where no landscaping
exists, the property owner shall submit a landscaping plan to the Director for
review and approval and shall install landscaping within 90 -days of
installation of the perimeter fence or wall (refer to Condition 10.d above) for
screening purposes. Landscaping shall be planted on the cemetery side and
shall measure at least 8 feet in height from adjacent grade. A44 Neither the
existing and nor proposed landscaping between the north property gine and
northern nerime+er ro—ad shall significantly impair any near or far view as
defined by the Development Code. ° landSGape plan limited to plants trees and
feliage that are 48 ORGhes er taller fer this Area shall be submitted to the DireG
of Community Development for review and approval prier to grading operations to
prepare Area 4 for ground burials. -The property owner shall be responsible for
continuous maintenance of said landscaping.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 19 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
f. Supervision. During every burial service located between the north
property line and the adjacent roadway, at least one employee of the
cemetery shall attend and monitor services to ensure it is being conducted
in compliance with these conditions of approval and the cemetery park rules.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
9. Areas 5 and 6:
Burma! Sites; Areas 5 6. Grading. Preparing
an area by eXGavating up to 8 feet below existing grade (depending, if these are
r .ltill�j hom the burial sites will be
transported Areas Master
137,000 cubic yards of grading is permitted of foil will be neGessary fer these
areas to ra se the gra&- to accommodate future mausoleum buildings and earth
interments ground bur4s, aandi appropriate drainage to the roadways. T#�s
- ♦ - -
. r
�Q—ML-7M;-..i-tea . r -
NO
ELM
PREVIOUSLY
aM
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.h OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 11
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
b. Excess Material/Stockpiling. Excess earth material resulting from interment
sites, ground spoils, construction, or site grading, shall be permitted to be
stored/stockpiled.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1h OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -
MAA . • ` . • .�7:�:Ii1R:E1
. g .. ..
-•. • • • •
• • r .
d. Structure Setbacks:
West: 5 feet
South: 40 feet
e. Earth Interments Setbacks:
West: 5 feet
South: 20 feet (presumes 8 foot landscape buffer and 10 foot
wide roadway)
mss—Landscape Screening. Landscaping shall be planted within 8' of the
south Derimeter wall on the cemetery side Drior to the completion of the
roadway (refer to Condition 11.g above) for screening purposes.
Landscaping shall measure at least 8 feet in height from adjacent -grade.
Neither the existing nor proposed landscaping shall significantly impair any
near or far view as defined by the Development Code. The property owner
shall be responsible for continuous maintenance of this landscapina. Tie
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 20.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 12
g. Road. The future road extension ,On Area 5 and Area 6 (of the Master Plan
Rev isien approved April 24 2007) -that parallels the south and wes property line
shall be completed prior to the City issuing a final occupancy permit for any
building in Area 6. ,noxin rr and maintainer' bytheThe future road
extension that parallels the south property line shall be setback a minimum
of 8 feet from the future wall to provide a landscape buffer as required in
Condition No. 9f._[sK121
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 27 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
h. Supervision. During every burial service, at least one employee of the
cemetery shall attend and monitor services to ensure it is being conducted
in compliance with these conditions of approval and the cemetery park rules.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -
Historic Church in Area 6. Revision "D" to conditional use permit of the Green
Hills Master Plar permits allows the placement of an historic church building that
06 GUrrrrently leGat lite San -P-edr-O GOrnmunity of City of Los Anrgceles,r-vrni"+cv
the Gerrnetery property. The EhuFEh building will be IOGated in Area 5 6 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.
(1) The church building may be used for funeral services only, and +s may 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
may not allowed -to be used in Genii inr+inn with the G -hi irGh bull
(2) Major additions to the church building or relocation of the church building to
another location on the property are not allowed without prior City Council
Planning Commission approval.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 13
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
3 Hours. The Chapel may be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Monday through Sunday.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 17.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
10. Area 7 (Southwest Terrace Mausoleum):
a. Grading^Yeas 7 an _ Area 7 will not require import of fill since the amount of
excavation far exceeds the amount of backfill necessary for this 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.b.iii OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
b. Mausoleum. QedUGe the size of the previously appYoved New mausoleum t�ildEnc�
fermis permitted at the southwest side of the cemetery, from o 60,583 square
feet bylldinq feetprorit to with a 329 square foGt building footprint of
approximately 38,000 square feet, subject to City Council review as
described in Condition No. 2b.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.e OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
c. Setbacks:
Structures West: 5 feet
Earth Interments West: 5 feet
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
a. Grading°Yeas 7 on . Areas 11 will not require import of fill since the amount of
excavation far exceeds the amount of backfill necessary for this thammausoleum
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 14
building, 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.b.iii OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017- .
b. Setbacks for the exiStiRg Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum buildiRg in
Area 11 shall be are as follows:.
North: 8' feet for the portion constructed and finaled as of 2013.
40' feet for future expansions.
West: If abutting a residential zoning district, 40' feet.
If abutting a nonresidential zoning district, 25' feet.
South: If abutting a residential zoning district, 40' feet.
If abutting a nonresidential zoning district, 25' feet.
East: 25' feet
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 8.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
c. 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 allowed4o may be parked, stored or allowed to be left
on the tractor ramp.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.d OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
e. Screen Rear Wall. The Northern (rear) wall of the mausoleum building shall be
screened by a type of wall vine landscaping. Said The landscaping shall be
planted and allowed to grow on the wall only, to the satisfaction of the Gemmunit
Develop,, -,or+ Director and shall not grow above the wall.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
f. Landscaping.
(1) Roof. With the exception of ground cover, 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 footprint of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum, only ground cover, shrubs and other
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 15
vegetation less than below the height of the existing wall on the property line
are allowed. Vines are allowed on the northern wall of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building provided that they do not
exceed the solid building parapet.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.c OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
(2) Tree Screen at Mausoleum. If desired by the Vista Verde Condominium
Association, applicant shall plant suitable trees or landscape screening
between the condominium building and the Mausoleum. The Director shall
approve the materials, size, and plant spacing. Applicant shall keep the screen
in good health and replace any plants when necessary to maintain the screen
without obstructing significant views.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 20.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
g. Additions to Mausoleum. No additions or expansion shall be allowed to the
existing Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum in Area 11. No new
mausoleum building shall be constructed within Area 11 without first obtaining
Planning Gemmission City Council approval at a duly noticed public hearing
following the process set forth in Condition 2b.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.e OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
h. Rooftop Interments burials. The following conditions are applicable to all
interments dials on the roof of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
Building.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31. 2016 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(1) Pre and Post Service. Pre -service ial/ptet interment preparation and post -
service plot backfilling of the rooftop ground earth interments on the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall only be allowed between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday (See Condition
17).
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2016 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(2) Hours. Burials and all associated services on the roof top ground earth
interments of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building shall
only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday
through Sunday.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 16
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2016 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(3) Sales. Sales personnel shall be allowed to show potential roof -top ground
earth interment plots on the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
building in Area 11, only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Monday through Sunday.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.f OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2016 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(4) Haul Vehicle. The 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 pre -service met interment preparation and post -service plot
backfilling of the rooftop gFOURd earth interments during the hours of 10:00am
and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.d OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2016 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(5) Sound. The use of amplified sound shall be is 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.d OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
(6) Tenting. 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 tTemporary 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.e OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
(7) Notice to Property Owners. Small flags shall be placed on any burial interment
site located on the rooftop of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum
within 24 hours after a burial service has been scheduled for that site, to provide
neighboring property owners with advanced notice of scheduled interment 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 se vee. Green
#ills The property owner shall also post on its publicly accessible website
(www.greenhillsmemorial.com) additional details concerning the anticipated
time and date of scheduled burial services.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 17
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.q OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2016 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(8) Supervision. Atleast e-enployeeof GreeR Hills shall atteRd and m^^;+^r
During every burial service occurring on the rooftop of the Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace Mausoleum fer the entirety of on burial servic , at
least one employee of the cemetery shall attend and monitor services to
ensure it is being that the seFViGes are conducted erderly and in compliance
oeMply with these conditions of approval and cemetery park rules.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.h OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
(9) Excluded Areas. In no event shall below -grade interments be allowed on the
roof of the Memorial Terrace Mausoleum building that are within 16 -feet from
the northern property line. Specifically, plots illustrated in sections 540 through
553, as depicted in the attached Exhibit C of this Resolution, are hereby
eliminated. (RENUMBERED DUE TO THE DELETION OF THE ORIGINAL
CONDITION 11 3 n IA�_NPC RESOLUTION (TION NO.�12n
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.3.5.1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
(10)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
requested 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 Hills will participate in a mediation process with the Vista
Verde homeowners and attempt to settle claims by such homeowners for
values up to the amount of the appraisal 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 participate 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 32.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 40 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
12.Area 13 (Administration Building):
a. Expansion. This The approval for the Administration Building expansion
prosect is Revision "E" to the Green Hills Conditional Use Permit is Revision
" oth�Teen inns Mast and shall be consistent with the approved plans
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 18
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 fnllewonn ilents to and around the Administration Building: a.
Generally. est. u_, fa-ef-3,323ft-2 square feet of single -story office additions,
648f-2 square foot covered walkway extension, and 316 square foot covered
entry to the Administration Building.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.1.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
b. Temporary Modular Buildings. Allow temporary modular buildings to remain on
site, but be removed prior to April 22, 2017 or Building Permit Final of the
expansions, whichever comes first. Any extension requests shall be reviewed by
the olonniRg Commission City Council prior to April 22, 2017, pursuant to
Condition No. 29. Failuretoremove said c+rU Gt iroc will nnnc+it to as a „inl�+inn
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.1.1b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
c. Parking Area. Reconfiguration of the parking area to add 22 new parking spaces,
totaling 95 parking spaces (81 required, 95 nreneseid for the AdMiRistratien
Build+ng).
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.1.c OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
d. Grading. Conduct 325yd3 cubic yards of grading for the following emergency
access and ADA access/parking improvements:
(1) Widen the driveway (portion of Arroyo Drive) located south of the
Administration Building from approximately 20 -'feet to 26 -'feet supported by a
2.5 -'foot tall retaining wall to accommodate emergency vehicles.
(2) 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 3400t tall retaining wall and
the construction of a new replacement retaining wall measuring up to 4.45 -'feet
in height.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.1.d OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
e. Structure Setbacks.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 19
(1) T''he^ following c��� �s
following nrn� shall apply: 25' frent and street
.(2mo) 0Rterinr and side if abutting-^^�""deniial zenin StFiC+�5' f
abutting a nnnFesidential zeniniriStFint
East: 25-'feet
West: 40-'feet interior and side if abutting a residential zoning district
and 25-feet if abutting a nonresidential zoning district
South: 40-'feet interior and side if abutting a residential zoning district
and 25-feet if abutting a nonresidential zoning district
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.2.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
f. Parking.
(1) Parking areas shall provide for a 2511feet outside turning radius within the
facility.
(2) All parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic or cement concrete paving
which is at least 3" inches thick.
(3) 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 -'feet width by
20 -'feet depth in area. Parallel parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 -'feet in
depth.
(4) Disabled parking spaces shall be in accordance with the dimensions and
specifications of the state amended Uniform Building Code.
(5) A minimum of 5% of the paved parking area shall be devoted to interior planting
areas. All planting areas shall be at least 3 -'feet wide. Perimeter planting shall
not be considered part of this required interior planting.
(6) Wherever a center divider separates parking stalls facing each other, tree wells
shall be established not more than 5011feet apart for larger trees, or not more
than 30' for small and medium sized trees.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.2.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
g. Landscaping.
(1) All plantings shall be maintained free of debris and in conformity with the
accepted practices for landscape maintenance.
(2) A 6" inches high cement concrete curb shall be constructed at the edge of all
landscaped areas.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 20
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.2.c OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
(3) The existing eucalyptus trees on the west side of the Administration Building
parking lot shall not be removed unless required by the holder of the easement
in which the trees are located or acceptable evidence is provided to the Director
of Community Development from a certified arborist supporting removal.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 20.a OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
h. Hours. The Administration Building public hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. Monday through Sunday.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 17.b OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
r •
■ _ ..
■
• N MAY
1
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 1.2.b.d OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
13.Setbacks — All Other Areas Not Specified:
a-Setbacksf�w d Earth Interments and Roads Interments c.+oma
"Garden" burial interment sites with no above -ground structures (other than
benches for seating) and roads shall be as follows:
• • • S - --
_ r
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 21
shall be 16', with the eXGeptien ef the thirteen (13)
r r •
intermentssss already plaGed within the
Gerner and the SOX (6) GOMpanien plots whiGh have
already been sold)
East and West: 0' feet
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 6 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31. 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
b. Setbacks for Above Ground Structures. including but not limited to mausoleums
(eXGept �PaGififiGa Ma cele rn ani! nifiG Terrone/Memnrial TerraGe
"r' ` uvrcam—arrc� crrr .�rcrrac �rrvrrar-rcrracc
Maulsoleurn shown On. Area 11 of the Master
whiGh are addressed 4'R
Plan,
and crypts shall be as follows:
North: 80' feet 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' from the north
property line
South: 40' feet
East: 25' feet
West: 5' feet
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 7 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
14. Noise MUSiG. The oronerty owner shall conduct its activities on site so as to
not create noise nuisances to neighboring properties. Any --Live and/or
amplified music, shall ^„r only during -for funeral services e -r community events
or visifseras serViGes MUSiG and GeMMUnity eveRt MUSiG shall be limited to
the duration of the service or event. No noise shall emanate from the property
IR_n.ee Gase shall the live and/or amplified mi isin exceeding 65 dBA at the common
property lines abutting a Residential Zoning District. The noise level shall he
The
property owner shall be responsible for monitoring, preventing, and
initiating timely corrective action to address any noise problems. This
condition shall apply in addition to any noise ordinance and/or code
amendment adopted by the City, and when there is conflicting requirements,
the stricter requirement shall apply.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
15. Cemetery Liaison Standby Personnel for Complaints. The anal property
owner shall provide supp! the abutting Homeowner Associations and any neighbors
that request with the name contact information for the Green Hills Cemetery
personnel that can be contacted about operational impacts, including but not limited
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 22
to, excessive noise or other activities. tha+tealtper^+ate-them� �e
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
16. Security. At least one security employee shall be on duty patrolling and
monitoring activities on the property for the entirety of the cemetery operation
hours.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
17. Green Hills Cemetery Neighborhood Advisory Committee. Green Hills shall
establish a neighborhood advisory committee, consisting of two representatives
from the Peninsula Verde and the Rolling Riviera Homeowner's Associations, as
well as a representative from City Staff. The Committee shall meet at least once
every quarter during normal business hours to review any operational and
neighborhood concerns. Reports on the meeting shall be provided to the City
Council.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
18. Signage. The applicant property owner shall install and maintain visible signage at
various locations throughout the property en4e+or" +„ informinq visitors of the
cemetery rules, including but not limited to, that the prohibition of on-site
consumption of alcoholic beverages, pre#ib+t excessive noise and amplified music,
and disruptive behavior. The appl+EaRtshall submit a signage n'Rfer review
approval by Staff prier to installation of a I . - - The signage plan shall illustrate
the !4Gat*ons height, design and GeRteRt ref the sign_ At a minimum, the cemetery
park rule signs shall be installed at the park cemetery entrance and in Areas 1,
2, 4, 5, 6, and 11, approved by the Director.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 10 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
19. Construction:
a. Construction Sites. 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 13 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 23
b. Trash and Debris. 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
lawful prope manner.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 14 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
c. Storage of Equipment and Supplies. 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 15 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
d. Temporary Trailers. 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 below,
and shall be approved by the Community Deyel,,.,men+ Director. Further, the all
trailers shall be removed prior to building/grading permit final.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 16 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
e. Employee Training. The appl+eaat property owner 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, as well as
compliance with the requirements of this CUP these conditions of approval.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 12 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
f. Easements.
elearhy defiReated OR aR aGGE)MpaRyiRg Sate 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. All
easements shall be identified on plans submitted to the City.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 24
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 34 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
20. Hours of Operations:
a. General. This section shall govern hours of operations except for any provision
concerning specific areas of the cemetery. and SeGt�35a ^ice
burials.
• Hours of Iriless otherwise specified in these conditions, hoursof
publi operation
Sunrise, Memorial Day, Let It Snow, Harvest Festival, and Shakespeare in the
Park. for the flower shop are limited to 7:00 a.rn. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through
Sund y. The A. •• a.m. to 9:00
Monday through Sunday. The Chapel may be open to the publiG frE)Fn••
•• p.m. Monday through Sunday. The Gemetery grounds for visits
be open frern ••
Park Hours: 7am to Spm — November through March
7am to 6:30pm — April through October
Mausoleum Hours: 7am to 4:30pm — November through March
7am to 6pm — April through October
c. Construction Working Hours. Construction and grading activities, including but not
limited to equipment warm up, geologic investigations, interments excavation for
placement of vaults and installation or removal of large landscape materials or
landscaping maintenance shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays
only.
d. Construction In Proximity to Residential. Notwithstanding the foregoing, within 120
feet of any property line abutting a Residential Zoning District, no construction or
grading, including grading operations to prepare sites for earth interments ground
burials, shall occur before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. All equipment shall be
equipped with a muffler to reduce on-site grading and construction noise levels.
e. Non -Construction and Burial Related Activitv. Excavation for removal and
replacement of vault tops and earth for funeral co preparation of interment
sites, 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 17 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31. 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 25
21. Landscaping and Irrigation. Landscaping and irrigation in all setbacks require
review and approval by the Director of Community Development prior to installation.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to provide adequate coverage with no over -spray,
runoff, or excessive quantities of water output. Use of drip irrigation systems is
required wherever possible. A low water use turf shall be used in all new lawn areas.
Prior to installation, the Director shall review and approve the SuGh-landscape
and irrigation plan for the setback areas shallbe submitted to— the —r ty
Development for review and approval within 180 days of final approval of the Master
Plan Revasmen. All existing and future landscaping shall be properly maintained in a
healthy and trimmed manner at all times.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NOS. 18 and 24 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017- .
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NOS. 27 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
DELETED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
22. Mitigation Monitoring. 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 and shall
comply with RPVDC Section 17.56.040 (Outdoor lighting for nonresidential
uses). of Gemma inity Development.
A-2: No exterior, building -mounted lighting is allowed on the fagade elevations that
are closest to and oriented towards residences. All other lighting shall be arranged
and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of surrounding property and shall
comaly with RPVDC Section 17.56.040 (Outdoor liahtina for nonresidential
uses).
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 and shall comply with RPVDC Section
17.56.040 (Outdoor liahtina for nonresidential uses).
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 26
AQ-1: Prior to construction of each building contained in the approved Master Plan
and Master Plan Revision, the applicant shall submit a grading plan prepared by and
wet-stamped by a licensed engineer , SigRed by an indovidual
designated by the GreeR Hills Me al Pari. Beard „f D;r, GtG for review and
approval by the Director to ensure consistency with the
approved Master Plan, in accordance with Condition 2a, which shall include, but not
be limited to, grading quantities, height, area and location of buildings and that the
buildings will not have adverse impacts upon adjacent properties.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -
AQ -2: During construction of any improvements associated with the Master Plan, the
owner shall ensure that all unpaved construction areas shall be watered at least twice
a day during excavation and construction to reduce dust emissions and meet
SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site
boundaries.
AQ -3: During construction of any improvements associated with the Master Plan, the
owner shall ensure that all clearing, grading, earth moving or demolition activities shall
be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
AQ -4: During construction of any improvements associated with the Master Plan, the
owner shall ensure that General contractors shall maintain and operate construction
equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.
AQ -5: During construction of any improvements associated with the Master Plan, the
owner shall ensure that on-site construction vehicle speeds are limited to a maximum
of 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
AQ -6: During construction of any improvements associated with the Master Plan, the
owner shall ensure that all on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic will be
watered periodically as necessary for dust suppression.
AQ -7: During construction of any improvements associated with the Master Plan, the
owner shall ensure that street sweeping will be initiated if visible dust is deposited
upon public paved roadways due to the project.
AQ -8: During the daily cemetery operations, the property owner shall ensure that all
clearing and earth moving will be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e.,
greater than 25 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. This shall not
apply to excavations for individual burial plots prior to a service, or to filling of individual
burial plots after a service.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 27
AQ -9: During the daily cemetery operations, the property 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 property owner shall ensure that grave spoils are placed in Area 5 and/or
Area 6 of the Master Plan, which will be placed to fill the areas. A minimum 8 -foot
high chain link fence with a mesh material to reasonably screen the fill area from
neighbors shall enclose and confine said area.
AQ -11: The confined fill locations described in mitigation measure AQ -10 above, shall
be regularly watered to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which
prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site boundaries.
AQ -12: A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s) responsible
for the daily dirt movement to these confined fill locations and a phone number(s) to
be called in the event that dust is visible from the confined fill locations described in
mitigation measure AQ -10 above, shall be posted and displayed on the fencing.
AQ -13: If stockpiling of earth material becomes necessary for ultimate use as backfill,
stockpiling shall only be located in Area 5 and/or Area 6 of the Master Plan, and shall
be subject to conditions AQ -10, AQ -11 and AQ -12 above.
AQ -14: The Director or the Citv Council shall review future improvements At the
in accordance with Conditions -3
er- No. 2. cif The City Council shall review any applinant proposes any changes
to fer the Master Plan the Community DevelopmentTcrt�Gan perform
n review of the whole nroiont in annordannowith a-1 or the conditions of
approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Plan Reyioinvi in accordance
with Condition No. 2b. At that time, the City Council approving may add,
delete, or modify the conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate.
Review neGed� rewile as set forth in Conditions 3or 2, as nrnnriato and e
subjeGt te appeal as previded thereffin. Any administrative review may be sent ddreGtly
to the Planning Commission by the Community Development Dirontnr.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -
GS -1: The appliGant property owner 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.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 28
GS -2: The apart property owner 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 appliGan property owner 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 Community
Development Director, 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 48 hours prior to work on a federally observed
holiday.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
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 OndffiGated in mitigatienmeasure AQ 14 abeve, t The nrojeGt shall be reviowo�,
by Planning Gernmissiierri City Council shall conduct an annual review or as
deemed necessary by the City Council On 1 year, nnmmenGing on the date of final
appreva-l�, to review the anal property owner's compliance with all conditions
of approval associated with the Master Plan and Master Dlon Revisi„n. At that time,
the Planning Commission City Council 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' foot 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
23. Sewer and Water Facilities. The site shall be served by adequately sized water
system facilities as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All Los
Angeles County Fire Department requirements shall be satisfied prior to building
permit issuance for the mausoleum buildings. Any new sewer and water facilities
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 29
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
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 26 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
24. 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 appfiEaR property owner 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 appliGan property owner
shall also provide copies of permits from the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
Hazardous Maintenance Division Section and Fire Prevention Bureau, for the
chemicals stored in the embalming rooms in the Administration Building. Permits from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the crematory must also be
provided.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 31 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
25. State Permits. On an annual basis, the appl+Eant property owner shall provide the
City with a eepy copies of current and valid permits and/or licenses from the State
Cemetery and Funeral Board.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 32 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
26. Encroachment Permits. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such
as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent
improvements, the appl+eant property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit
from the Director of Public Works.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 33 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
27. 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 35 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
28. Conflict of Law. 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.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 36 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 30
29. Enforcement.
a. Revocation. Should the appliGant property owner fail to comply with any of these
conditions of approval or mitigation measures, after written notice to applicant and
the opportunity to cure, 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' foot 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.
b. Administrative Citation. In addition to Condition No. 33.a, the property owner
may be subject to administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the
City's Municipal Code for failing to comply with all of these conditions of
approval.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 37 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
30. Submission Property Line Survey Maps. Within 30 days from November 17, 2015,
the .,late of the approval of this Resel hien, the appliGant property owner shaft submitted
a certified property line survey to the Director of Community Deyel„nmon+ verifying that
the existing above ground interments and structures do not exceeding 6 -feet in height
are luted outside of the required five 5 -foot setback along the west property line in the
area south of the Pacifica Mausoleum building (Area 1).
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 38 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
31. Recordation of Final Maps. The Droaerty owner shall submit anv maD to the
Director to be recorded at least 30 -days prior to recording of said map II[sK13]with the
Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. No later than 30 days after recordation, the
property owner shall submit a recorded copy to the Director.
ADDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
32. Fees and Costs. Except as otherwise specified, the aunt property owner is
responsible for the all costs complying with the provisions of the Master Plan, Revised
Master Pla-n-, and of this Conditional Use Permit CUR. The costs include City's costs
for (i) processing of permits or approvals for any improvements on the property,
(ii) compliance reviews including the annual review, and (iii) any other City actions
necessary to carry out the conditions of approval. The costs shall include those
services by anv outside consultants that have been retained by the Citv in
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017- _
Page 31
connection with this project (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, Geotechnical
Consultants, Environmental Consultants, Noise Consultants, etc). Prior to
commencement of services, the property owner shall establish a trust deposit
account, a reimbursement agreement, or other instrument, in a form approved by
the City Attorney and in an amount determined by the City.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 39 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
33. Defense of Claims Against Project.
a. Non -Liability of City. The Parties acknowledge that: (i) In the future there may be
challenges to legality, validity and adequacy of the Project approvals; and (ii) If
successful, such challenges could delay or prevent the ongoing use of the Project
as provided herein. In addition to the other provisions of the CUP, including,
without limitation, the provisions of this Section, City shall have no liability under
the CUP for the inability of appliGaRt property owner to develop the Property as
contemplated by the Master Plan or the CUP as the result of a judicial
determination that o„+h-�ffeGt� Da e, ^r at aRY tiFne theFea or 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
Plan, Land Use Regulations, this CUP or any part thereof of the property Dry
approvals is hereafter judicially determined as provided above to be not in
compliance with the State or Federal Constitutions, laws or regulations and if such
noncompliance can be cured by an appropriate amendment thereof otherwise
conforming to the provisions of this CUP °nr;t, then the CUP shall remain in
full force and effect to the extent permitted by law. The Master Plan and this CUP
shall be amended, as necessary, in order to comply with such judicial decision.
c. Scope of Indemnification. GrHills The property owner shall agree to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its agents, officers and employees from any
claim, action or proceeding against the City and the application 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 City Attorney. If the City
fails to promptly notify Grote; -mfrs the property owner of any such claim, action
or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, Green the property
owner shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless
the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or
abandon the matter without Green Wls' the property owner's consent, but should
it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except the City's decision
to settle 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
t40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 32
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 above, for purposes
of the current claims by the Vista Verde homeowners concerning the Mausoleum,
the City shall bear its own legal defense costs, but this restriction shall not apply
to future matters.
e. Hold Harmless: Construction and Other Activities. Creon Hills The property
owner hereby agrees to, and shall defend, save and hold City and its elected and
appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from
any and all claims, costs (including attorneys' fees) and liability for any damages,
personal injury or death, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from Green Hills or
Green Hills' agents, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees' operations
under the CUP, whether such operations be by Greeds the property owner
or by any of Green T Hills' the property owner's agents, contractors or
subcontractors or by any one or more persons directly or indirectly employed by or
acting as agent for rr�ills the property owner or any of Green Hills the
Property owner's agents, contractors or subcontractors. Nothing herein is
intended to make Gro Hells the property owner liable for intentional wrongful
and/or reckless acts of City's officers, employees, agents, contractors or
subcontractors.
f. Survival of Indemnity Obligations. All indemnity provisions set forth in this
Agreement shall survive termination of this Agreement or CUP for any reason other
than City's default.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 41 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
34 -Applicant Acceptance of Conditions. The property owner shall
submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree
to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written
statement within ninety thirty (30) days following the date of this approval
(January 31, 2017) shall render this approval null and void.
PREVIOUSLY CONDITION NO. 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2015-102.
AMENDED ON JANUARY 31, 2017 PER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
{40490797;1}01203.0025/274547.6 Resolution No. 2017 -
Page 33
Topic
•ncern
How is this Addressed?•
• • •
Minor cemetery improvements up to 36"
in height and outside of all structure
Minor Cemetery
Minor improvements, such as bench memorials, etc, are subject to
setbacks are permitted ministerially
overburdensome review - Director decision, subject to Planning
without further review by the Director or
1(h)
Improvements
Commission appeal, then again to City Council appeal.
the City Council. [Existing condition has
been clarified and is now a stand alone
condition]
The Director no longer has the sole
discretion to determine that a proposed
future improvement is in substantial
compliancewith the Master Plan, and
grant approvals over-the-counter. Certain
future improvements (i.e. small buildings
The Director should not have the sole discretion to determine if future
less than 120 sq. ft., fences and walls,
Director's
improvements substantially comply with the Council -adopted Master
grading, and some minor cemetery
improvements (see 1h) are subject to a
2(a)
Discretion
Plan. Future improvements should be subject to the Planning
Site Plan Review process approved by the
Commission or the City Council, and not the Director.
Director and appealable to the Planning
Commission, then appealable to the City
Council. Public Notification is required
throughout this process. The Director
continues to have the discretion to refer a
matter directly to the City Council.
[Modified condition]
The City Council, as the final deciding body
will directly review any new structures
over 120 sq. ft. in size and 16' in height,
City Council
rooftop interments, any significant change
2(b), 11(g), AQ -
Review
Clarify what projects are to be reviewed by the City Council.
in grading, and modifications to the
14
Master Plan or the conditions of approval
at duly noticed public hearings. [Modified
condition]
Topic
Addressed?
The Director no longer has the discretion
to review rooftop interments. Rooftop
Rooftop
It is unclear who approves rooftop interments and what types of
interments are automatically subject to
Interments
improvements are allowed on the rooftop of mausoleums.
City Council review. No above ground
1(f), 6(c)
structures allowed, with the exception of
benches up to 36" in height on rooftop
mausoleums. [New condition]
Pursuant to Section 17.78.040, the City
Annual Review
Clarifty who conducts future annual reviews.
Council will conduct all annual reviews as
N-3
they are the final deciding body. [Modified
condition]
At least one cemetery employee is
required to be present during every burial
Noise -Excessively loud amplified music during visits/services,
services for monitoring purposes.
5(c), 6(g), 8(f),
amplified music from vehicle stereos, and visitors.
Additionally, the existing music condition
9(h), 14
has been modified by restricting all
general noise to 65dBA from the property
lines. [New condition]
Noise
Security Guard -Security is needed to proactively monitor violators of
At least one security personnel is required
the cemetery park rules and the Council -adopted Conditions of
on-site to patrol and monitor the
16
Approval.
operations at the cemetery including
burial services. [New condition]
Complaints -Burden of monitoring and reporting excessive noise is
Green Hills shall be responsible for
placed on affected residents.
proactive enforcement and corrective
14
action. [Modified condition]
Topic
Addressed?
Freestanding fences and walls up to 8' in
height shall be permitted throughout the
Perimeter Fence -Portions of the perimeter chain link fence is in
property. However, perimeter
shall be of a solid material.
disrepair and may allow strangers to jump over and trespassfences/walls
onto
Fences/walls located outside of all
2(a)(4)
private residential property.
required structure setbacks may
Security
accommodate niches or vault interments.
[New condition]
Green Hills is required to provide HOAs
Contact -Updated contact is needed for complaints.
and any requesting neighbors with contact
15
information for specific personnel for
operational impacts. [Modified condition]
Along North Property Line - Visual and auditory screening is needed,
A 8' tall solid fence/wall along the north
such as a border barrier and vegetation. The backyards of the
property line and landscaping adjacent to
abutting residences are visible from Green Hills and vice versa. In
said wall are required to be installed by
8(d), 8(e)
areas with no vegetation, cemetery visitors and residents can see and
January 31, 2018. [New and modified
hear each other.
conditions]
8'tall landscaping required between the
Privacy
Along South Property Line -Visual and auditory screening is needed
south property line and future road.
to mitigate visual and auditory impacts from future development of
Additionally, a 8' landscape buffer is
9(f), 9(g)
the undeveloped area.
required between the future wall and
future road prior to the construction of
the road. [Modified conditions]
For those areas along the perimeter of the
property, any mass grading involving the
burying of vaults are subject to Director
Residents should be notified prior to Green Hills conducting mass
review process decsribed in Condition No.
Grading
grading to bury vaults in the areas along the perimeter of the
2(a). Interment activity for individual plots
2(a)(6)
property.
and burial services are exempt and
permitted to occur without notification
and future City permits or approvals. [New
condition]
Topic
-"w"
ffil�
How
Condition No.
Mausoleum building and garden areas are
permitted to be retrofitted to
accommodate niches and vaults
The Master Plan document acknowledges retrofitting to allow
throughout the property, including
Niches and Vaults
additional niches and vaults but the conditions does not explicitly
retaining walls. There is no maximum limit
1(g), 2(a)(5),
specified in the Master Plan Conditions of
6(d)
state as such.
Approval, as the number will be based on
future demands as specified in the 2007
Master Plan document. [New and
modified conditions]
Building height envelopes are limited to
20', as measured from the highest
adjacent existing/preconstruction grade to
the highest point of the structure
(including any railings or pilasters on the
rooftop), and 30' in height as measured
from the lowest finished grade adjacent to
the structure to the highest point of the
Building Heights
The building height limitations are unclear.
structure (including any railings or
4
pilasters on the rooftop). This condition
applies to all new structures (including the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum which has
not been finaled yet), and will not be
applied retroactively to existing structures.
This condition language is consistent with
the way the City measures structures per
the Development Code. [Modified
condition]
Topic
Concern•
Addressed?
C• • • •
In addition to the revocation procedure,
Green Hills will be subject to
Administrative Citations as stated in
Enforcement of
Section of 1.16 of the RPVMC for failing to
Timely consequences should apply to Green Hills if they fail to adhere
the Conditions of
comply with conditions of approval. The
29(a), 29(b)
to any conditions of approval.
Approval
penalty fines for violating a condition of
approval is $2,500, $5,000, and $7,500 for
each respective offense. [New and
modified conditions]
Inconsistent
The "Area" conditions shall supersede any
Some conditions are inconsistent
inconsistent conditions that govern other
1(i)
Conditions
areas of the cemetery. [New condition]
Green Hills is required to establish a
Neighborhood Advisory Committee with
Neighborhood
the Peninsula Verde and Rolling Riviera
Improved public communication is needed with Green Hills.
17
Relationship
HOAs and to meet every quarter to review
any concerns. Reports to be provided to
City Council. [New condition]
Although the City cannot prohibit the use
of alcohol onsite or the behavior of
visitors, the property owners can through
its cemetery park rules and regulations.
Park Rules
Visitors drink alcohol and do not behave appropriately.
The Conditions require Green Hills to
18
install the cemetery park rule signs, at a
minimum, at the entrance and in areas
along the north and south perimeter.
[Modified condition]
Topic
Addressed?
Setbacks for all areas that were previously
not explicitly indicated have been added.
The existing setbacks were originally
Setbacks for earth interments and above ground structures are
approved by the City Council in 1991 and
8(c ), 9(d), 9(e ),
Setbacks
unclear. Established setbacks should be increased along the north
through subsequent amendments, which
10(c )
and south property lines.
were affirmed in 2007 and 2015. No
changes are proposed to increased the
existing established setbacks. [New and
modified conditions]
The hours of operations have changed and
is now more specific by citing the exact
time the mausoleum buildings and park
Hours of
The operating hours for the cemetery are too general and needs to be
grounds open and close (see condition)
20(b)
Operation
clarified
during certain times of the year. The
previous condition read that the park
grounds for visitations close at dusk.
[Modified condition]
An existing condition has been expanded
that now requires that the cemetery park
Cemetery Park
rules be installed, at a minimum, at the
Visitors need to be better informed of cemetery park rules.
following locations: the park entrance and
18
Rules
in Areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 11 with
approvals by the Director. [Modified
condition]
The existing "Fees and Costs" condition
has been expanded to clarify that Green
Hills is responsible for all costs, including
Green Hills should be responsible for paying outside City consultant
outside consultant costs (i.e. City Attorney,
Fees and Costs
costs associated with the Master Plan
City Engineer, etc.) to process
32
entitlements, annual reviews, and any
other City actions in connection with the
project/ Master Plan. [Modified
condition]
Topic
Concern•
• • •?
Condition N•
Green Hills will be required to notify the
Recordation of
Green Hills has been recording interment plots in areas prior to
City at least 30-days prior to recordation
Final Maps
obtaining City approvals or without City knowledge.
and shall submit a copy no later than 30-
31
days after recordation. [New condition]
The term "ground burial" was changed to
"Ground Burials"
"earth interments," and the term "burial"
„Earthtermentsn
Ground burials is an incorrect term that is not described in the City's
in most places was changed to
All
Cemetery (C) Zoning District, and should therefore not be used.
interments throughout the conditions to
In "
be consistent with the City's Cemetery
Zoning District. [Modified conditions]
Existing mitigation measures to reduce
dust emissions and compliance with
AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-
Soils
Soil and air contamination from Areas 5 and 6.
6, AQ-7, AQ-8,
SCAQMD rules apply. No further
pp y
modifications are proposed.
AQ-11, AQ-12
From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 5:11 PM
To: CC; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian; David Tomblin <davidltomblin@sbcglobal.net>; John
Cruickshank <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>; Bill James <williamjjames@outlook.com>; David
Bradley
Subject: Humorous Scientific Thoughts for Green Hills' Breaks
Council and those copied,
During the many breaks that will occur as Green Hills' items wiggle along, running the gauntlet, I thought you'd enjoy these
thought provokers from Stephen Wright!
You have my permission to print this email! (And put it in your pocket for reference!)
Bob Nelson
All -Time Favorite:
- If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work?
Second place:
- I intend to live forever... So far, so good.
Third place:
- What happens if you get scared half to death - twice?
Fourth Place:
- OK, what's the speed of dark?
Fifth Place:
- If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Also Rans:
- The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
- If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
- 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
- When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
- Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.
- I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
- Borrow money from pessimists -- they don't expect it back.
- Half the people you know are below average.
- 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
- A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
- A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
- If you want the rainbow, you have got to put up with the rain.
- All those who believe in psycho -kinesis, raise my hand.
- I almost had a psychic girlfriend ... But she left me before we met.
- How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
- Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
- Hard work pays off in the future; laziness pays off now.
- If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
- My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, I made your horn louder."
- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
- A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
- The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.
- To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
- The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
- The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
- The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to be on it.
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:02 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: Frm Nelson: Re: Pithy Email: 2nd Comments: GH Conditions 1/31/17
Late Correspondence for 1/31 CC.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICD
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
wvrw.r vca. ov
(310) 544-5222
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:30 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Frm Nelson: Re: Pithy Email: 2nd Comments: GH Conditions 1/31/17
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
GTVOFLiRW') 10 111/1\[OS\A--,RDF_SN
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram rpvca.gov
AL
Do you really need to print this e-mail?
'his e-inail rr'res,,arc e cont ns inroi'mation bdon9mg to they City of Rancho Palos Vern e,% which €Tray be privileged, confidential and/or protected frorn di closure, The.
inforination is intend only for use of thc, individual or ers(:ity nrarned. Uriauthcirized dissemination, distribution, or copying is sti ictly prohibited, if you i rreivod this errraii
in error, or a.rri not an interade d recipient, please notify 561c: sender immediately, Thank you for your a tsistance and coot (.n' flan.
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongAgg_L@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:32 AM
1 '
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; ken.delon�verizon.net; Doug Willmore <DW!IImore @rpvca. ov>; John Cruickshank
<!cruikshank@imc-2.com> <icruikshank(@jmc-2.com>: bssi.campbell@gmail.com
Subject: Frm Nelson: Re: Pithy Email: 2nd Comments: GH Conditions 1/31/17
Those addressed:
Sandie has finally read this email and I'm still running from her! Reading this again, I can hit a couple of pulse -raising sentences
and if anyone is offended by these I apologize. But, again, these revised and new Conditions are well stated, well organized.
And now rest with our City Council. Again, if offended, I apologize.
Bob N
-----Original Message -----
From: Nelsongang <nelsongang aol.com>
To: aram <aram(@rgvca. ov>
Cc: ken.delong <ken deing v_ r!zon.net>; DWillmore <DWiI!moreCQrgvca.gov>; jcruikshank <icruikshank(a7'mc-2.com>;
bssi.campbell <bsswamgbell�gil.corn>
Sent: Sat, Jan 28, 2017 5:34 pm
Subject: Nelson: 2nd Comments: GH Conditions 1/31/17
Ara, those copied
will be there, Monday, 1/31/17.
Nit picks:
As promised. Second part of my informal look at the `Conditions of Approval' for Green Hills, scheduled for hearing
Monday, 1/31/17. As always, these can be tweaked to make sense and I have given my best effort to be sure what
read made sense.
I will immediately state that Sandie and I have a paid for a plot and headstone in the 'Churchyard.' And that we have
conducted a private business in Rolling Hills Estates (closed some 25 years ago). That is, we recognize the
wonderful ability here in America to pursue dreams (and flush toilets) without flying into a lot of flack.
I fear what RPV has created here is the role of a landlord out of control. But that is only my opinion based on
experience. It appears micro -management of a cemetery is your future! You really don't want to go there. But
approval will put you there! And, as with BNB issue, I doubt we can enforce anything re Green Hills. It's at least 20
minutes from City Hall and enforcement doesn't work weekends, etc.
Bob N
Organized as follows:
Staff report page, Condition #, any sub -para: current; problem or proposed
B30: 13.a: bottom sentence: remove comma: s/b `seating) and' not `seating), and'
B31: 14.: 2nd sentence: remove delete line through L: s/b `Live ...' ; not wive ...'
B32: 2nd sentence: underline new . (period): s/b `activities_' not `activities'
B32: 17: ? add Vista Verde HOA to list making up Neighborhood Advisory? Why not?
B32: 18: Signage: somewhere state size of sign — otherwise will be too small to read quickly.
B32: 19: Construction Sites: we have 2 Building Officials, not `Building Official'; might want to add `responsible' so
reads `City's responsible Building Official'. Eliminates any future who was responsible problem.
B32: 19: Construction Sites: ? Green Hills placement of construction potties is the responsibility of our building
official? Come on guys! He'll charge OT to do this ...
B33: c: Storage etc: `the maintenance yard': ? where? Probably want to specify where so not every construction site
can be declared a `the maintenance yard.'
B33: e: Employee etc: 51h sentence: `this CUP.' This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.'
Change CUP to Conditions of Approval.
B34: b: Hours: Probably want to be sure these hours are correctly reflected throughout doc.
B34: e: Non Construction: need a dash: s/b `e. Non -Construction' not `e. Non Construction'
B35: 21: Landscaping: 7th sentence: need period: s/b `setback areas.' not `setback areas
B35: 22: Mitigation Monitoring: 3rd sentence: `the proposed' s/b `a proposed'. There will be and has been more than
one project — but `the' singles out a unique project while `a' applies to multiple.
B35: 22: Mitigation Monitoring: OMG — do we have to continue asinine paragraph numbering, ie, A-1 then AQ -1
then GS -1 then HWA then N-1? Absolutely will lead to continued para confusion. Change these Mitigation
Monitoring paras to some sort of easily understandable numbering, maybe even common sense, ie,
renumber `MM -1 through MM -23' (yes, we've come up with 23 different, separate mitigation requirements per
project!!!). Should define 'project' and understand these raise the ? `can RPV enforce 7.
B36: AQ -1 con't from B35: 1St para: ?'consistency with the Master Plan' ? which Master Plan? We have at least
3: 2007, 2013 and 2015. You know GH will jump on 2007 for its RPV approval citation as that gives them max
flexibility. But throughout, where call out `Master Plan,' we should specify the applicable Master Plan —
hopefully what city atty would call `this 2017 Master Plan' as herein. Have 3: 2007, 2013 & 2015.
B36: Condition AQ -2 and AQ -6: They cover the same territory, ie, duplicate. Suggest delete AQ -6 as AQ -2 is
stronger.
B36: Condition AQ -2 through AQ -7: ? which Master Plan? Professionally should specify which one.
B37: AQ -12: ? 1. Signs size? Readable? 2. Phone numbers: make sure they ones always answered so don't get
`leave msg.' 3. What fencing?
B37: AQ -13: line 2: `the Master Plan': ? which Master Plan?' should specify.
B37: AQ -14: line 4: again, 'the Master Plan': ? which Master Plan?' should specify. Also, I assume someone can
explain what improvements are Director approval and which go to Council? Not defined here. Creates ambiguity.
B38: HW -1: `the property owner': ? there are `owners' so s/b `property owners'.
B38: N-3: ? Does the Council's Annual Review validly constitute a `Mitigation Measure'? Seems covered better in
Condition 2A.
Also: line 4: `property owner's' is singular when I believe the record will show multiple owners. s/b `property
owners'.
Also: line 5: `the Master Plan': ? which Master Plan?' should specify.
B38: 23: line 4: `the mausoleum building.'? singular. Reads one time only> s/b plural and suggest'... buildings.'
B39: 24, 25 & 26: multiple cites: 'the property owner': ? there are `owners' so s/b `property owners'.
B 39: 27: Standard verbiage but here raises enforcement ability question. So we get a complaint — what are the odds
we can anything timely?
B39: 28: / are our `Cemetery development standards' legally correct? Need independent review and comment to
Council, probably in closed session as Council needs to know risks in current 'standards' or necessary revisions.
Need firm experienced in cemetery law because we are dealing with experts recognized nation-wide for legal
expertise.
B39 & 40: 29: line 1: `property owner' is singular when I believe the record will show multiple owners. s/b `property
owners'.
B40: 29: line 6. ? assumes all these Conditions of Approval are legal and therefore can be enforced. Need
independent confirmation. Arena I'd pick for battle!
B40: 30: Assume completed since had 2015 date. Suggested revisions no problem —just align completed history
verbiage to document.
B40: 31: Kinda believe RPV Community et al should have copies of every recorded document, including mechanic
liens, tax liens etc. But only the future is asked for here.
B40: 32: line 2: ? which Master Plan? Professionally should specify which one.
B40: 32: line 3: `this Conditional Use Permit.' This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.'
Change CUP to Conditions of Approval.
B40: 32: line 3 on: (EXCUSE ME — POTENTIAL HIGHWAY ROBBERY HERE!!) I Assume all other RPV
commercial Conditions of Approval have this language re `fees and costs.' If not, the legal door opens! Here
having GH pay for city instigated action re the city atty, consultants, et al, is a flat out invitation for embarrassing
front page excess on our city's part! Can you see it now... `Had a noise complaint on Saturday - get out there and
measure their noise levels and send them the bill.' No, no, no. Removing those sentences is a good idea in my mind.
841: 33: a: lines 6, 7 and 9: `the CUP' This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.' Change CUP
to `these Conditions of Approval.'
841: 33: a: line 6: 'property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b 'property owners'. If not — find me the `owner' and I'll
shut up! I know a corporation is a body, a person, so I think the owner will be found to be `Green Hills Memorial Park'
but somewhere we probably want to state who we think the owner is or that there are `owners' (un -named).
B41: 33: b: lines 1, 7: ? which Master Plan? Professionally should specify which one. I'll quickly admit referencing
the General Plan is largely referencing to a 1975 ghost but we have at least 3 Master Plans, none of which has been
declared the valid, current one.
B41: 33: b: lines 6, 7: `this CUP' This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.' Change CUP to
`these Conditions of Approval.'
B41: 33: c: lines 1, 6, 7, 10 `property owner': ? there are `owners' so s/b 'property owners'. My understanding is this
is legally challengable stuff. But I'm not an atty.
41: 33: d: 'by Vista Verde homeowners': shouldn't it be more open, like 'by all suits by Homeowner or individuals'
against RPV re Green Hills matters? As is: only three cases and most feel more are coming.
B42: 33: e: lines 1, 7, 8, 10, 12: 'the property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b `the property owners'.
B42: 33: e: line 8: 'the CUP': This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.' Change CUP to `these
Conditions of Approval.' Good luck on enforcing this para!
B42: 33: f: line 2: `CUP': This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.' Change CUP to
`Conditions of Approval.'
B42: 34: line 1: 'the property owner': ? there are `owners' so s/b 'the property owners'. Final thought: this gives Green
Hills 30 days to accept these Conditions of Approval or render them `null and void.' And, kinda assuming they won't,
then what? Asking you, would you accept doing business under this micro -management? Or would you sell out to a
major cemetery firm who would give RPV the middle finger and put us in court until 2100? Would be any attorney's
dream!
Appears Green Hills choice!
Attached Resolution:
No comment because I strongly feel it will not be decided on 1/31/17. But many of my above comments would
apply.
Again, my opinion, having spent 3 years listening, figuring out who was right and wrong, this staff report is very
professional. Does need tweaks, I believe. And I'm still going to stay up nights trying to figure how RPV, if it doesn't
settle, will ever have it's 43,000 citizens afford the legal outcomes (plural). And it is an election year and all the joy
that brings to our Council and their actions re electorate considering what will obviously be an issue.
Bob Nelson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear RPV City Council,
Sharon Kalani <sharonkalani@aol.com>
Monday, January 30, 2017 5:17 PM
cc
Letter of Support - Green Hills Memorial Park
My name is Sharon Kalani and I have known Green Hills Memorial Park for over 50 years. As a child, growing up in the area, I
rode my horse in the undeveloped areas of the Park, that is a special memory. At the age of 17 when my father died, Green Hills
offered a place to remember him that is even more welcoming today than ever before. When I first met the leadership team as
an associate at Bank of America, I learned of Green Hills as a "target" company due to its exemplary history of financial
responsibility, community commitment and stellar leadership. I witnessed the support Green Hills offers the community through
leadership positions, volunteerism and program support.
When my mother later passed in 1998, Green Hills educated me on the wisdom of planning to protect my family in the future and
after retiring from the Bank, I was invited to join the team at Green Hills. Having served over 3,000 families over my 10+ years of
employment here, I can say firsthand that Green Hills' commitment to the families they touch is unsurpassed. The commitment
to the associates is the best I have experienced in my four decade work career, and the commitment to its community is stellar. I
choose to represent Green Hills Memorial Park as the Current Chair of the Board of Managers for the Torrance South Bay
YMCA. I volunteer with Hospice at Torrance Memorial Medical Center and am also a member of the South Bay Estate Planning
Council. I am just one of 74 committed associates doing the right thing here every day. What organization can reach the bar
Green Hills has set for being responsible to the community, its staff and the countless families it serves?
As a long term client, a resident of the area her entire life, and an associate; I have and will always support the master plan of
Green Hills Memorial Park.
Sincerely,
Sharon Kalani
Family Service Counselor
Green Hills Memorial Park
Chair, Board of Managers
Torrance South Bay YMCA
From: Thomas W. Frew <TFrew@ghmp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:24 AM
To: CC
Cc: Ara Mihranian; So Kim
Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park - CUP Review Opening comments
Dear Mayor Campbell and Council Members,
For tonight's review of our Conditional Use Permit, we have prepared a statement addressing some of the concerns of
bordering neighbors. In order to properly share these efforts we respectfully request an extension from three minutes to five
minutes when speaking.
It is our intention not to slow down tonight's agenda but merely have adequate time so all those in attendance can hear Green
Hills' commitment to its' neighbors as well as surrounding community members.
Thank you in advance for your consideration!
Tom Frew
Thomas W. Frew
General Manager, Sales and Administration
Direct Line (310) 521-4412 ( Fax Line (310) 519-8236 Main Line(310) 831-03111 www.greenhilismemorial.com
1
From:
Thomas W. Frew <TFrew@ghmp.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:51 AM
To:
CC
Cc:
Ara Mihranian; So Kim
Subject:
Green Hills Memorial Park - Uses
Attachments:
Green Hills Community Events.pdf
Mayor Campbell and Honorable Councilmembers,
Please see the attached document in reference to memorial park uses.
All the best,
Tom Frew
Thomas W. Frew
General Manager, Sales and Administration
Direct Line (310) 521-4412 Fax Line (310) 519-8236
Main Line (310) 831-0311 www.greenhillsmemorial.com
i
January 30, 2027
Mayor Brian Campbell
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park Uses
Mayor Campbell and Honorable Councilmembers:
On behalf of Green Hills Memorial Park, we appreciate the opportunity for continued dialogue about the uses and
operation of our facility. To this end, we would like to clarify one of the comments we have reviewed regarding the
events held at our facility.
We take our responsibility to be a good community member to the city of Rancho Palos Verdes very seriously. To this
end, we have worked hard to create an environment of family and community in our Memorial Park. We want our facility
to become an opportunity for the living to celebrate their community.
In keeping with the tradition of other area memorial parks including forest Lawn Glendale, Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills,
and Rose Hills, we have sponsored, and wish to continue to sponsor and support community events that enable our
facility to provide additional opportunities to create community. in the past, these events have included "Shakespeare in
the Park" and a snow day. These events allow us to share the Memorial Park's vast open space with the community while
also exposing our neighbors to the important community services we provide. We see these events as an opportunity to
give back to the City and surrounding community and as a way to allow more community members to enjoy the
important open space we provide.
While we are aware that these uses may not align with what was traditionally considered a cemetery use, memorial parks
around the nation play a large role in their communities. As is evident in a quick glance at area memorial park websites,
memorial park events can include anything from museum exhibitions to Veterans' resource fairs to religious services and
events. We are proud of our investments in the community including our cultural and open space offerings, and limit
these uses to ensure these uses are compatible with our existing operations.
We are hopeful you will agree that our events provide an important community service, and we would be happy to
answer any questions you may have about them.
Very my yo rs,
Nom<aS W. Fre.ty
G ienei:al Mana ser — Sales and Administradon
7501SOU i i W ES i E RN AV[ ,,JE I'.AN .HO .3£ti.OS VL iii. ES CALIFORNiA 'a')`s 5 2t 1 l')" , t t. c
:�
From: Dilbert, Leslie <Irt5488@lausd.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:39 AM
To: CC
Subject: Green Hills
Dear City Council,
I am emailing you to express my support for Green Hills and their Master Plan as approved. Green Hills has always
treated me and my family wonderfully especially with the recent death of my beloved Mother whom passed away on
2/17/16 — they have always been kind, responsive and respectful — and we have only ever had good experiences with
them. I not only have my Mother laid to rest there, but my Grandfather, Great Grand Mother, Aunt, And two Uncles
are also laid to rest there as well. Green Hills has also treated their property so very well; over the years they have
transformed it into a beautiful space worthy of the loved ones who are buried there. By investing in their property,
they have also invested in the community. The community has a beautiful memorial park right in their neighborhood,
and they have the opportunity to attend important patriotic events like the annual Memorial Day event and the
Vietnam Moving Memorial Wall. Also as an United States Marine Corps Veteran myself I feel like it is very essential
that the children in our community are exposed to significant events like this. Green Hills deserves to see their
investments through by retaining their Master Plan as approved. Thank you all so very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Leslie R Dilbert (Formerly Traylor)
6655 Obispo Ave #245
Long Beach, CA 90805
323-543-6308
1.
From: Steve Napolitano <steve.napolitano@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:23 AM
To: cc
Subject: Green Hills
Hi All,
Happy New Year! I'll keep this short --this is a tough issue and there won't be any winners walking away from
whatever decision you make
in a situation that nobody wants to be in. Of course, that's why you guys make the big bucks! ;)
As someone who has attended events at Green Hills along with all of you and many more, I support them as
outstanding members of the community and hope that some compromise can be reached that allay the concerns of the
neighbors without impairing the investment and operations of a good corporate citizen. If there is a good solution, I'm
sure you will find it. Thanks for all that you do, your dedication to your community, and your friendship!
Hope to see you soon,
Steve Napolitano
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:50 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills
Attachments: Photo (Google) of Inspiration Slope Development circa 2016, with notations re
Descriptions.pdf; Public Notice of Compliance Review Hearing - January 31, 2017.pdf, Summit
Media, LLC vs. City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 921 (RPV Cannot Use Compliance
Review as False Guise for CUP Amendment or Variance).pdf; Conformed Copy of Writ Petition
Filed on December 5, 2016.o.pdf
Attached is late correspondence for 1/31 CC.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310)544-5222
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:35 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills
So,
Make sure this is included in the late correspondence packet.
Thank you!
Ara
From: Rebecca S. Burleson [mailto:rburleson@awattorneys.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 2:35 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Subject: FW: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills
Per your email, for late correspondence.
Becky Burleson I Secretary to Dave Aleshire, Sunny Soltani and Pam Lee
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 118881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92612
Tel: (949) 223-1170 1 Dir: (949) 255-2502 1 Fax: (949) 223-1180 1 rburleson@awattorneys.com I awattorneys.com
ihls <>ir"3ii and any tiles transmitted with It may contain privihged or o217a?rm<iw cootidenWl information. if you Biro not the ince dal recipient, or believe that You may have
m'. ;e€ved this t:oaurlunlcat.lon in error, r)l£:'aS(3 advisw the. S.'endel Via ern£all and i''�dete the ('i"Pt W you {'£3C'eived.
From: Noel Weiss [mailto:noelweiss(aca.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:03 AM
To: Brian Campbell; jerry.duhovic@rpvca.gov; Susan Brooks; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich; Doug Willmore; Dave Aleshire
Subject: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills
Members of the City Council:
In the name of "Compliance Review" as to the nature and extent to which Green Hills has complied with its obligations under the
"CUP" (Conditional Use Permit)(Condition N-3 — Page 13 of Conditions attached to Resolution No. 2015-102), what appears to
be occurring here is a complete and unlawful revamping of the City's land use entitlement protocol as it pertains to the land use
entitlement rights for the operation of Green Hills Memorial Cemetery. This exceeds by leaps and bounds the "scope" of the
"Compliance Review" that is before the Council.
Pursuant to the authority of Summit Media, LLC vs. the City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal. AppAth 921 (copy enclosed) , any
action by the City in violation of its own codes and protocols designed to circumvent the same and create a de facto special
exception for Green Hills is ultra vires and void ab initio. In the Summit Media case, the City of Los Angeles ignored its zoning
laws which controlled the use of billboards and granted to two billboard companies special rights and privileges to use their
billboards in a way which contradicted the City's (billboard) zoning code. The City did so in the context of a settlement
agreement which settled litigation commenced by the billboard companies which challenged the billboard use limitations on
commercial free speech grounds. The Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of the Superior Court) held that the City's action
was illegal (ultra vires — in excess of its powers — an abuse of discretion) because the practical effect was to exempt the billboard
companies who had sued the City from the City's billboard laws. In short, selection exemption and special interest action
favoring City Hall insiders cannot pass legal muster.
This is directly analogous to the current circumstance with Green Hills. The scope of this "Compliance Review" hearing is limited
to measuring (to the extent possible) if, whether, and to what extent Green Hills has complied with its obligations and duties
under the Green Hills Master Plan. This task is made more difficult and challenging given the vague metrics which currently exist
with respect to the Master Plan's failure to lay out or specify in detail the precise number of "earth interments" allowed in each
development "Area", the precise number of interments allowed inside mausoleums contemplated in each of the various
development "Areas", and the number of "cinerary interments" to be permitted (under the CUP) in each development area. Each
of these factors relate to the "intensity of use" to be allowed or "permitted" under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code (Chapter
17.28 of the RPV Municipal Codes), and specifically Section 17.238.030(H) (See Exhibit D-465 to the Staff Report) which gives
the Director the discretion to allow "such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive".
When Ms. Sharon Loveys initiated an Interpretation Review procedure under Section 17.78.050 and Section 17.78.090 with
regard to (1) the storage of vaults on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in violation of the "CUP" conditions, and (2)
the vague and ambiguous provisions of the CUP as they relate to if, whether, or the extent to which "roof -top interments" are to
be permitted, the City rejected her application on the ground that there was pending litigation concerning the Pacific Terrace
Mausoleum. This rejection is the subject of a pending lawsuit asking the Superior Court to mandate the City follow its laws and
procedures and initiate and complete the Interpretation Review requested by Ms. Loveys. (See copy of lawsuit enclosed).
Now we have another parallel circumstance where Green Hills again appears to be receiving favorable (special) treatment. In
this case, the special treatment is taking the form of the City's once again ignoring its zoning laws and procedures (enacted for
the broader public benefit) and going out of its way to reach out to benefit Green Hills at the expense of the social contract that
exists between the City and its citizens. Specifically, the City here has, in violation of its zoning laws and specifically the protocol
attendant to how land use entitlements in favor of Green Hills are to be "permitted", has:
1. Ignored its own directive in the existing Conditions (N-3) that the Planning Commission first hear all matters related to Green
Hills Compliance Review; and
2. Used (or more accurately) misused the Compliance Review process to unlawfully allow the Compliance Review Process to
"morph" into a de facto "CUP" Amendment process where Green Hills is granted new land use entitlements (and thus amend the
existing Green Hills Master Plan and CUP) (specifically the right to "roof -top interments" (i.e. to inter human remains on the roofs
of mausoleums)) without the benefit of Green Hills being required to first formally apply for an amendment to the CUP. The
"Notice" of this January 31st "Compliance Review" Hearing (copy enclosed) is defective to the extent that it falsely states (or
implies) that Green Hills has ever applied for an amendment to the CUP or the Master Plan. There is no dispute that Green Hills
has not done so; and the last time the Council ordered Green Hills to do so, on September 1, 2015, the Council (after firing the
City Attorney) completely reversed itself and said that Green Hills did not have to apply for an amendment to the CUP (as
pertains to the right to conduct roof -top interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum) because Green Hills had a
"vested right" to do so in light of the City's having granted Green Hills building permits and related use permits (this, despite the
City's own Investigation Reports that in procuring those permits, Green Hills had practiced deceit on the City).
What makes this all the more ironic is the City's reliance on Section 17.78.040(B) of the Municipal Code in the Public Notice of
this Hearing in support of the Council's right to make substantive changes to the Green Hills Master Plan without the benefit of
Green Hills' ever having applied for a CUP Modification. In its overwhelming desire to benefit Green Hills at the expense of its
adherence to its own laws, the City's action is truly "oxymoronic" because Section 17.78.040(B)) assumes a circumstance which
does not exist here... Namely, a circumstance where an applicant proposes a "substantial revision" to the plans or to the project
(in this case the Green Hills Master Plan). Green Hills has not proposed a "substantial revision" or any "revision" to its Master
Plan. Yet, the City is allowing Green Hills the benefit of such revisions (again particularly as regards (i) the right to use
mausoleum roof -tops as a venue for the interment of human remains, and (ii) the divestment of the Planning Commission of all
jurisdiction to hear appeals from Planning Department determinations with regard to Green Hills specific development proposals
in contravention of the provisions of Chapter 17.80 of the RPV Municipal Codes, and specifically Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to
the Planning Commission)) and thus unlawfully exempting Green Hills from the zoning laws and protocol that (at least in theory)
apply to all the citizens of the City. Apart from the breach of the City's fiduciary duties to its citizens (more of a moral issue), the
City lacks the legal power to favor a special interest (in this case Green Hills) in this manner.
Therefore, it is requested that the City Council follow the law and do as follows:
1. Direct the Planning Commission to first hear all factual matters attendant to Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of the
CUP, as per Condition "N-3" of the Conditions adopted by the Council on November 17, 2015; and then file a report with the City
Council concerning the same; and
2. Direct Green Hills to file a formal application to amend its Master Plan and CUP (Conditional Use Permit) with the Planning
Department, consistent with the City's zoning laws and protocol, as a precondition to the City's evaluation of if, whether, and to
what extent the Green Hills Master Plan should be amended.
It would be an abuse of discretion for the City Council to substantially amend the Green Hills Master Plan under the (false) guise
of having conducted a "Compliance Review", particularly in the absence of (1) Green Hills having first applied for such an
amendment, and (2) specific "Findings" (which are lacking here) under Section 17.28.030(H) that such "uses" are (a) similar to
other allowed uses, and (b) "no more intensive" that than the (conditional) uses already allowed under the current CUP. (See
Attachment D-465 to the Staff Report — Copy of Section). To be noted is the fact that 17.28.030(H) also specifically
contemplates that an appeal to the Planning Commission be allowed; following which there is an appeal to the City Council. The
new condition (2(b) (Page 5) eliminates this protocol by providing for a direct review by the City Council. Nothing in the RPV City
Codes gives the City Council the right, power, or authority, to ignore its laws in this matter and make special provision for a
special interest (Green Hills) to get special treatment. If the City Council wishes to amend its Cemetery Zoning Code, it is free to
do so. However, it is ultra vires and unlawful for the City Council to start making special exemptions for special well-connected
special interests like Green Hills. Apart from being unlawful, it sets a bad example and bad precedent.
The absence of any formal "Findings" in support of allowing Green Hills a use right (to inter human remains on the roofs of
mausoleums) renders the Council's action an abuse of discretion; particularly in the absence of any formal application by Green
Hills to amend the CUP, and most particularly in the absence of any such "roof -top interment use" contemplated either under the
RPV City Codes of State law. (See explanation set out in Photos of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum enclosed herewith).
For the record, with regard to specific violations of the current CUP, the following is to be noted:
1. Green Hills is violating the CUP by storing vaults on the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The City has no authority to
allow Green Hills such a right without Green Hills having formally applied to modify the CUP. It has not done so. The City
Manager's letter agreement with Green Hills "permitting" the same is unlawful because the City Manager has no power to grant
land use entitlement rights; and absent a formal amendment to the CUP, the City has no right to "permit" such use;
2. Green Hills is violating the CUP by virtue of its having recorded with the County Recorder "real property interests" consisting
of "space" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum within which human remains are to be interred when the City has
never granted Green Hills any such land use entitlement rights; when State law does not formally contemplate the existence of
any real property (land use) entitlement rights; and when the City's zoning code does not specifically contemplate the existence
of any such real property (lane use) entitlement rights. For the record, there are only three types of interments which the City's
cemetery zoning law contemplates under Section 17.28.030(A): (1) "earth interments"; (2) interments in crypts or vaults inside
mausoleums, and (3) "cinerary interments".
3. There is no way to adequately measure Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of the CUP because there are no specific
metrics which detail the precise number of authorized earth interments, cinerary interments, and interments inside mausoleums.
Therefore, to the extent that proposed Condition 1(e) states that "earth interments" are permitted, it is needlessly vague and
therefore prejudicial to the process because it fails to detail or delineate the specific number of earth interments to be permitted
in each development area. The same applies with regard to "cinerary interments" and vault of "crypt interments" inside a
mausoleum.
Therefore, as part of the compliance review process, the City Council should remand this matter back to the Planning
Commission with instructions to hold hearing on how to amend the CUP in a way to create metrics which would measure the
"intensity" of use of the Cemetery so that future compliance reviews can be undertaken in a more objective manner, particularly
as it relates to the number of interments (of all categories) to be allowed under the Master Plan and CUP.
4. The record at the Compliance Review Hearing should reflect the fact that Green Hills has taken it upon itself to store vaults
and crypts in other areas of the Cemetery not currently authorized by the Master Plan; most particularly in Area 6. The Master
Plan provides for a storage area. Green Hills has (and continues) to store vaults and crypts in unauthorized areas.
What the City Council is about to do is to invite further litigation should it adopt the Staff Report. It benefits no one to try to
"game" the system in this way.
Green Hills, like every other citizen, should be required to follow the law and protocol. This Council certainly has the discretion to
amend its zoning laws and protocol. What the Council respectfully cannot do is ignore its laws; or pick and choose those laws to
follow and those laws it will ignore.
The Compliance Review should be limited to the precise factual issues pertinent to Green Hills' compliance. To the extent
conditions need to be modified to clarify conditions relevant to that issue, then amend those conditions. However, please do not
act to enact substantial modifications to Green Hills land use entitlements and rights under the Master Plan and CUP under the
false guise of conducting a compliance review, and most particularly without Green Hills first being required to apply for and
procure a conditional use permit formally amending its Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues and contentions.
Noel Weiss
(310-) 822-0239
Thank you
2,,a This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
9,tl.avast
` www.avast.com
PHOTO DEPICTING INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM DEVELOPMENT
Photo taken January 9, 2017 off of Google Maps depicting Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (still under construction), circa
2016. The reference to "Lawn Crypts" on the photo is a legal "Misnomer" and should be disregarded because neither
state law, nor the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal (Zoning) Code formally define "lawn crypts". These are legally
considered "earth interments". Under the RPV City Municipal Code (§17.28.030(A)), use of cemetery property
contemplates only three types of (official) "uses" attendant to the disposition of human remains. All three categories use
the term "interment'. Those three types of officially contemplated "uses" are (i) "earth interments", (ii) vault or crypt
interments in a mausoleum (which makes the use of the term "lawn crypts" a misnomer), and (iii) cinerary interments in a
columbarium. This definitional matrix is duplicated in state law which defines a "crypt" as "a space in a mausoleum of
sufficient size, used or intended to be used to entomb uncremated human remains" (Health & Safety Code §7015)
(Emphasis Added). "Entombment' means the process of placing human remains in a crypt or vault". (Health & Safety
Code §7012) (Emphasis Added). "Interment' means the "the disposition of human remains by "entombment' or "buriar'
in a cemetery. (Health & Safety Code §7009) An "Earth interment" contemplates what is commonly thought of as a
"burial"; a term which is also a specially defined under state law. "Burial' means the process of placing human remains
in a -grave. (Health & Safety Code §7013). (Emphasis Added). Health & Safety Code §7014 defines a " rp ave" as "a
space of earth in a burial park used, or intended to be used for the disposition of human remains." (Emphasis Added).
This is another reason the reference to (or labeling of any use consisting of) "lawn crypts" is misleading. "Crypts" are, by
definition, placed "inside" a mausoleum. There can be no "lawn" inside a mausoleum. Nor can there be "lawn crypts" on
the Mausoleum Roof (where apparently the "plots" have already been recorded (May, 2014) with the County Recorder
(See Below). The reference to "lawn" is an obvious reference to what one normally considers "the ground" or "the earth".
The term "lawn crypts" is therefore a legal "oxymoron", is legally meaningless, and completely misleading. It should
therefore be discarded as part of any cogent, comprehensive, or competent legal analysis. Green Hills Master Plan
needs to be amended to reflect these proper legal definitions so as to avoid any future confusion as the Master Plan is
built -out.
HCKJK _— rAvc
2ND ADD1T 10N b11t'N C'R}PTS TO THE AMENDED AIAP OF INSPIRATION SLOPE )MAUSOLEUM
GRFIA HALLS U ORIAL PAM �
NEW
o�F`.50 n "ham, ` r 4% '--tom--
. K p y 3tD C Y SL111�F •ia, �_
=ss u IRE DATA ra�ary a,L
oE.car+c �st�.cc
I CEh1FTERYA1AP
-.: BtX TON EN:;1NEER/NG
!_"'L74P0RA7701V
Ile
. AOc.dYA Franca - 1
N� Cr R!'FI (71tTRx t,,1
This is what the certification says relative to the Inspiration Slope situation. "Plots" or "land
interests were "recorded" by Green Hills on Inspiration Slope despite the fact that Green Hills
has nothing legal to sell because the City has not given Green Hills the right to "subdivide"
"interment sites" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The City Planners now this;
the members of the City Planning Commission know this; the City Council either knows this or
will come to know this. The Planning Commissioners are concerned. But there is only so much
they can do until the City Council provides the requisite leadership by insisting that the current
zoning law be followed. Green Hills is practicing deceit on the public by recording a document
which purports to subdivide "land" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum when no
such "land" exists. While the law allows and contemplates the subdivision of airspace "within"
(i.e. inside) a Mausoleum, nothing in law contemplates or permits the subdivision of roof
space on a mausoleum building and labeling that "roof space" ... "land))..... This
Certification is dated May 24, 2016. It was recorded on June 14, 2016, as per the "cover page"
noted below.
2
A
Am This pago is part of your document - 00 NOT DISCARD
,O9t 41,A
20160682217
4 +
J1.
Recordedifflod In Official Rocordu
Rernrdi,r'% Offir., L.� AnoAm� rtinty,
06114116 AT 11:06AM
E3
GP. r:6! It 01)
,jFAxL!,: 0 00
MV3, 0 00
PAM1'i OQ
F-1
LEADSHEET
20606143310034
00012216922
007611635
SEE:
02
DAR Counter (Hard Copy)
THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED A
Do.—ip U.- 1.6 Angeles, A Doolwie.t 2016.682217 P.q,: I of 2
Oster: I Comn'en L:
3
Q
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a
public hearing on Tuesday, January 31, 2017, at 6:30PM at Hesse Park Community Building,
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider the following:
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW — The City Council will
conduct an annual review of the applicant's compliance with the Conditions of Approval
associated with the Master Plan's Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on
November 17, 2015 per Resolution No. 2015-102. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(B) of the
RPVMC, which states that amendments to a project shall be considered by the same body
which took the final action in granting the original application, the City Council may add,
delete, or modify the Conditions of Approval as deemed necessary or appropriate.
PROJECT LOCATION: 27501 Western Avenue
APPLICANT/LANDOWNER: Green Hills Memorial Park
If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, please communicate those
thoughts in writing to Ms. So Kim, Senior Planner, by Friday, January 20, 2017. By doing so, you
will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration for the staff analysis of the project. All
correspondence received after January 20, 2017 will be given separately to the City Council on the
night of the meeting. Please note that written materials, including emails, submitted to the
City are public records and may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may
be televised and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit
personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the
public record regarding an item on the agenda.
If you would like the opportunity to review the City Council -adopted Conditions of Approval
(Resolution No. 2015-102) or the Master Plan, they are on file in the Community Development
Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, and are available for review
from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Friday.
Additionally, said documents are also available for viewing on the City's website
thtt r vca. cv/370/Green-H1!t riN1qnTorial-P rkµmMaster-Plan).
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Senior Planner So Kim, at (310)
544-5222, or soknrDvca_qov for further information.
Sinc
Ara I ranian, iCP
Community Development Director
NOTE: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge this application in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the public review period described in this notice.
30940 HAWTHORNE Bwo / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293
E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCAGOV / WWWRPVCAGOV
C ITV OF
RANCHO
PALOS VERDE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
January 5, 2017
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a
public hearing on Tuesday, January 31, 2017, at 6:30PM at Hesse Park Community Building,
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider the following:
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW — The City Council will
conduct an annual review of the applicant's compliance with the Conditions of Approval
associated with the Master Plan's Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on
November 17, 2015 per Resolution No. 2015-102. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(B) of the
RPVMC, which states that amendments to a project shall be considered by the same body
which took the final action in granting the original application, the City Council may add,
delete, or modify the Conditions of Approval as deemed necessary or appropriate.
PROJECT LOCATION: 27501 Western Avenue
APPLICANT/LANDOWNER: Green Hills Memorial Park
If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, please communicate those
thoughts in writing to Ms. So Kim, Senior Planner, by Friday, January 20, 2017. By doing so, you
will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration for the staff analysis of the project. All
correspondence received after January 20, 2017 will be given separately to the City Council on the
night of the meeting. Please note that written materials, including emails, submitted to the
City are public records and may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may
be televised and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit
personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the
public record regarding an item on the agenda.
If you would like the opportunity to review the City Council -adopted Conditions of Approval
(Resolution No. 2015-102) or the Master Plan, they are on file in the Community Development
Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, and are available for review
from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Friday.
Additionally, said documents are also available for viewing on the City's website
thtt r vca. cv/370/Green-H1!t riN1qnTorial-P rkµmMaster-Plan).
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Senior Planner So Kim, at (310)
544-5222, or soknrDvca_qov for further information.
Sinc
Ara I ranian, iCP
Community Development Director
NOTE: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge this application in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the public review period described in this notice.
30940 HAWTHORNE Bwo / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293
E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCAGOV / WWWRPVCAGOV
[SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH GAVE RIGHT TO BILLBOARD COMPANIES
TO BE EXEMPT FROM ZONING LAWS VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY — VOID
AB INITIO...... AS APPLIED TO GREEN HILLS, THIS MEANS THAT CITY
CANNOT ACT IN A MANNER WHICH IS INCONCISTENT WITH ITS ZONING CODES
AND PROTOCOLS. IF GREEN HILLS WISHES RELIEF FROM OR AN AMENDMENT
TO THE GREEN HILLS MASTER PLAN, THEN GREEN HILLS HAS TO FORMALLY
APPLY FOR SUCH RELIEF. THIS IS ANALOGOUS TO THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WHICH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ENTERED INTO WITH ONE
PARTICULAR BILLBOARD COMPANY WHICH GAVE THAT COMPANY USE
RIGHTS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED UNDER CITY ZONING LAW AND WHICH
BENEFITTED THAT COMPANY SPECIALLY TO THE EXCLUSION OF ITS
COMPETITIORS THEREBY CREATING AN UNLAWFUL EXCEPTION AND
EXEMPTION FROM THE CITY'S ZONING LAWS. IF GREEN HILLS WISHES RELIEF
FORM THE RPV ZONING LAWS, THEN GREEN HILLS NEEDS TO APPLY FOR A
VARIANCE. IF GREEN HILLS WISHES TO MODIFY ITS USE OF THE CEMETERY
PROPERTY, GREEN HILLS NEEDS TO APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER PLAN. CHANGES MADE TO THE MASTER PLAN UNDER THE GUISE OF
`COMPLIANCE REVIEW" CANNOT SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTES A A
DE FACTO ZONING VARIANCE AND DE FACTO CUP AMENDMENT]
211 Cal.AppAth 921 (2012)
SUMMIT MEDIA LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant,
V.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant, Cross-defendant and Respondent,
CBS OUTDOOR INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest, Cross -complainants and
Appellants.
No. B220198.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight.
December 10, 2012.
923*923 Perkins Coie, Timothy L. Alger; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Scott B.
Kidman and Anthony P. Alden for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Andrews Lagasse Branch & Bell, Michael J. O'Connor, Jr., and Shauna L. Sinnott for
The Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association and The
Westwood Homeowners Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Reed Smith, Margaret M. Grignon and James C. Martin for Real Party in Interest,
Cross-complainant and Appellant Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Kendall Brill & Klieger, Laura W. Brill, Joshua M. Rodin and Richard M. Simon for Real
Party in Interest, Cross-complainant and Appellant CBS Outdoor, Inc.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Tayo A. Popoola and Steven N. Blau, Deputy City
Attorneys, for Defendant, Cross-defendant and Respondent.
Sabine & Morrison and Randal R. Morrison for League of California Cities as Amicus
Curiae.
924*924 OPINION
GRIMES, J. —
SUMMARY
This is a dispute among several outdoor advertising companies and the City of Los
Angeles over certain billboards with digital displays, and over the city's authority to
settle with two of those companies on terms that permitted them to digitize many of their
existing billboards, even though a municipal ordinance expressly prohibited "alterations
or enlargements" of such signs. A third company filed this suit for a writ of mandate
ordering the city to set aside the settlement agreement and withdraw all permits issued
under it. The trial court found the settlement agreement was illegal and void, because it
allowed the alteration of billboards in violation of municipal ordinances. But the trial
court declined to revoke permits that had been issued pursuant to the agreement,
concluding permit revocation was an administrative issue for determination on an
individual basis.
We affirm the trial court's order finding the settlement agreement void, but conclude
the court also must order revocation of all digital conversion permits -granted
under the ille-gal settlement agreement.
FACTS
In August 2008, Summit Media LLC (plaintiff) sought a writ of mandate ordering
defendant City of Los Angeles to set aside a settlement agreement between the city,
on the one hand, and CBS Outdoor Inc. and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (real parties in
interest), on the other. Plaintiff and real parties are companies engaged in the outdoor
advertising business in the city. All of them own and maintain numerous "off-site signs"
— billboards in locations other than at a property owner's business. Plaintiff contended
the city's entry into the settlement agreement with real parties (its competitors)
was an invalid, illegal and ultra vires act, and that all permits and authorizations
the city had issued pursuant to the settlement should be revoked.
2
(1) The genesis of the contested settlement agreement, executed two years earlier, was
litigation over city ordinances regulating offsite signs. In December 2000, the city
council passed an ordinance imposing an interim prohibition on the issuance of permits
for the construction or placement of new offsite signs. In April 2002, the city council
amended the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC or municipal code) to establish a
permanent, general ban (with exceptions not relevant to this case) on new offsite signs
throughout the city (the 2002 sign ban). The 2002 sign ban also applied to "alterations
or enlargements of legally existing off-site signs." (L.A. Ord. No. 174547, § 2.11.)
925*925 Also, in February and July 2002, the city council passed two ordinances
amending the municipal code to establish an offsite sign periodic inspection fee and an
inspection program. The first ordinance established an offsite sign inspection program
and an annual fee to pay for it (the inspection program), and the second ordinance set
the amount of the annual inspection fee (the sign fee ordinance). The main components
of the inspection program were that all offsite signs on private property were subject to
annual inspection; an annual inspection fee (later set by ordinance at $314) was
imposed on all offsite signs; upon payment of the fee and furnishing of the relevant
building permit or equivalent documents, the city would issue an inspection certificate;
and if the fee were not paid, or the city determined that a sign had not been lawfully
erected, the sign would be removed. (LAMC, former §§ 91.6205.18.1-91.6205.18.9.)
(2) Litigation over the inspection program and sign fee ordinance ensued, the complete
history of which is unnecessary to recount here. On October 4, 2002, Vista Media
Group, Inc. (hereafter Vista) (also in the outdoor advertising business), brought a
reverse validation action (Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.) in superior court. The Vista
action sought a judicial declaration that the sign fee ordinance was invalid, on the
grounds that it violated free speech, takings and due process constitutional provisions
and the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of achieving its purported goal. We find it
helpful at this point to briefly summarize what is a validation, or "reverse validation"
action. The validation statutes permit a local government entity to obtain a judicial
decision that a municipal or other local agency has acted legally in making a decision
affecting real or personal property. A so-called reverse validation action seeks the
opposite, a declaration that the act or omission of a local government is invalid and
illegal. A validation, or reverse validation, action may be brought only if authorized by
another statutory provision.
Vista's action was authorized under statutes that govern fees charged by local agencies
for zoning variances, building permits and the like. (See Gov. Code, §§ 66014, subds.
(a) & (c), 66022, subds. (a) & (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.) Real parties
intervened in the Vista action and in December 2002 filed cross-complaints against the
city, seeking to invalidate the sign fee ordinance and also seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief preventing the city from enforcing the reporting requirements of the
offsite sign inspection program.
Vista settled its lawsuit with the city in December 2004 and moved to have its
settlement incorporated into a stipulated judgment. Real parties objected, contending
the Vista settlement was "ultra vires and void," because the city was contracting
away its police power by creating a reduced inspection fee schedule and enforcement
program applying only to Vista, and the new fee 926*926 structure for Vista was
established without public participation. The trial court (Judge Dau) eventually approved
a revised stipulated judgment. (We do not address the city's settlement with Vista any
further.) Then, on September 30, 2006, the city and real parties entered into a
settlement agreement in the Vista action.
The city and real parties agreed to file a stipulated judgment dismissing real parties'
claims. The stipulated judgment, expressly reciting the terms of the settlement
agreement, was entered by Judge Dau on February 2, 2007. In April 2007, plaintiff sued
the city in federal court. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction, and in
August 2008 plaintiff filed this lawsuit.
This lawsuit was initially assigned to Judge Chalfant, who issued a number of rulings
that real parties challenge in this appeal, as discussed below. After Judge Chalfant
recused himself from this case, it was reassigned to Judge Green. We now quote Judge
Chalfant's description of the facts of this case, later found by Judge Green to be an
accurate recital.
"The Settlement Agreement grants [real parties] exemption from the City's [2002 sign
ban], the Off -Site Sign Inspection Program, and numerous other zoning and building
laws regulating off-site signs in the City.
"The Settlement Agreement exempts [real partiesl from the application of
numerous zonina and buildina laws. including manv provisions of the [20
ban . ] The Settlement Agreement allows [real parties] to maintain all of their pre -1986
off-site signs, whether or not lawfully erected, whether or not they have permits, whether
or not they comply with their permits, and whether or not they violate present or
prospective City building ordinances....[]
"The Settlement Agreement also requires the City to issue new permits to allow [real
parties] to modernize' up to 840 of their post -1986 off-site signs — one quarter of their
total inventory. The City has agreed to issue these permits despite the [2002 sign ban]
for new offsite signs, and its strictly 927*927 enforced ban on these very types of
modification. The City has also agreed to issue these permits without regard to whether
or not those 840 signs were lawfully erected, whether or not those 840 signs ever had
permits, whether or not those 840 signs comply or have ever complied with a permit,
and whether or not those 840 signs violate present or prospective City building and
zoning ordinances.
"Additionally, the Settlement Agreement permits [real parties] to add 200 new off-site
signs to their existing sign structures, known as back-up faces,' despite the City's
general ban on all new off-site signs, including adding 'back-up faces,' by way of
alteration or modification of an existing sign structure.
0
"The Settlement Agreement gives [real parties] a general exemption from the
requirement to provide evidence that pre -1986 sign structures were lawfully erected, a
direct violation of LAMC section 91.6205.18(3).[QJ] Offsite signs erected by [real parties]
between 1986 and 1998 will be allowed to exist even if no permit was ever obtained or
the signs were illegally modified. The Settlement Agreement gives [real parties] the right
to maintain sign structures that are out of compliance with the original building permit,
even though such alterations render the signs illegal and subject to abatement under
LAMC section 91.6205.18(9).[x]
"The Settlement Agreement specifically identifies 10 separate City laws with
which !real partiesl need not comply in undertaking modernizations, including
LAMC sections 12.21(A)(7)(0 (off-site sign ban), 12.21.1(A)(10) (height restrictions),
12.22(a)(23) (regulations in mini -shopping centers and commercial corners), 91.6205.18
(the Inspection Program), and LAMC § 91.6205.11 (11) or any other ban on one or more
categories of signage.[]
928*928 "[Real parties] are also exempted from the usual procedures for obtaining
permits. Section 5(D)(ii) [of the settlement agreement] prescribes that, in the event the
City cannot process [real parties'] permit applications within 30 days, the City is
prohibited from processing any other 'building, demolition or relocation permits for any
structure, including but not limited to signs' until it has cleared [real parties'] applications.
Thus, no matter what the circumstances or exigencies, the applications of every other
Los Angeles resident and property owner must be put on hold until those of [real
parties] are approved."
As the trial court found, "[s]hortly after signing the Settlement Agreement, [real parties]
began undertaking significant modifications of their existing signs, which are otherwise
prohibited by the general ban on off-site signs. Clear Channel has already received City
permits under the Settlement Agreement to convert over 40 off-site signs to digital
displays. Because the cost to convert an existing static, wood and vinyl sign to an LED
digital display exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of both the sign and sign
support structure, such a conversion would not be a mere 'alteration repair or
rehabilitation' within LAMC section 91.6216.4,[x] but would be either a violation of that
section or a new sign subject to the general ban. [CBS Outdoor Inc.] has received
numerous permits as well."
In December 2008, the city enacted an ordinance expressly preventing the
issuance of building permits for offsite signs with digital displays. (L.A. Ord. No.
180445.) The ordinance imposed "interim regulations on the issuance of building
permits for Off -Site Signs, including Digital Displays, and new Supergraphic Signs." The
ordinance defined "digital display" and "supergraphic sign," and prohibited both the
issuance of building permits and the alteration or construction of all offsite signs
(including digital displays and supergraphic signs) "pursuant to a building permit issued
prior to the effective date of this ordinance." (The ordinance included an exception if the
building permit holder had already performed substantial work and incurred substantial
liabilities in reliance on the permit.) The ordinance's "whereas" clauses referred to the
city's settlements with real parties allowing them "to modernize a certain number of
existing conventional signs to digital signs," and stated that "no existing City regulations
address where and how these 929*929 conversions can take place" and that the
conversions were "causing unanticipated negative impacts including negative impacts
on residential neighborhoods...." Prohibitions explicitly banning offsite signs with digital
displays became a part of the municipal code effective August 14, 2009. (LAMC, §
14.4.4(8)11.)
After multiple hearings, the trial court (Judge Green) granted plaintiff's motion for a writ
of mandate, ordering the city to set aside and cease implementing the settlement
agreement. The court ruled on each of the contentions we discuss in this opinion,
and we affirm all of the rulings which led the court to conclude the settlement
agreement was void for all purposes. The court, however, rejected plaintiff's
contention that all permits that had been issued pursuant to the settlement agreement
should be revoked. The court concluded that the issue of permit revocation was an
administrative issue, and with the settlement agreement voided, administrative hearings
at the instance of citizens would no longer be a futile exercise.
Real parties appealed and plaintiff cross -appealed. We granted applications from the
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association and the Westwood
Homeowners Association, and from the League of California Cities, to file amicus curiae
briefs.
DISCUSSION
1. Real Parties' Appeal
Real parties contend the judgment should be reversed on any or all of five bases. First,
they say, the settlement was incorporated in a stipulated judgment in the Vista reverse
validation action, and an attack on a judgment in an in rem validation action is barred by
the validation statutes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 870.) Second, plaintiff cannot collaterally
attack a judgment in a case where the superior court had fundamental jurisdiction over
the underlying litigation. Third, plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Fourth, the trial court erred in concluding the settlement agreement was an ultra vires
act, and fifth, the trial court, on the record before it, had no authority to summarily grant
writ relief voiding the entire settlement agreement.
None of these contentions has merit.
a. The validation statutes do not prevent plaintiff's lawsuit.
Real parties argue that the validation statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 860 et seq.) bar
plaintiff's lawsuit. Section 870, subdivision (a) governs the effect of a judgment in
validation proceedings, stating that, if no appeal is taken 930*930 from the judgment (or
the judgment is affirmed), "[t]he judgment ... shall, notwithstanding any other provision
of law ... thereupon become and thereafter be forever binding and conclusive, as to all
matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated, against
the agency and against all other persons, and the judgment shall permanently enjoin
the institution by any person of any action or proceeding raising any issue as to which
the judgment is binding and conclusive." According to real parties, because the
stipulated judgments in the Vista reverse validation proceedings — including terms
incorporating the settlement agreement — were not appealed, the judgments are
conclusive against the world "as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time
could have been adjudicated...." (Ibid.) Real parties are mistaken.
Validation proceedings are most commonly used "'to secure a judicial determination
that proceedings by a local government entity, such as the issuance of municipal bonds
and the resolution or ordinance authorizing the bonds, are valid, legal, and binding."'
(Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 842 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 4271.)
The validation statutes "should be construed so as to uphold their purpose, i.e., 'the
acting agency's need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action.'
[Citation.]" (Ibid.) A validation action is "in the nature of a proceeding in rem" (Code Civ.
Proc., § 860) and "operates against property, as distinct from an injunction that operates
against persons." (Friedland, at p. 843). "[I]ts effect binds the agency and all other
persons." (Ibid.)
As already stated, a validation (or reverse validation) action must be authorized by
another statutory provision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 860.) Here, Vista's challenge to the sign
fee ordinance was authorized by Government Code sections 66014 and 66022, which
require an action challenging an ordinance authorizing a fee for building permits, use
permits and the like to be brought under the validation statutes within 120 days of
passage of the ordinance.
The Vista action was a proper reverse validation action, challenging the validity of the
sign fee ordinance, and a judgment validating or invalidating the fee would have barred
any suit challenging that ordinance by anyone on any ground. But real parties' stipulated
judgment (and the stipulated judgments obtained earlier by Vista and later by Regency
Outdoor, Inc.) neither validated nor invalidated the sign fee ordinance, and the
settlement agreement covered matters far beyond the scope of those subject to the
validating statutes — matters that were not litigated and were not subject to or proper
for litigation under the validation statutes. As Judge Chalfant pointed out, because the
stipulated judgments do not validate or invalidate the sign fee, 931*931 and do not
purport to affect any third party, the judgments do not and cannot bar this suit (which
does not even purport to challenge the sign fee ordinance).
Real parties' reliance on Embarcadero Mun. Improvement Dist. v. County of Santa
Barbara (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 781 [1 07 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 (Embarcadero) and Bernardi v.
City Council (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 426 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 3471 (Bernardi) is misplaced. In
Embarcadero, the court found a municipal improvement district lacked standing to
challenge a tax allocation among the county and various special districts, and also that
the action was barred by the statute of limitations because the tax allocation was an
intermediate step in an annexation that had been approved in a validation action and
had become conclusive. In Bernardi, appellants city and redevelopment agency
acknowledged that a 1977 stipulated judgment validating a redevelopment plan was
binding and conclusive, but sought to modify provisions capping the tax dollars
allocated to the project and restricting debt to finance the project, claiming those
provisions did not concern the "validity" of the plan. The Court of Appeal concluded
there was no jurisdiction in 1995 to modify the judgment, holding the fiscal cap and debt
deadline provisions of the 1977 validating judgment were "integral parts thereof and
therefore are as binding and conclusive as the validating provision therein." (Bernardi,
supra, at P. 437, italics omitted.)
We think it is obvious that nothing in Embarcadero or Bernardi supports the proposition
that the validation statutes bar plaintiff's challenge to the settlement agreement (or the
stipulated judgment) in this case. The terms of the settlement are far afield from the sign
fee ordinance that was the subject of the validation action. The settlement agreement
allows real parties to modernize offsite signs by altering them with digital displays, in
contravention of the 2002 sign ban that would otherwise prevent such alterations; these
and many other settlement provisions exempting real parties from municipal regulations
have nothing at all to do with the validity of the sign fee ordinance.
Unlike the case in Embarcadero, the challenged settlement provisions are not an
"intermediate step" without which the sign fee ordinance could not be validated. (See
Embarcadero, supra, 88 Cal.AppAth at pp. 786, 790.) Unlike the case in Bernardi, none
of the challenged settlement provisions concern the validity of the sign fee ordinance;
none of the challenged provisions is "inextricably intertwined with the validating
language" of the stipulated judgment, or "part and parcel of the validating judgment"
(Bernardi, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 438) — indeed, there is no "validating language"
in the stipulated judgment, and there is no "validating judgment."
932*932 Plaintiff chose not to challenge the sign fee ordinance in the Vista action (and
does not do so in this lawsuit). Plaintiff was not required to have done so in order to
challenge the terms of a settlement (or stipulated judgment) that goes far beyond
matters that were the legitimate subject of a validation action — a judgment that neither
validates nor invalidates the sign fee ordinance and does not by its terms purport to bind
third parties. In short, real parties' effort to characterize the stipulated judgment in this
case as inextricably intertwined with the sign fee ordinance and as similar to the one in
Bernardi is entirely without merit. The validation statutes do not prevent this lawsuit.
b. Legal principles barring collateral attack on a judgment do not apply.
Next, real parties make an elaborate argument to the effect that, because Judge Dau
had fundamental jurisdiction in the Vista action to enter the stipulated judgment, plaintiff
may not "collaterally attack" the stipulated judgment. They point to cases stating the
well-established proposition that a litigant "may not collaterally attack a final judgment
for nonjurisdictional errors." (E.g., Estate of Buck 0994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1846, 1854 [35
Cal.Rptr.2d 4421 [""'If a judgment, no matter how erroneous, is within the jurisdiction of
the court, it can only be reviewed and corrected by one of the established methods of
direct attack.""'].) That principle does not apply here.
(3) First, plaintiff was not a litigant in the Vista action, and had no notice of the
settlement agreement or its terms. Under those circumstances, there was no avenue by
which plaintiff could have or should have used "one of the established methods of
direct attack""' on the judgment. (Estate of Buck, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1854,
citations omitted.) Second, plaintiff does not purport to challenge the judgment; its claim
is that the city acted beyond its authority when it entered into a settlement agreement,
of which plaintiff had no notice, exempting real parties from numerous provisions of the
municipal code. Nonparties cannot be deprived of the right to challenge illegal municipal
action simply because the parties to a settlement put those terms into a stipulated
judgment. The legality of the settlement agreement was not adjudicated in the Vista
action; in Bernardfs language, the judgment incorporating the settlement terms "was the
product of a stipulation among the parties in which the trial court acquiesced, rather
than a judicial determination as to the [settlement agreement's] validity...." (Bernardi,
supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 437.) In short, the prohibition on collateral attacks on a
judgment simply has no application to this lawsuit.
In a related argument, real parties contend that one superior courtiudge may not
overrule another. (Ford v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 737, 933*933 741-
742 [233 Cal.Rptr. 6071.) Real parties say Judge Dau "impliedly" concluded the
settlement was not an ultra vires act by the city, "made his own binding determination
as to the validity of the Settlement Agreement and entered judgment accordingly," and
Judge Green "supplant[ed] Judge Dau's ultra vires ruling...." Again, we disagree, both
on the facts and the law. While Judge Dau addressed ultra vires arguments in
connection with Vista's stipulated settlement, and real parties assert their settlement
was modeled on the Vista settlement, the fact remains that Judge Dau did not
adjudicate the ultra vires issue in connection with real parties' settlement — indeed, no
one, so far as the record shows, objected to the settlement on that ground. And, as
plaintiff points out, it is difficult to conceive how plaintiff or anyone else could have
objected to the settlement agreement without knowing about it.
And, in any event, we agree with Judge Green that it was beyond the trial court's power
to enter a stipulated judgment adopting the terms of a settlement agreement that was
ultra vires or otherwise exceeded the scope of the city's authority. (Cf. Welsch v.
Goswick (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 398, 412 [181 Cal.Rptr. 7031 (conc. opn. of Staniforth,
Acting P.J.) ["In general, stipulated judgments fail if they enforce illegal agreements."].)
c. There is no merit to the claim plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative
remedies.
The basis for plaintiff's standing to sue in this case was its status as a property owner
injured by the settlement agreement. Plaintiff owned a sign on Pico Boulevard, near one
of the signs real party Clear Channel was able to digitize, under the settlement
agreement, without the public hearings otherwise required. Real parties contend there
was an administrative remedy available to redress plaintiff's injury — that under the
municipal code, plaintiff could have challenged the modernization permit the city issued
for Clear Channel's Pico Boulevard sign. (The municipal code allows an administrative
appeal to challenge "determinations of the Department of Building and Safety where it is
alleged there is error or abuse of discretion in any order, interpretation, requirement,
determination or action made by the Department....") (LAMC, § 12.26(K).)
We need not linger over a discussion of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Plaintiff challenged the legality of the settlement agreement, not the
issuance of the particular permit that gave plaintiff standing to challenge the
settlement agreement. As the trial court observed, real parties cite no authority
requiring a party to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging an illegal
government contract, "or any administrative avenue by which [plaintiff] could have
challenged the Settlement Agreement." In any event, it would have been futile for
plaintiff to pursue an administrative remedy.
934*934 As the trial court observed, the city considered itself bound by the terms of the
settlement agreement "to issue the permits to [real parties] for their digital billboards,
including the one on Pico [Boulevard]." The settlement agreement — and the stipulated
judgment — expressly state that the city "will not voluntarily assist" (or "shall not
voluntarily assist") any third party challenge to the settlement agreement, or to the
judgment, "or to any application for permits or approvals under" the settlement or
judgment, and that the city would not "take any position adverse to [real parties] in
connection with such third -party challenge." Under these circumstances, we agree
with the trial court it would have been futile for plaintiff "to administratively
challenge permits issued by the City under an agreement that the City voluntarily
entered and which purports to bind the City to issue those very permits."
Real parties point out that, since the settlement agreement, at least four administrative
appeals have been filed by others seeking review of permits issued to or requested by
real parties for the maintenance and modernization of old signs, and in two of the three
appeals that went forward (Clear Channel withdrew its application in one case), the
director's delegate ruled in favor of the challenger. But as real parties themselves note,
those adverse decisions related to regulations "not at issue in [plaintiff's] petition."
Moreover, the three appeals that real parties point to were decided after Judge Green's
invalidation of the settlement agreement. As the trial court observed, "[w]ith the
protections of the Settlement Agreement gone, the City's administrative hearings would
no longer be a futile exercise...."
In sum, plaintiff correctly observes that the outcome of any administrative
challenge was "contractually preordained." That being so, we can think of no greater
exercise in futility, and consequently the exhaustion doctrine, even if otherwise
applicable, does not apply here.
d. The trial court did not err in finding the settlement agreement was an invalid,
ultra vires act.
10
The trial court concluded that the settlement agreement allowed the city and real
parties to circumvent the _-ggeneral ban in the municipal code on alterations to
existing offsite skins. (See LAMC, former § 14.4.4(B)l1, § 12.21 (A)7(0.) And,
because land use regulations involve the exercise of police power, and "the
government may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in the
future" (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17
Cal.3d_ 785, 800 [132 Cal. Rptr. 386, 553 P.2d 5461 (Avco)), the city's agreement to do
so was ultra vires. The trial court was correct.
935*935 (4) The legal authorities are clear. Avco stated the applicable principle. In
Avco, a new land use requirement (a permit from the coastal zone commission) was
enacted before the developer had obtained a building permit for a project, but after the
developer had performed pre -permit construction work. Avco held a developer had no
vested right to complete a project before building permits were issued. (Avco, supra, 17
Cal.3d at pp. 788, 791, 793, 796.) In rejecting an estoppel argument (based on an
agreement between the developer and the county permitting the development of the
tract in accordance with planned community zoning, regulations and a tract map), Avco
said that the government "may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in
the future," and "even upon the dubious assumption that the [agreement] constituted a
promise by the government that zoning laws thereafter enacted would not be applicable
to [the tract], the agreement would be invalid and unenforceable as contrary to public
policy." (Id. at p. 800.)
Perhaps the most pertinent of the authorities following Avco is Trancas Property
Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.AppAth 172 [41 Cal.Rptr.3d 2001
(Trancas), where the court found a settlement agreement between a city and a
developer "intrinsically invalid because it includes commitments to take or refrain
from regulatory actions regarding the zoning of Trancas's development proiect,
which may not lawfully be undertaken by contract." (Id. at pp. 180-181.) In Trancas,
the court identified two unacceptable provisions of the settlement: the city guaranteed
that the proposed development "would not be blocked by future zoning," and that
the developer would not be required to comply with zoning density restrictions,
existing or future. (Id. at p. 179.) The Trancas court said that the "promise to abjure
legislative zoning action was unlawful," citing Avco. (Trancas, at p. 181.) As for the
exemption from density requirements, the court said: "it rather plainly constitutes
agreement that the development need not comply with density limitations different from
the density set forth in the [developer's] covenant." (Ibid.) The court observed that the
exemption "functionally resembles a variance," a departure from standard zoning that
requires administrative proceedings and public hearings, and "[c]ircumvention ... by
contract is impermissible." (Id. at p. 182 [settlement agreement gave Trancas a "red
carpet" around future density requirements].)
Nothing distinguishes Trancas from this case. At bottom, real parties rely on one
proposition in their insistence that the settlement agreement was not a surrender of the
police power. Real parties contend that, so long as the settlement "reserves the
municipality's right to enact new laws in the future and apply them to the settling party,"
11
the city has not "surrender[ed] its control over its police power." Real parties rely on
several cases to illustrate this "critical distinction" between a city's "permissible
agreement to constrain its conduct and an impermissible, ultra vires agreement in which
the municipality surrenders or abnegates control of its police power." (Italics omitted.)
936*936 But real parties misread the import of these cases. None of them stands for the
proposition that a city may agree to exempt settling parties from current municipal
ordinances prohibiting certain conduct, so long as the city makes no explicit promise to
refrain from enacting future legislation that would subject settling parties to those
prohibitions. (See, e.g., Morrison Homes Corp. v. City of Pleasanton (1976) 58
Cal.App.3d 724, 734 [130 Cal.Rptr. 1961 [when city breached promise to provide sewer
connections, large-scale home developer could enforce annexation agreements
because annexed lands were to be developed in accordance with the city's master plan
and ordinances, and developer paid sewer connection fees as fixed by ordinance or
agreement]; Santa Marqarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd.
of Supervisors (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 233 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 7401 [upholding
development agreement between county and developer that, among other things, froze
zoning on the property for up to five years; the zoning freeze was not a surrender or
abnegation of county's land use regulation function where county had authority to enter
into contracts to carry out that function, the project had to be developed in
accordance with the county's _-ggeneral plan, the county had to approve detailed
building plans, the county retained discretionary authority in the future, and the zoning
freeze was of limited duration and preserved future options].)
Without indulging in a discussion of all the cases on which real parties rely, none
involves a settlement agreement that gives the settling parties an exemption from
ordinances currently in effect. They all involve whether or not the municipality has
agreed to refrain from legislating in the future. This is not such a case. This is a case
where the settlement agreement purports to exempt the real parties from a host of
currently existing ordinances and regulations.
Real parties then fall back on their claim that the 2002 sign ban (and, presumably, the
list of other code provisions and ordinances from which the settlement agreement
exempts real parties) did not in fact restrict the modernizations and repermitting allowed
under the settlement agreement. (In other words, the 2002 sign ban never did prohibit
the alteration of signs by adding digital displays, so (one must assume) real parties, and
others, were always at liberty to do so.)
We cannot agree. The 2002 sign ban expressly prohibited offsite signs, and stated:
"This [prohibition] shall also apply to alterations or enlargements of legally existing off-
site signs." (L.A. Ord. No. 174547, § 2.11.) We do not see how the language could be
plainer, or how the prohibition could conceivably be construed to exclude from its scope
an alteration consisting of converting an ordinary billboard to one with a digital display.
937*937 Real parties rely most heavily on the city's representation and warranty in the
settlement agreement that "City zoning regulations do not restrict the other
12
Modernizations or re -permitting allowed pursuant to this Agreement, and ... no
Modernization or re -permitting for an existing structure shall be denied based on zoning
regulations." We are not persuaded by the syllogism that the city agreed to permit the
sign alterations, the city said zoning restrictions do not apply, and therefore the
alterations are legal. If the city's warranty were dispositive, there would be no such
thing as an illegal contract. It is for the courts to determine the meaning of statutes or
ordinances at issue in a lawsuit, not the parties to the contract.
(5) In sum, the cases are clear that an agreement to circumvent applicable zoning
laws is invalid and unenforceable. That is precisely what happened here; the
settlement agreement exempted real parties from prohibitions in the 2002 sign ban and
other regulations. Real parties' fundamental premise — that an agreement by the city is
not ultra vires, so long as it does not "contractually exempt a private property from all
future legislative and regulatory control" — is simply wrong. An agreement is ultra
vires when it contractually exempts settling parties from ordinances and
regulations that apply to everyone else and would, except for the agreement,
apply to the settling parties. The trial court's ruling was correct.
e. The trial court correctly granted writ relief and correctly voided the entire
settlement agreement.
Real parties' final argument is that writ relief voiding the entire settlement was improper
because the record does not support it — specifically, they say, the record does not
support either a summary determination in plaintiff's favor or the invalidation of the
entire settlement agreement. They are mistaken.
"Mandamus relief is ... available to 'correct those acts and decisions of
administrative agencies which are in violation of law....' [Citation.]" (Transdyn/Cresci
JV v. City and County of San Francisco 0 999) 72 Cal.App.4th 746, 752 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d
5121.) Indeed, the court in Trancas ordered the trial court to grant a writ of mandate
requiring the city to set aside a settlement agreement. (Trancas, supra, 138
Cal.App.4th at p. 188.)
Real parties assert there are factual issues that must be resolved before an ultra
vires determination may be made. As will be evident from our previous discussion, we
do not agree. Real parties point to evidence from their own company officials to
the effect that the city "never claimed any conflict" between the settlement
agreement and then existing city ordinances; that no one intended to override city
laws; that alteration of offsite signs to digital 938*938 signs was not "clearly or expressly
prohibited"; that the city could change its ordinances in the future (and did in 2008); and
that the record contains disputed questions of fact about plaintiff's right to challenge the
settlement agreement (claims that plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing suit, should
have participated in the reverse validation action, and has unclean hands because it
"regularly failed to comply with City regulations ...").
13
Most of these claims are restatements of contentions already reiected, and we
need not discuss them further. As for the claims of unclean hands and laches the
trial court expressly addressed and rejected both defenses. The trial court found
that the claim of unclean hands cannot be invoked "where, as here, the act
sought to be enjoined is against public policy." (See Jomicra, Inc. v. California
Mobile Home Dealers Assn. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 [90 Cal.Rptr. 6961.) The trial
court rejected the laches defense because of uncontradicted evidence plaintiff did not
know of the settlement agreement until after the time for appeal had passed, and in any
event plaintiff filed suit in federal court within three months after the stipulated judgment
was entered. We see no basis to conclude the trial court erred in rejecting these
defenses.
The claim that the trial court should not have invalidated the entire settlement
agreement is also without merit. This claim, as we understand the argument, is that
plaintiff was affected by only one "modernization" — the one on Pico Boulevard that
gave plaintiff standing to challenge the settlement agreement — and so the trial court
could not order the city "to set aside and cease implementing the Settlement
Agreement with respect to all modernization permits and all replacement permits as
well...." Real parties say there was "no record to support that relief' and the claim for
such relief "was not and is not ripe."
(6) The trial court correctly concluded: "[Tlhe central purpose of the Settlement
Agreement — the exemption of rreal partiesl from zoning laws in return for
certain alleged benefits to the City — is illegal, so the contract as a whole cannot
stand." In addition, the court looked to the severability provision, which states that if any
provision were held invalid or unenforceable, the real parties would be entitled to a
refund of all fees or other moneys paid to the city under the agreement (as the trial
court put it, real parties "are restored to their original position") — so the court
concluded the parties intended the agreement to be an integrated whole. The court did
not err. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 CalAth
83, 124 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 6691 ["If the central purpose of the contract is
tainted with illegality, then the contract as a whole cannot be enforced."].)
939*939 2. Plaintiff's Appeal
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in refusing to revoke all the digital conversion
permits the city issued to real parties under the illegal settlement agreement. Plaintiff
argues that because the settlement agreement was unlawful (conflicting with the 2002
sign ban), the permits issued pursuant to the settlement agreement, which could not
have been issued if the city had enforced the 2002 sign ban against real parties, must,
like the settlement agreement, be void. Plaintiff relies on Horwitz v. City of Los Angeles
(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1356 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 2951 (Horwitz) ("[j]ust as the City
has no discretion to deny a building permit when an applicant has complied with all
applicable ordinances, the City has no discretion to issue a permit in the absence of
compliance"), and Pettitt v. City of Fresno (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 813, 819 [110
Cal.Rptr. 2621 (Pettitt) ("the City cannot be estopped to deny the validity of a permit ...
14
issued or made in violation of the express provisions of a zoning ordinance"). We agree
with plaintiff.
The trial court's view was that, while the settlement agreement was "void for all
purposes," nevertheless the issue of permit revocation was an administrative issue, to
be decided on a sign -by -sign basis. The trial court said: "With the protections of the
Settlement Agreement gone, the City's administrative hearings would no longer be a
futile exercise and the City must apply its codes equally to all. Citizen challenges to the
billboards could be made on an individual basis, with the merits of each determined
independently. The People's elected representatives, and their appointees, are in the
best position to make these determinations and to decide what standards are to be
applied. This Court is also mindful that, in pursuing its course of action over the last few
years, the [real parties] relied on an agreement sanctioned by the Superior Court. Such
reliance is reasonable, even if later this and other courts find that agreement invalid."
Real parties say the trial court was correct (among other reasons) because there was
no evidence in the record "as to whether [the Department] would have (or could have)
issued any given permit even if the City had not entered into the Settlement
Agreement," and real parties should be given an opportunity to argue, in administrative
proceedings for each sign, that the city should be equitably estopped from revoking
their permits. Further, they say, this case "does not involve a situation where companies
are seeking to keep permits that unambiguously were precluded by law at the time they
were issued."
But the trial court held, and we have held, that digital conversions were indeed
unambiguously prohibited by the municipal code at the time of the 940*940
settlement agreement. Moreover, the reasonableness of real parties' reliance on the
settlement agreement, to which the trial court referred, is not the relevant standard
where land use ordinances are involved. Where land use is at issue, "there is no
meaningful distinction between an estoppel claim and a vested right claim...." (Toigo v.
Town of Ross 0998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 321 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 6491 (Toigo) ["estoppel
can be invoked in the land use context in only the most extraordinary case where
the injustice is _-ggreat and the precedent set by the estoppel is narrow"'].)
In this case, real parties say they reasonably relied to their detriment (1) on the city's
express representations in "a heavily -negotiated settlement that was disclosed to the
public, approved by the City at the highest levels, and entered as a stipulated judgment
by a judge of the Superior Court" and (2) on the modernization permits issued by the
Department, as real parties invested in the modernization and entered into long-term
contracts with advertisers. We do not think this reliance and detriment — by parties
who vehemently argued that the city's settlement with Vista was "ultra vires and
void" because it circumvented requirements for public hearings and public notice when
land use decisions are being made — suffice to meet the requirements stated in Pettitt
and other cases. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell 0 970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496-497, 493 [91
Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 4231 ["an estoppel will not be applied against the government if
15
to do so would effectively nullify 'a strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the
public ..."'].)
(7) In short, permits issued in contravention of municipal ordinances are invalid, and
equitable estoppel is available against the government "in only 'the most extraordinary
case where the injustice is great and the precedent set by the estoppel is narrow.'
[Citation.]" (Toigo, supra, 70 Cal.AppAth at p. 321.) This is clearly not such a case. (See
Feduniak v. California Coastal Com. (2007) 148 Cal.AppAth 1346, 1372 [56 Cal.Rptr.3d
5911 ["in land use cases, '"each case [of governmental estoppel] must be examined
carefully and rigidly to be sure that a precedent is not established through which, by
favoritism or otherwise, the public interest may be mulcted or public policy defeated""'].)
Real parties make several other arguments as to why their permits should remain in
place pending administrative hearings on a sign -by -sign basis, but none of them has
merit. They say plaintiff had no standing to challenge any of the other permits issued
under the settlement agreement (other than the one on Pico Boulevard), so it cannot
obtain their revocation as relief. The only authority it cites for this assertion is Summers
v. Earth Island Institute (2009) 941*941 555 U.S. 488 [173 L.Ed.2d 1, 129 S.Ct. 11421.
Real parties do not explain how that case supports their point, and it does not; we
decline to discuss this inapposite authority.
Next, real parties say the trial court was correct because a writ of mandate may not
issue to compel an exercise of discretion, and plaintiff did not show that the city violated
a "clear, present, ministerial duty" in issuing each permit; they say the decision "whether
to revoke any given permit under which all work had been completed" is within the
city's discretion. No authority is cited except the municipal code, which gives the
Department of Building and Safety the authority (not the duty) to revoke permits.
(LAMC, §§ 91.6201.2.3, 98.0601(a)1.) But, as we have seen, the city does not and did
not have the discretion to issue permits that contravened existing municipal ordinances.
(See Horwitz, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1356 ["the City has no discretion to issue a
permit in the absence of compliance" with municipal ordinances].)
Real parties also claim that a judgment invalidating all digital conversion permits would
be improper because the relief would be "grossly excessive in relation to the harm
[plaintiff] claimed," and a court should always strive for "'the least disruptive remedy
adequate to its legitimate task.' [Citation.]" (O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141
Cal.AppAth 1452, 1476, 1480 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 147].) We see nothing "grossly
excessive" in the revocation of illegal permits issued under an illegal settlement
agreement that contravenes municipal ordinances.
Finally, real parties say the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order
permit revocation, because plaintiff told the trial court that it was not seeking invalidation
of all the permits. This misconstrues plaintiff's statements, which merely indicated
its position throughout that it was challen_gin_g the settlement agreement, as
opposed to challen_gin_q a particular permit. In sum, there was no legal basis for the
16
trial court's refusal to revoke digital conversion permits that were issued under an illegal
settlement agreement and in violation of unambiguous municipal ordinances.
DISPOSITION
The order granting plaintiff's motion for judgment on the peremptory writ of mandate is
affirmed to the extent it requires the city to set aside and cease implementing the
settlement agreement entered into with real parties dated September 30, 2006. The
order is reversed to the extent it finds that the issue of permit revocation is an
administrative issue to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the cause is remanded
to the trial court with directions to 942*942 amend its order so that it invalidates all
digital conversion permits issued by the city to real parties under the settlement
agreement. Plaintiff shall recover its costs on appeal.
Rubin, Acting P. J., and Flier, J., concurred.
L11 As stated above, the 2002 sign ban applied to "alterations or enlargements of legally
existing off-site signs." Under the settlement agreement, however, real parties were
"entitled to add to, convert, or rebuild their currently existing Structures to include (i)
digital technology that allows static advertising copy to be changed remotely by
electronic communications rather than by changing the advertising copy on site with
poster sheets, or vinyl ('digital posting' also known as programmable electronic
messages'); (ii) tri -vision Structures (i.e., Structures with moving three -sides slats); (iii)
horizontal or vertical back -lit 30 sheets; or (iv) an additional face on a single -faced
Structure (collectively, 'Modernizations')."
L1 See, for example, section 6.A.i. of the settlement agreement, providing in part that
"the City agrees to recognize the legality of all of [real parties'] Pre -1986 Structures and
to issue permits for such Structures."
j3l LAMC former section 91.6205.18.3 (the inspection program) governed inspection
certificates, and stated in part that a certificate affirming that the offsite sign periodic
inspection fee had been paid would be issued "upon payment of proper fees, and
furnishing of the building permit number, or a copy of the building permit, or a statement
signed under penalty of perjury setting forth the circumstances by which the sign was
acquired and/or installed and/or the date of issuance of the building permit...."
[41 LAMC former section 91.6205.18.9 (the inspection program) provided in part that if
the city determined that an offsite sign was not lawfully erected "then the off-site sign
shall have its sign face removed and replaced with blank panels."
j51 The settlement agreement states that, "[n]otwithstanding anything else in this
Agreement or the Municipal Code, neither Clear Channel nor CBS will be denied a
permit for any Modernization on any existing Structure, or restricted in the use of any
Modernization, ... based on the fact that any Structure to be modernized may otherwise
fall within a prohibition or restriction in any of the following Ordinances, Code provisions,
17
interpretations or memoranda...." The settlement agreement then lists LAMC sections
12.21(A)7(o, 12.21.1(A)10, 12.22(A)23, former section 91.6205.11 (11) "or any other ban
on one or more categories of signage," and former section 91.6205.18, as well as the
2002 sign ban.
M LAMC section 91.6216.4 provides in part that alterations, repairs or rehabilitation of
existing sign and/or sign support structures in excess of 10 percent of the replacement
cost of both the sign and sign support structure may be made, provided the cost does
not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost, there is no increase in sign area or
height and no change in location or orientation of the sign, and "[a]II new construction
shall be as required for a new sign of the same type." (§ 91.6216.4.2.) Alterations,
repairs or rehabilitation that exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of both the sign
and sign support structure "shall comply with all the requirements of this Code." (§
91.6216.4.3.)
IN
/j�'� / �-/.1 J V IYP I
S U M M O N S �Jri (�C �t MFOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA LSO DE LA CORRE)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
CONFORMED COPY
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: ORIGINAL Fit.ED
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): ,>uperior Court of Califarslia
County c)f Los Angeles
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a General Law City; CiTY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (See Att.)�
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTS): Berri io, ��stt2r, ut uii`dw iyiilu :l r�.
pw: audi 4,r m Oepi?4'
SHARON LOVEYS, an individual;
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self -Help Center (www.courtinth.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you maybe eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.iawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self -Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
iAViSO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la come puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a
continuaci6n.
Tone 30 DIAS DE CALENDARiO despues de que le entreguen esta citaci6n y pape/es legales para presentar Una respuesta por escrito en esta
Corte y hater que se entregue Una Copia al demandante. Una Carta o Una Iiamada telef6nica no io protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en is Corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la Corte y mos informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de !eyes de su condado o en la Corte que le quede mos cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida at secretario de la torte
que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso porincumplimiento y la torte le
podra guitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mos advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que )lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
rem!si6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Iucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en ei Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la torte o el
colegio de abogados locales. AViSO: Por ley, la Corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperaci6n de $10,000 o mos de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o Una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la torte antes de que la Corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:
(El nombre y direcci6n de la Corte es): Los Angeles County Superior Court (humero del Caso): J
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direcci6n y el nrimero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o def demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Noel Weiss, 13700 Marina Pointe Drive, #922, Marina del Rey, California 90292 (310) 822-0239
rt C r, - r - : a -, E-96 CAR'N'E
DATE: 0 J ZU10 Clerk, by Deputy
(Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (forth POS -010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS -010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
IsEA�I 1. as an individual defendant.
2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
SUM -100 !Rev. July 1, 20091
3, = on behalf of (specify):
under 0 CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor)
0 CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
other (specify):
0 by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20,465
www.courtinto.ca.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOEL WEISS (SBN 073105)
LAW OFFICES OF NOEL WEISS
13700 Marina Pointe Drive, #922
Marina del Rey, California 90292
Telephone: (31. 0) 822-0239
Facsimile: (310} $2207024 �A'M
Entail: noelu�eiss�.;ca.rr.com
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS ki'�o(Uvv
CONF
supo o! oNAL ° ,oD
co,,,
ounty oof Callfornra
f Lo Anr191ps
ULA' 0
u!►�rrr R. Cada!, Cxe0UltVe (x1jeer/C!e:r'k
Cera. Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON LOVEYS, an individual;
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
General Law City; CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES: and HOES I THROUGH 10,
INCLUSIVE,
Respondents.
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK, a
California Corporation, and ROES 1-10,
inclusive,
Real Parties In Interest.
CASE NO. a S J 6 6 4 9 3
VERIFIED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE
[Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 &,
1094.5; Gov. Code §6550, et seq.:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
§S 17.78.050; 17.90.010]
Petitioner SHARON LOVEYS (hereinafter "Petitioner"), seeks a writ of
mandamus against Respondents and Defendants City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
Verified Pelition for Writ of AkIl7dale
Sharon Loveys et at. vs. Cite or Rancho Palos Verdes et al.
-1-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (sometimes collectively called the "City"), and alleges
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a very innovative provision in its
Zoning Code which mandates the Planning Commission (where appropriate) and the
City Council (where appropriate) to "interpret" land use entitlement actions undertaken
by its Planning Commission and Planning Department either prior to the grant of a land
use entitlement, or after the land use entitlement grant when there is an apparent
inconsistency or ambiguity between the nature and scope of the entitlement grant on the
one hand and the City's zoning code on the other. The implementation of these
"Interpretation Review" provisions are "mandatory" not "discretionary" when properly
initiated by the City, the Planning Commission, the City Council, an applicant for or
recipient of land use entitlement rights, and "interested parties".
' Section 17.78.050 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code mandates an `Interpretation
Review' of approved land use entitlements by the City Council or the body which granted the
entitlement "in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any [land use
entitlement grant in order to] further define or enumerate the conditions of approval [as
needed]. Section 17.78.050(B) sets forth the "mandatory" duties of the Planning Department to
(i) prepare a written report and interpretation of the relevant zoning code provision for
consideration by the body which granted the entitlement, along with (ii) a recommendation on
whether the request for the Interpretation Review is merited in whole, or in part; following which
the body which granted the land use entitlement can concur or modify the Director's
Recommendation in the exercise of its discretion. "Standing" is allowed any "interested person"
along with the applicant or recipient of the entitlement.
Section 17.90.010 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code mandates an `Interpretation
Review' initiated by any "interested party" "in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the
meaning or intent of any provision of [the City's Zoning Code]. Section 17.90.040 requires the
Planning Director to prepare a written interpretation for submittal to the Planning Commission,
following which any "interested person" may request a hearing on the Director's "Interpretation"
which, pursuant to Section 17.90.050(A) must be heard within 30 days of the Hearing Request;
following which its determination may be appealed further to the City Council (Section
17.90.050(D)).
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, inter alia, Petitioner seeks an
order from this Court pursuant to CCP § 1094.5 and CCP § 1085, inter alia, directing the
City to perform the City's ministerial, non -discretionary duties under Section 17.78.050
and Section 17.90.010 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to consider the
Petitioner's "Request for Interpretation Review" of the City Planning Department's
actions under §§ 17.28.010-17.28.040 of the City's Cemetery Zoning Code as it relates to
the land use entitlements granted and proposed to be granted to real party Green IIills
Memorial Park with respect to the development of "Area 2" of the Green Hills Master
Plan in general, and the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in particular.
PARTIES
3. Petitioner is an individual who resides in the Vista Verde Condominium
complex. She owns Unit No. 105 along with her husband. Petitioner is an "interested
party" in that she resides immediately adjacent to the Green Hills Memorial Park and is
directly impacted by the scope, extent, intensity of the future development of the
Cemetery. Petitioner also possesses a vested personal and financial interest in ensuring
that the zoning laws and development standards of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
the State of California (as set out in §§7003, et al. of the California Health & Safety
Code) are respected and enforced.
4. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
respondent CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VER.]DES (hereinafter "City") is a general law
city, duly established as such under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California,
and is located in Los Angeles County, California.
5. Respondent CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VER SES is the City's elected legislative body, and is authorized to decide the land use
and planning issues involved herein.
6. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Real
Verifced Petition for Writ, of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-3-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Party in Interest GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK (hereinafter "Green Hills") is a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. It
owns and operates the Green Hills Memorial Cemetery located within Los Angeles
County.
7. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names of respondents sued herein as DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue said respondents by those fictitious names.
Petitioner will amend this petition to allege their true names and capacities when the
I same have been ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon
alleges, that each of these fictitiously named respondents is in some manner responsible
for the wrongful conduct alleged in this petition, and that these fictitiously named
respondents were, at all times mentioned in this petition, the agents, servants, and
employees of their co-respondents and were acting within their authority as such with the
consent and permission of their co-respondents.
8. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names of real parties sued herein as ROES
1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues said real parties by those fictitious names.
Petitioner will amend the petition to allege their true names and capacities when the same
have been ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that each of these fictitiously named real parties were, at all times mentioned in this
petition, the agents, servants, and employees of their co -real parties and were acting
within their authority as such with the consent and permission of their co -real parties.
9. Petitioner has a substantial interest in ensuring that the City's decisions are
in conformity with the requirements of law, and in having those requirements properly
executed and the public duties of the City enforced.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
General Description of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum Project & Zoning History
10. In 1991, the City adopted a "Master Plan" designed and intended to govern
the development of the Green Hills Memorial Cemetery. In April, 2007, the Green Hills
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
_Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-4-
1
2
3
4
6V
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Master Plan was amended as depicted on Exhibits "I" and "Y' below. The Inspiration
Slope Mausoleum is located in "Area 2" located on the North-East area of the cemetery.
THIS SHEET HAS BEEN UPDATED PER PLANNING
COMMISSION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
2015-04, CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1.2(m)
10
Exhibit 'T'—Green Hills Master Plan, circa 2007, as reflected by Planning Commission Resolution 2015-
09, which has not been lawfully modified as to "Area 2".
C70 gie N,!-- n
fel
a e�
a
�.,.czs,ac�oyiz.`rzna.a:....,o,=ra�if aaat�
Exhibit "2" — Google Map of Green Hills Cemetery... Prior to Commencement of Construction of
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in "Area 2"... Photo is from approximately 2013.
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4MNP' Cin�gi v IW"%a-7-111;rlr;- _Iil Ci- VR ry 4..z_.7.CT _Yt%rI It4JrsCc ii Fri %inC%T;I IImis
Exhibit "3" — Close -Up of "Area 2" — Location of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as depicted on the Green
Hills Master Plan.
11. The Master Plan Submittal of Green Hills for "Area 2" (Inspiration Slope),
as adopted by the City Council in April, 2007, contained the following description of the
"Inspiration Slope Mausoleum" (Project) for "Area 2" as depicted on Page (iii) of its
"Master Plan Submittal Package" received February 20, 2007, as follows:
AREA 2 INSPIRATION SLOPE
2.05 Acres Total Development
One Story Mausoleum
2800 crypt spaces / niches to be determined
Building height per Resolution No. 91-7
Ground Burials
388 Single Depth lawn Crypts
1720 Double Depth Lawn Crypts
Family Estates
48 Family Estates (8 — 12 capacity)
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-6-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. No provision was made or contemplated where, within the boundaries of
"Area 2", there would be "interments' on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum;
nor was it contemplated that unused "vaults" would be "stored" on the roof of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum under soil placed on the roof (presumably to create
"artificial" "ground cover" used to support the installation of a "lawn" to be maintained
on the roof). The fact that such was contemplated as far back as October, 2013, is
reflected on Exhibits "4" to "6" which depict the architect's video "rendering" of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum depicting the Mausoleum's "grass" roof -tops.
Exhibit "4" — Rendering of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum looking East along North Terrace Drive
which depicts prospective "roof -top interments" under a green "lawn" when the same has never been
authorized under the Green Hills Master Plan —Taken from U -Tube Video dated October 13, 2013.
2 "Interment" is a "term of art" under the City's zoning law and the State Cemetery Law. Under
H&S §7009, "Interment" means "the disposition of human remains by entombment or burial in a
cemetery." "Burial" means the process of placing human remains in a grave." (H&S §7013)
Under H&S §7014, a "grave" means a space of earth in a burial park, used, or intended to be
used for the disposition of human remains. "Entombment" means the process of placing human
remains in a crypt or vault (H&S §7012). A "Mausoleum" is "a structure or a building for the
entombment of human remains in crypts or vaults in a place used, or intended to be used and
dedicated for cemetery purposes." (H&S §7005). "Crypt" or "Vault" means a space in a
mausoleum of sufficient size, used or intended to be used to entomb uncremated remains." (H&S
§7015). Therefore, the use of the term "ground burials" by Green Hills and the City (in the Green
Hills Master Plan) is both ambiguous and misleading because it implies the placement of human
remains in the earth (i.e. "earth interments" as used in the City's Cemetery Zoning Code),
whereas Green Hills seeks to use the term to apply also to "artificial" "grounds" created or
"manufactured" on the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum which Green Hills describes in its
promotional material as an "open (roof -top) terrace" for "ground burials". (See Artist Rendering
of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (Exhibits "4-6) depicting the roof as containing green lawns;
together with the photos showing the placement (supposedly for storage) of vaults on the roof of
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum this past year which are covered over with soil (Exhibits 7-8).
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Opp
�) fl:zotxst
Exhibit "S" — Broader View of Rendering of inspiration Slope Mausoleum from
U -Tube Dated October 13, 2013 Looking East Showing Provision for Interments on
The Roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum
F
74 ,.
Exhibit "6" — Rendering of Inspiration Slope Mausuleum from U -Tube Promotional Video
Dated October 13, 2013 looking East from Corner of Terrace Drive & Long View Drive
Verifred Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et all. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. Exhibits "7" and "8" below are photographs of the installation of vaults on
the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (ostensibly for "storage" (unauthorized under
the Green Hills Master Plan)) buried under soil which has, without authorization, been
used to support what is anticipated to be ground cover to be later installed (again without
authorization under Green Hills Master Plan).
Exhibit "7" - Photo taken in November,2016, showing roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum with vaults being
"buried" under imported soil which was never authorized to be imported or used for this purpose under the
Green Hills Master Plan.
Exhibit "8" — Photo taken on November, 2016, depicting the use of soil to "bury" unused
Vaults on the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in contravention of the allowed use under
The Green Hills Master Plan of soil or the allowed use under the Green Hills Master Plan of
roof -top space on the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for "vault storage"
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Petitioner Initiates Request for Interpretation Review
14. On July 21, 2016, Petitioner initiated a "Request for Interpretation Review"
which request was received by the City and the filing fee paid. The request, reproduced
below as Exhibit "9" sought an "Interpretation Review" with respect to the following:
a. Whether "roof -top interments' are pennissible under the RPV Cemetery Code;
b. Whether Green Hills Master Plan contemplates the use of the roof of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue for "roof -top interments";
c. If so, whether Green Hills has applied for and procured a conditional use permit
under the City's zoning code allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum as a venue for "roof -top interments";
d. If not, whether Green Hills is required to procure a conditional use permit
allowing for the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue for the
intennent of human remains;
e. Whether the storage of unused vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum is permitted under the Green Hills Master Plan, or whether the Master Plan
has to be amended to allow for the same;
f. Whether the City Manager has the right, power, and authority to act without City
Council authorization to allow for the unpermitted use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum as a venue to "store" unused vaults and then to cover over the unused vaults
with soil and landscaping.
The specifics of Petitioner's Request are set out below as Exhibit "9" to this Writ
Petition.
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Lovevs, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-10-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUF.,ST FOR IA7L'RPRET4 TION RE,i
PURSUANT TO RC
PV MUNIIPAL COQKJ17.7$tQSQ & '96.(��f(i,PAENT
TO: CITY OFRANCHO PALOS VERDES — CITY CLERK
FROM: NOEL WEISS (COUNSEL FOR SHARON LOVEYS)
DATED: JULY 18, 2016
"the City Manager's grant of permission to Green Hills Memorial Park to store
Vaults on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum was communicated in a letter
dated June 28, 2016, to Green I lips Memorial Park, a copy ol'which is attached to this
Request for Interpretation Review.
The allowance to Green Hills of the right to use the roof' -top of the Inspiration
Slope Mausoleum to store 600 vaults has created an ambiguity and uncertainty with
respect to (i) the scope and meaning of the Green Hills Master Plan (i.e. whether such use
is authorized under the terms of the Conditional Use Permit initially granted in February,
1991, as modified by the Planning Commission in April, 2007,and then further modified
by the City Council in November, 2015). and (ii) whether such roof -top (Storage) use of
the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is even contemplated or permitted Linder the Cemetery
Zoning Law of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (as, set out in Chapter 17,28
(§§17.28.010-17.25.040)).
Baetcgqulld Pacts.
1. lJnder the Master Plan in 1hvor of Green Hills Memorial Park approved by the
City or Rancho Palos Verdes in Fcbruary, 1991, and as later amended first by the Planning
Commission in April, 2007, and later by the City Council in -.November, 2015, no
`The November, 2015 CityCOLInCil action did not deal specifically with any issues
attendant to the development of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, Rather, the City
Council's focus in overruling the views of its prior City Attorney and the Planning
Commission was solely directed to the contentions set out in Green Bills' appeal of what
Green I fills contended Nvas an adverse Planning Commission determination that it -,vas
necessary for Green Hills to apply for and procure (i) an (after the fact) variance 1rorn the
development standard incorporated into the City's Zoning Code requiring the building
envelope of'the Pacific Terrace Mausoleurn to be set back 40' from the (southern)
property line of the ad ' jaccnt Vista Verde condominium complex-, and (6) to procure an
(after the [act) conditional use permit allowing for the interment of human remains on the
roof ofthe Pacific Tcrrace Mausoleum (a use never specifically contemplated by the
Planning Commission or staff in April, 2007, when the Green Hills Master Plan and
Conditional Use Permit were amended).
Exhibit "9"- Page One
Verified Petition for Writ. qI'Mandate
Sharon Lovers, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
- I I -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conditional use right or permission was given to Green Hills allowing g uz use of the roof-
top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoluern for any purpose berond that of serving as a roof
atop the inausoleum Structure.
2. Green I lilts has never formally applied for an amendment to its Master Plan
Specifically allowing for such use (i.e. as either vault storage or as allowing for the
interment of human remains on the roof -top of the Inspiration .Slope Uausoleutn),- nor has
Green I fills applied for a special permit allowing for such use.
3. Instead, beginning in or about January, 2016, and continuing through Julie 28,
2016, Doug Willmore, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager, and representatives ol'Green
I In
Hills Memorial Park engaged in a series of oral and written discussions premised on the
unsubstantiated and undocumented notion that the current (ireen Hills Master Plan
"contemplates the possibility of roof -top burials" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum (while omitting any reference to the allowance or permitting of "roof=top
Vault Storage").
Baelfk,round Lan,:
§ 17.28.030(f1.) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code states that a conditional use
permit is required for the following use,,-, relevant to this Request for Interf)relation
Revieiill: (i) Burial Park for earth interments, (ii) Mausoleums for vault or crypt
interments, or (iii) Columbari U1,11 for cinerary interments2. While the terms "Burial Park"
and "Mausoleurn" are not defined in the City's zoning code, California state law provides
the following definitions pertinent to the requested Interpretation Revie1v of Mt-.
Willi-nore's unratified, unauthorized action in purporting to grant Green Hills ]land use
entitlement rights which have never been formally applied for, and for which no formal
approval by the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, or the City Council has
been procured:
1. "A burial park rneans a tract qfIand for the burial of human remains in the
ground. used or intended to be used, and dedicated for cemetery purposes". (§7003(1)(1)
of the Health & Safety Code) (Emphasis Added).
Thus, only the following three identifiable categories of allowable "interments- are
created under the City's zoning law: (1) Earth interments; (2) Vault (or eryj)t) interments.
and (3) Cinerary interments, No category is created or stated which is identified as "roof-
top interments, or "roof -top burials"; nor is there any referenced category created under
the RPV City Cemetery Zoning Code for "ground burials" or "above -ground burials"; or
any formal legal category which otherwise makes use of the term "burials" when
describing the type of uses permitted under the provisions of the City's Cemetery Zone.
Exhibit "9" - Page Two
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loyevs, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-12-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"A inausoleum means a structime or building "r tltc° c tttvttthtttc�ttt of human
remains in a place used, or intended to be used, and dedicated for
cemetery purposes". (I1&S Code §7005) (Emphasis Added).
3. "E.ntombnzenf means the process of placing human remains in a crypt or vault".
([-]&-S Code §7012) (Emphasis Added)
4. "(_'t.YPt or vault means a space in a mausoleum of sufficient size, used or intended to
be used, to entomb uncremated human remains". (H&S Code §7015). (Emphasis Added)
5. "Interment mean.-, the disposition of human remains by entombment or burial it] a
cemetery. . . ." (II&S Code §7009).
6. "Burialmean the process of placing human remains in agrave". (II&S Code §7013
(Emphasis Added),
7. "Grave means aspace of earth in a burial park, used, or intended to be used, for the
disposition of human remains."' (I I&S Code §7014)(Emphasis Added).
As such, State Law does not explicitly make provision for the interment of human
remains on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. In fact, it can be contended
that state law contemplates that "graves" and "burials" solely involve the placement of
human remains in the earth (below—round (or below grade))- while Mausoleum use
contemplates the placement Of human remains inside a building or structure built for that
purpose. Nothing in state law appears to contemplate or envision use of the roof of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue for "burials" (as defined under California state
law).
I'lle City's Zoning Code does not specifically define the terms "intertnew", "earth
interment", or "below -grade interme?Wl (the latter t
erm being used in § 17.2,040(A) of
the City"s Municipal Code (which establish" sct-back standards as it draws a distinction
bet -ween the set -back distances far ""structures" on the one hand, and "below -grade
interments" on the other)). Nor (toes the City's Zoning Code make any definitional
reference to the terms "burials", "ground burials", "roqfltop burials", or "interments".
1'quating (by mere implication) the term "burials" with "interments" absent any clear,
specific definitional structure identified within the City's Cemetery Zoning Code creates
needless ambiguity and confusion; and in the absence of the needed clarification called for
by this Interpretation Review Request, avoidable confusion will exist in how the
provision,, of the Green Hills Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit are to be applied
and enforced; all of which can lead to controversy, litigation, uncertainty, and a lack of
predictability; and all of which is needlessly prejudicial to the City, Green Hills, PTV
citizens, and the Vista Verde Condominium owners,
Exhibit "9"- Page Three
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et a]. vs. City ,of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-13-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The City's Cemetery Zoning Code (and specifically § I 7.28.030(A -G)) does not
identify any specific category allowing or permitting the creation or maintenance of "roof=
topintermentsites".1 as a lawfully pcn-nitted "conditional use." Instead, RPV Municipal
-1-he city's current practice in using the word "burials" as a substitute for the tens
"interments" is a misnomer and is confusing and ambiguous. ']*his is because the term
"burial" is defined under state law but not under the RPV Cemetery Zoning Code. As so
defined under state law, "burial" does not equal "interment". Therefore; it cannot
reasonably be said that the "burial" of'human remains automatically or logically
contemplates the "interment" of human remains on the roof of a structure. For Green I fills
or the City Manager to state or imply to the contrary creates confusion, ambiguity, and
Hick of clarity; all ol'which are supportive of this Interpretation Review Request. The
City's Zoning Code speaks only in terms of "earth internients" and "below -grade
neither of which are consonant with the notion of"roof interment ". A
clarification is thus needed as to whether, under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code, it is
lawful to inter human remains on the roof ol'the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (versus
inter human remains inside the -four walls" of the Inspiration Slope Mausolcurn). The
placement of "fill", "sod", "soil", or "grass" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausolcurn also embraces clear and obvious limitations and issues attendant to the
broader public health, welfare, and safety. With the except -ion of [fie Pacific Terrace
Mausoleum, nowhere else in California has a mausolCUm, roof -been used as a venue for
the inlerjrjejjt of human remains. The requested Interi)retathm Review also impacts other
aspects of the Green Hills Master Plan such as (i) the total [lumber of authorized
-Interments" to be allowed Linder the Master Plan (i.e. are "roof -top interments, even if
authorized, included in the total number of "interments" allowed Under Green Hills Master
Plan); (it) where "Jill" is to be stored and the limitations on where "Fill" generated from
earth interments is to be stored, and (iii) where, within the geographical boundaries ofthe
Green I lills Master Plan are vaults, crypts, and other material items permitted to be stored.
There is a portion ot'the state Health & Safety Code which imposes strict requirements on
how a Mausoleum is to be built (i.e. Health & Safety Code §§9600-9603, and §§9625-
9647). No reference exists in those statutes to the use of a structure's roof for the
interment of human remains. Until this Interpretation Revieiv Request has been acted
upon. the City's Planners, the City Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City
Attorney, and the City Council should cease and desist from using the tem "roof -top
byria1v "or ",ground hurials" when referring to the Green Hills Master Plan. This includes
the (misleading (by omission)) use of the term "rooftop burials" in Mr. Willillorc's letter
of June 28, 2016, particularly when the focus of the letter is supposed to be limited to
Creen Hills' use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a venue to store 600
vaults- Accordingly, the Mal) of the Green lAills Master Plan prepared and maintained by
the City's Planning Department (where it is conlernplated that the interment of human
remains is to occur on the roofofthe inspiration Slope Mausolcurn) should be revised to
remove all references to "ground burials" as coriffising, ambiguous, and inconsistent with
both state law and the City's Cemetery Zoning Code. instead, (i) the words "earth
Exhibit "T - Page Four
Vered Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-14-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code § 17.28.030(f1) gives the "Director" discretion to permit "such other uses as the
Director deems to be similar and not more intensive" (Willi such determination being
exercised following the submission of formal application).
'Phis lack of definitional clarity with regard to the if*, when, and under what
conditions "roqf-'toji interments" or "roof -'top vault storage" are to be allowed under the
City's Cemetery Zoning Code has resulted in an ambiguity which necessitates that the
provisions of lUIV Municipal Code § 17.78.050 (Interpretation Procedure for Approved
Applications) be invoked to further define,, clarify, and enumerate the conditions
incorporated into the current Conditional Use Permit possessed by Green Hills under its
Master Plan, and whcthcr the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to either
(1) store vaults, or (i0 inter human remains engenders and raises new issues never
contemplated by the City when it initially approved the Green hills Master Plan in
F'ebruary, 1991, or amended it in April, 2007 (Planning Commission), or when the City
Council acted in November, 2015, to "clarIFY' certain matters attendant to the Green I lilts
Master ])Ian (as per Green Hills' appeal to the City Council) and thus formally amend the
same with regard to the matters incorporated in Green Hills' appeal (and without benefit
interment" (where appropriate) should be substituted to identify those geographic areas on
the Map MlCrO human remains are placed in the earth (or In the ground: i.e. below (earth)
grade); and (ii) the words "roof -lop interments- should be used to identify those structures
where (assurning it is otherwise lawful) human remains are to be interred on the roofs of
one or more of the Mausoleums identified on the Map.
This aligns with the precise issues raised by this Interpretation Review Request; namely:
(1) Whether "roof -top interments", are permissible under the RPV Cemetery Codc,
(2) Whether the (11reen Hills Master Plan contemplates the use of tile Inspiration
Slope Mausoleum as a venue where "roqf-top interments" are to occur;
(3) (Ifso), whether Green Hills has applied for and procured a conditional use
permit allowing lor the use of the roof ofthe inspiration Slope Mausoleum for the
interment of human remains;
(4) (If not), whether Green Hills is required to procure a conditional use permit
allowing for the sank after a formal hearing, consistent with the City's Zoning Code;
(5) Whether Green Hill-, is required to apply for and procure a conditional use
permit to store vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in advance, of its
being penniticd to do so: and
(6) Whether the City Manager on his own initiative possesses the right, power., and
authority to authorize the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as it venue
on wh I ch to store vaults (be it with or without any ft.m-nal contractual indemnity) absent
Green I lills having first applied for and procured either (i) a temporary permit, or (ii) a
conditional use permit, or both, allowing for such specific use of the roof of the
inspiration Slope Mausoleum beyond that of being simply used as a roof.
Exhibit "9" Page Five
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-15-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Green Bills ever having made formal application to amend its Conditional Use Pennit
or procure a variance from the set --back requirements referenced in the development
standards incorporated into the City's Cemetery Zoning Code). This formal Requestfor
Interpretation Review is also appropriate under Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal
Code (Interpretation Procedure) concerning whether the City's current zoning code even
allows roof -top use of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum for purposes of either vault
storage or the (roof -top) interment of human remains.
igestions Prevenle(
1. Is ua use of all or any portion of the roof of the inspiration Slope Mausoleum
for either vault storage or for the interment of human remains currently permitted under
the (Green Hills) Master Plait and Conditional Use Permit? if so, how and pursuant to
what provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is such use (vault storage or
interment of .human remains) permitted?;
2. if not, should Green Hills be required to apply for and procure a conditional use
permit (after hearing and Notice) amending its Master Plan to allow for the use of the roof
of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a storage venue for unused burial vaults?,
3. If not, whether Green Ilills should be required to apply for and procure a
conditional use perinit (alter Ifearing and Notice) amending its Master Plan to allow for
the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum as a space within the Green Hills
Memorial Cemetery for the permanent interment of human remains?,
4. If not, whether Green [fills should be required to apply for and procure a special
(temporary) use permit allowing Cor the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum for any other purpose other than solely as a rooP,'
5. Whether Doug Willmore, acting in his capacity as City Manager, is possessed of
the right, power, or authority to unilaterally grant special pennission to Green Hills
allowing far the use of the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mat1S0leunt for any purpose other
than as a roof, in the absence of Green Hills having made formal wha nce written
application to the City to amend the Green Hills Master Plan and Conditional Use Pennit?
Exhibit 9 — Page 6
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City Refuses to Process Petitioner's Request for Interpretation Review
15. On September 2, 2016, the City Attorney for Rancho Palos Verdes, acting
without the authorization or consent of the City Council detennined that the City would
decline to process Petitioner's Interpretation Review Request premised on the notion that
the existence of pending litigation over the legal efficacy of the land use entitlements the
City granted to Green Hills with respect to the construction and operation of the Pacific
Terrace Mausoleum located in "Area 11" somehow constituted an "election of remedies"
by Petitioner that precludes Petitioner's right to an Interpretation Review of the
circumstances attendant to the City's administration of its zoning code and development
standards with regard to the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum located in "Area 2". The City
Attorney's position is set out in the letter directed to Petitioner's counsel reproduced as
Exhibit "10" below. The City Attorney in his letter repeats the misuse of the tenn
"burials" when describing the "non -earth" "interments" which he acknowledges are
contemplated to occur on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum:
Verified Petition, for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Ok n........,-. ... i . . ' t r '
ORA1461, WON: Y LOS ANCLLL ', { WVLRSMC i 1 CLN'[RAL `M1 iCY
;,,eplembei 2,201(1
VIA E-NIAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Noel Weiss, Esq.
Law Offices of Noel Weiss
13700 Marina Pointe Drive #922
Marina Dol Rev, CA 90292
Vin: Electronic Mail and U.S, Mail
Re: Request for code interpretation
Davit4,J,�lksflhe '.S%StvonKtlnriEtnAv9r
cia;er.eaeR awaeorneys.cocl Sulu., 1 no
(849) 250.5409 Irvine, CA 92612
P (949) 223.1170
F (449) 223-11801
Dear 1\/Ir. Weiss:
I write in response to your recent request for interpretation in my capacity as City
Attorney for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In your request under Sections I7.78.00 and
17.90,010 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Nluniciplal Code, you ask that the City Council provide ail
interpretation of (;Teen hills' Nfastcr Plan and Conditional Use Kermit, and the Rancho Palos
Verdes MunicipaI Code, relating to vault storage and rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope
klausoleum, and the extent of the City Manager`s authority to agree to allow storage of burial
vaults on the rool'ofa mausoleum.
Inter �retaiiori I2�tacst
Specifically, you ask the following:'
1. Is the root' of the Inspiration Slope 1\9au,nlcum currently permitted ruiner the
existing, C'(3P for either Vault storap,e or for the interment of human rctnaiiiV If yes, what
provision" in th4 RI'VNIC; allow lin• roollop burials or vault storrlEe?
2. If' fro, is Green I(ills rcquirc(l to amend its "taster Plarl or its CMI) in order to
store vaults or conduct burials ria the roof of the Inspiration Slope 1 Iausoleum roof, or to obtain
u tenaporury Linc pern►it to allow (he roof of the NIZIltsolcul-11 to be ubcd tis anythine, other than a
rool'1
3. May the City Manager authorize storage of vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration
51apc. MMISOIC1.11 , or clot+s such stcirru;e require Gua zunealcina�;nt of the Mristcr I'lrin ;:ind t:t!1'7
1 I am paraplu'asing your questions ]sere.
Exhibit "10" — Page One
Verified Petition for Writ of Mcrndate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-18-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Noel Weiss, rsq.
September 2, 2016
Page 2
Background
Green llills operates Lt memorial park and cetnetery located ill the City'. Green Hills'
operation and development of the memorial park is governed by the 2007 ;Master Plein, including
all later amendments (the Master Plan), and by City Council Resolution No. 2015-12, revising
and amending conditions of approval for Green Hills' Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
amending the Master Plan ((he Resolution), The Master Plan contemplates the construction of
the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in Area 2 of the memorial park, and further contemplutes the
possibility of rooftop burials thereon (Master Plan, p. 2-D). Section. 17.60.050(B) provides that
CUP conditions supmedc zoning regulations.
The CUP's conditions of approval were revised and updated clue to the ongoing
controversy sur7•ounding rooftop burials at another of Green Hills' mausoleums, the Pacific
TerraccAicmonal Terrace Mausoleuin in Area 11.
The Resolution amender{ Green I [ills' CUP, which now provides for an administrative
substantial compliance review so that, except for improvements consistent with the Master Plan
or those ,uhjed to the Planning Commission, all improvements must be reviewed by the Director
of Community Development to determine if they substantially comply with the Nihister Plast
(Condition 1.k.). Condition 11. specifically provides that review of an application for rooftop
burials cern be performed by tile, Director, 'llie Director can, at his or tier discretion, refer a matter
directly to the Planning Commission.
Condition 2 of the CUP provides that tyre 1,61lowint matters Gere directly reviewable by tite
Planning Contnussiorl: (i) tyle construction or modification of mausoleum or other signiiicurit
l)etildinl;, (ii) urry ;;il nificMit change to tile: grading, (iii) any development of a fuhtrc phase of
Green hills wihcre the Nlastcr Plan lits not dcNigmttcd a dcvelopme.nt plan or uses, or (iv) any,
surtcndment to the Master flan.
Thus, Nwhile roollop burials at Inspiration Slope are contemplated in the Master Halt,
Condition Lk, of tlrc CUP flow provides that Green l lills; may not peril}rm such burials prior to
obtaining administrative approval from the Director or the Planning ('01111ASSion, purxu<mt to the,
Reso)ution. This is life City's current position on the matter of rooftop burials, and thi�; is a
matter ol, publ is record.
interpretation Provisions ofthe It1'VMC_
Section 17.78.050 provides, in relevant pari, that:
In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision
granted in accordance with this title, or to further define or enumerate the
conditions of approval of an approved application, an interpretation procedure
01203 0025+3078622
Exhibit "10" — Page Two
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-19-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Noel Weiss. Esq,
September 2, 2016
Page 3
shall be followed whereby the body which took the final action in granting the
original application shall conduct an interpretation review of the decision in
question. ... The interpretation review procedure shall be applied, but trot be
limited to the f011OWink= situ2dions: 2. Interpretations of conditions of
approval... y
Section 17.90.010 provides interpretation procedures for, almnb other things, "cases of
uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of ... Title 17 of this Code,
or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted in the various zoning districts. Said
interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be
limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon."
The interpretation procedures are intended to permit an administrative process to clear tip
vagueness or ambiguity in conditions or the Municipal Code, in order to diminish the potential
for litigation. However, where an interested pare has chosen a litigation route, and where the
City has already provided its position on the issues, it is inappropriate to permit the litigant to
attempt to create an administrative inconsistency to benefit his case.
Istiue Overlap evrlh (he Litigation
C'inTently, you represent the plaintiffs in two separate but related lawsuits against the
City. regarding Green Hills Memorial Park's rooftop burials at the Pacific Terrace Nianrsolcurn 2
Your interpretation request relates to storage of vaults and rooftop burials at Inspiration Slope-.
While (he two matters are distinct, and while vault stor•agc is unique• to Inspiration Slope, there is
significant overlap in the issues presented by the lawsuits and by your request.
5pecilically, YOU urc rcducsting tie City provide an interpretation of whether or not any
portion of Inspiration Slope allows for vault storage or iruernicrit. ori the roof of' The maW.,01Ctnii,
under the, KanCho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the C'aliRrrnia I lealth kind Safety Code, and
Cirecn i fills' Master Plan and CC1P. The Complaint makes similar allegations, f:or cxmtiplc, that
"[n;Joilring in (lie City's zoning circle specifically idlowsx for the interment on the roof of ally
structure within a cenictery[, andl nothing in state law contemplates the interment of human
rcntai m ori rooftops." (Complain(, at 1121, 11,14-16.) ']'lie Writ also complains that Green I fills
was never specifically allowed roof -top burials. (Writ, at j 13, It. 8-12, Sind I'll. 6, 1 141, It. '22-26,
"1 15, 11. 15-19.) The lase that you cite in the Complaint and the Writ is much the same cis what
you cite in the Request for Interpretation, nanicly, definitions in the health & Safety Code and
A Love 's• es
vs al, v. City of ltan ho Palos Verdes et al., Superior Court Case No. BSI 00652
(Petition for 4'l�'rit of'vlandatc and for Declaratory and InCunctive Relief) ("Writ"): Loves el al.
v: Otyv of Rancho Palos i`erdes cit aL, Superior Court Case No. BC629637 (Complaint for
launages, Public quid Private Nuisance Abatement, and Declaratory Rclico ("Complaint"),
it 12 0 3. OC, 25 307962..
Exhibit "10 — Page Three
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-20-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nocl Weiss, Esq.
Septeinber 2, 201 C
Page 4
The City's cemetery zoning ordinance. (Complaint, at JITI 7-12; Writ, at p. 12 fn.0; p. 14 fi.7, pp.
18-23).
In shout, in your letter you engage in a detailed argument relating to tiN.-hat the Master
Plan, CUP, and/or Municipal Code should and should not allow with respect to rooliop burials
and vault storage. In the Writ and the Complaint, you also allege, in part, that rooftop burials are
not permitted by the Municipal Code, the CUP, or the Master Plan. The issue that you are
requesting that the Council decide on anew is the issue that you are litigating. Since you have
chosen that forum to have the issues decided, it is not appropriate for the City Council to engage
in this administrative process at this time. 'These questions will evidently be largely decided by
the court.
The administrative interpretation procedure has been infi,equently used historically, sand
never in this situation, -where the City is in litigation over the same issues. The administrative
process is intended to create a 1=ornn ,--here confusion can be addressed before litigation results;
which appears pointless here. Also, we have not used this process defensively to argue that you
have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We would be happy to engage with you and
perhaps utilize an administrative process should you discontinue the litigation approach, We
also remain willing to pursue mediation should your clients be willing to contribute to the
mediation cost.
As always, please feel free to call should you v6sh to discuss any of the above, or
otherwise wish to consider viable alternatives to litigation.
Very truly yours,
David J, Alcshirc
City Attorney
DJA:cgg.
cc: Doug Willmrn•c, City Manager
Ara M. Nlihrmian, Community Development Director
Christina t3urrows, Assistant City Attorney
01203.0025,307862
Exhibit "10" — Page Four
Verified Petition, for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-21-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. On September 20, 2016, the City Council ratified the City Attorney's
opinion by voting to "Deceive and File" the report made by the City Manager as set out
in Exhibit "11" below:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/20/2016
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to receive and file a report on the City Attorney's
determination regarding a requested Administrative Interpretation Procedure relating to
vault storage and rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file a report on the City Attorney's determination that the requested
Administrative Interpretation Procedure is not appropriate for the vault storage
and rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: NIA
Additional Appropriation: NIA
Account Number(s): NIA
ORIGINATED BY: So Kim, Senior Planner,.:,,-
REVIEWED
lannerx:,,-fREVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager'
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Noel Weiss' letter requesting an Interpretation Procedure (page A-1)
B. City Attorney's letter in response to Noel Weiss' letter (page B-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On July 21, 2016, Mr. Noel Weiss, on behalf of Sharon Loveys, filed a written request
for an "Administrative Interpretation Procedure" pursuant to Sections 17.78.050 and
17.90.010 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) related to vault
storage and rooftop burials at the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum at Green Hills Memorial
Park ("Green Hills'). Specifically, Mr. Weiss' request letter (Attachment A) questions
whether the storage of vaults on the rooftop of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum building
is authorized under the terms of the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Green
Hills; whether such use is permitted under the City's Cemetery (CEM) zoning district;
and the extent of the City Manager's authority to agree to allow such use.
The City Attorney reviewed Mr. Weiss' letter and determined that the issues for which
he is requesting interpretation overlap with the issues that he is raising in two separate
but related lawsuits against the City (Attachment B). As Mr. Weiss has chosen to
litigate, the City Attorney opined that it is not appropriate for the City Council to engage
in the "Interpretation Procedure" at this time, as these matters will evidently be largely
Exhibit "11" — Page One
Verified Petition fol- Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-22-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decided by the court (Attachment B). As a result, Mr. Weiss' "Administrative
Interpretation Procedure" request has been administratively withdrawn and the related
application fees were refunded. It should be noted that the City Attorney's letter
reiterates the City's offer to pursue mediation should Mr. Weiss' clients be willing to
contribute half the mediation cost.
Exhibit "11" — Page Two
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to article VI,
section 10 of the California Constitution and §§1085 and 1094.5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
18. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure §394 in that Respondents are governmental entitles located within the County
of Los Angeles.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
19. Petitioner and others submitted both oral and written objections to the
City's action of September 20, 2016. As such, Petitioner has satisfied all applicable
prerequisites to the seeking of judicial review of Respondents' actions and is left with no
other alternative but to commence the within action prior to the expiration of the 90 day
period within which actions under CCP § 1094.5 must be brought.
20. Petitioner has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy available to her in the
ordinary course of law to redress the claims alleged in this petition. Petitioner and the
public generally will suffer irreparable harm if the City is not required to comply with its
duties and obligations under the law
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST RESPONDENT CITY &
REAL PARTY GREEN HILLS
(Breach of Ministerial Duty in Failing to Process & Initiate
Interpretation Review Procedure)
(Code of Civil Procedure §1085 §1094.5; §17.90.010, et seq. & §17.78.050
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code)
21. Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of
Paragraphs 1 through 20, inclusive, of this petition.
Verified Pelition for Writ, of Mandate
Sharon Lovevs, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-23-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. City has a mandatory, non -discretionary duty to follow its own laws and
legal mandates. Both § 17.78.040(B) and § 17.78.050(A) of the City's Zoning Code direct
and mandate the protocol attendant to the request for an "Interpretation Review" of the
City's zoning code and development standards, either in the abstract where there is an
ambiguity, or "as applied" where there is uncertainty or an ambiguity.
23. By failing to initiate the Interpretation Review requested by Petitioner, the
City is violating its own zoning code.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST RESPONDENT CITY
(Enforcement of Public Records Act — Government Code §6550-§6270.5)
24. On November 1, 2016, Petitioner, through her counsel, made an oral public
records request to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council asking for the following
documents:
a. Copies of all billings from and checks paid by the City to its City Attorney on
account of services rendered in defense of the litigation initiated by the Petitioner in
connection with the litigation commenced by Petitioner against the City and Green Hills
in defense of the Petitioner's challenge to the land use entitlements granted Green Hills
by the City on November 17, 2016 in connection with the development of the Pacific
Terrace Mausoleum; and
b. Copies of any checks submitted by Green Hills to the City in payment and
satisfaction of its indemnity promise to reimburse the City for all costs and fees incurred
by the City in defense of the entitlements.
25. On November 11, 2016, the City responded in writing by denying
Petitioner's request for the invoices received and paid by the City on account of the
services rendered in defense of the foregoing entitlements granted to Green Hills
respecting the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. A true and correct copy of the City's written
response is reproduced below as Exhibit "12":
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-24-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ITY OF I- ANC,I--IO I'ALOS 1/LRDLS
(•)Ff I(;F OF TI IF CITY (;I FRK
Via Email
November 11, 2016
Mr. Noel Weiss
11oelweiss(v7ca.rr. com
Re: Public Records Act Request of November 1, 2016 — City Attorney Invoices and
Requests for Reimbursement from Green Hills
Dear Mr. Weiss,
I am writing regarding your public records request received by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
on November 1, 2016. You requested all invoices from January 1, 2016 to present from
Aleshire & Wynder's firm related to Green Hills along with any communications sent to Green
Hills seeking reimbursement of those fees for the same timeline.
City's Response:
The City's position is that the invoices are protected by the attorney- client privilege. As you are
aware the issue of whether litigation fees and costs paid to outside counsel for pending litigation
are attorney-client privileged is currently before the California Supreme Court in the County of
I os Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (ACLU) (2015) 235
Cal. App. 4th l I S4.
Should the California Supreme Court rule that the amounts paid for current/pending litigation are
not attorney-client privileged and are, therefore, public records subject to disclosure, you could
resubmit your Public Records Act Request.
As for your request for copies of requests for reimbursement from City staff to representatives
for Green Bills, to date there have been no such requests.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office at (310) 544-5217.
Sincerely,
Teresa Takaoka
Acting City Clerk
CC Doug Willmore, City Manager
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
Christina Burrows, Assistant City Attorney
'.'W Ai111 vdf F.uri rnt1",I' 'I Jr, 1':h. 1;14 1':\'dl7 `S•b:f.' I1 �131Ji.,—d:i>I!; 1,1` KMDr4-:41-'1!:,., .;1.• ..
01201dN25?325179.1
pvrirrr. rA .1 f n: -J
Exhibit "12"
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-25-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26. Petitioner has reiterated her willingness to have the City redact any
information on the billings reflective of attorney-client communications, and to otherwise
limit the response to just the amounts paid by the City to the City Attorney's lawfirm on
account of the legal services rendered in defense of the entitlements granted Green Hills
to develop and operate the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum. The City has refused and
continues to refuse to provide the foregoing financial information to Petitioner.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays entry of judgment as follows:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
1. That this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the City to vacate and set
aside its action of September 20, 2016, as described herein, and to take all steps necessary
under its zoning laws to process Petitioner's Request for Interpretation Review;
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
2. That this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the City to produce the
documents reflective of the sums paid by City to the City Attorney's lawfirm on account
of the legal services rendered and costs incurred in defense of the land use entitlements
granted by City to Green Hills in defense of the land use entitlements granted Green Hills
in connection with the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum;
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
3. That this Court award Petitioner attorney fees, including any fees to which
Petitioner is entitled under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1021.5 and 1036 and the
relevant Government Code Section;
9. That this Court award Petitioner her costs of suit herein; and
10. That this Court award such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-26-
11
2'
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: December 5, 2016.
LAW OFFICES OF NOEL WEISS
t,ounset for reutioner z)nAKVl'l
LOVEYS
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
Sharon Loveys, et al. vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al.
-27-
'Ohit P lmon and ComGwd to... 28 z28
:( YEm nC�2 Ox
2441 gFor( MI I\ ,
,«
»}(cx I Y (W US VOITH
B\
1,9mmG,. 3e»QGav
2«w�«ymon"M aM MM am WOMMOMe> 6
jWHO"
pci
d%ot u m1L,Lm 9 J QGoAAll !«
2(I'll zw;y&me»aCOMM Iwound wN mv "hmwa«r ƒma>«
12 \D""Mw2 m :
G'
G
3�
e
a
■
»\ »«o.
s&�&)N,w\o \
.
From: So Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:03 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills - Addendum & Follow -Up
Attachments: Chapter 17.28 - Cemetery District (C) - RPV._pdf; INDEX TO TITLE 16 AND TITLE 17 OF RPV
MUNICIPAL CODES.pdf; Photo (Google) of Inspiration Slope Development circa 2016, with
notations re Descriptions.pdf; Public Notice of Compliance Review Hearing - January 31,
2017.pdf
Late Correspondence for 1/31 CC.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Doug Willmore
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 1:59 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: FW: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills - Addendum & Follow -Up
From: Noel Weiss fmailto:noelweissCa)ca.rr.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:33 PM
To: Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>
<Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore
<DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; Dave Aleshire <daleshire@awattorneys.com>
Subject: Re: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills - Addendum & Follow -Up
Councilmembers:
Given the clear likelihood that litigation will have to be initiated to set aside this upcoming (January 31, 2017) action in approving
the proposed Resolution before you (Attachment "B" to the Staff Report), it is both appropriate and necessary to further delineate
the deficiencies which attend this Council's proposed action, at least as recommended by Staff, so that the Council can make
the appropriate changes so as to obviate the need for the filing of another writ of mandate to set aside what will be, unless
significantly modified and narrowed, an unlawful, ultra vires act riddled, infected, and imbued with an abuse of discretion.
If approved in its current form, the proposed Resolution will have the effect of (A) unlawfully amending the Green Hills Master
Plan and Conditional Use Permit without Green Hills ever having even applied for such an Amendment; (B) where the proper
statutory protocol was ignored in connection with the processing of such an Amendment, in the face of (C) the public's having
been prejudiced by the fact that the current Green Hills Master Plan, or the Plan as amended (even if lawful; a fact to which
exception is taken) fails to establish any objective metrics by which to meaningfully measure the extent or degree of Green Hills'
compliance with the current Master Plan Conditions, particularly as they relate to the "intensity" and "density" of the use of the
cemetery for the three specific categories of specifically allowed "interment" use established in the City's Cemetery Zoning Code
(See Pages D -464-D-467 attached to the Staff Report (Copy of Chapter 17.28 of the RPV Municipal Codes (copy also attached
to this email).
As noted in my previous email, there are only three types of "interment" "uses" contemplated or specifically allowed in the City's
Cemetery Zoning Code. Those uses are: (1) "Earth Interments"; (2) "crypt and vault interments inside a mausoleum", and (3)
"Cinerary interments". The Resolution, as proposed, fails to list the number of allowed "interments" of any category (in fact,
categories (2) and (3) are never identified at all, and a completely new category ("roof interments" is introduced and allowed
without any reference to the number of interments contemplated or allowed, and without any definition, without a "Finding" that
state law allows or contemplates "roof interments" (there is nowhere in California other than Green Hills where this "business
model" is employed or utilized), and where the Resolution fails to make the requisite "Finding" under Section 17.28.030(H) that
such a "use" is "similar and no more intensive" that the other specifically allowed "interment" uses noted above.
Lastly, because the Resolution purposely (and needlessly) creates ambiguity in scope, and in the meaning of language, the use
of such ambiguous language triggers the mandatory "Interpretation Review" provisions of Section 17.78.050, meaning that
unless clarified now, these needless and yet purposeful ambiguities will sow the seeds for future difficulties and future problems
as Green Hills attempts to build out its Master Plan. It therefore is in the public interest to clarify these ambiguities up front and in
advance.
For example, the term "roof -top interments" is not defined. Section 13(a) uses the term "interment sites with no above -ground
structures". Does this mean "earth interments". What are "interment sites" with no "above -ground structures". The term
"structure" is defined in Section 17.96.2040 as follows:
"Structure" means anything constructed or built, any edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially
built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which is located on or on tots f the ground.
For "structures" mentioned in Section 17.02.040 of this title, please see Chapter 17.02 for definition. (Ord. 320 § 7
(part), 1997: Ord. 277 § 8 (part), 1992)
(Note: the reference to "ground" as an obvious reference to what we naturally think of when we think of as the "ground" (i.e. the
earth). This is important because of the need to clarify purposeful ambiguities inserted into this Resolution whose only purpose
can be to enable Green Hills to "game" the system, or to take advantage of these ambiguities when seeking "Site Plan Review"
down the road in connection with future projects. The purpose of any Resolution is to provide clarity, not ambiguity. This is also
relevant to the consideration of whether the roof of a mausoleum can logically or legally be considered to be the "ground". (See
Definition set out in Index to Title 16 and 17 attached to this email).
The effort here to purposely insert ambiguity, a lack of clarity, and thus stir (needless) confusion into the process (particularly
when determinations have to be made going forward whether a given (proposed) project is in "substantial" compliance with the
Master Plan) is what the Council needs to reject. As noted below, the code (when referring to "earth interments" also uses the
terminology "below grade" interments. This comes in Section 17.28.040(A) in the context of defining how the setback provisions
of the development standards incorporated into the zoning code are to apply. Under this provision, set -back measurements are
to be measured from "all structures" (structure being a defined term in the code) and "below grade" interments (which, given the
definition of "natural grade" in Section 17.96.820 — See "Index" attached to this email — the code does not strictly define "grade",
although it is reasonable to conclude that the definition of "natural grade" means what we commonly think of as "grade". Note
further, that this definition of "natural grade" incorporates the use of the term "ground" which is the same term used in the
definition of "structure" noted above. In short, it cannot be reasonable inferred that the code contemplated "below -ground"
structures. Therefore, the reference to "below -grade" interments is intended as a reference to the interment of human remains
below the "ground" (i.e. the earth). This is obviously what we think of as a "burial", but it is what the RPV Municipal Code and the
state Cemetery law means by "earth interment" (See explanation of these definitions in description of Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum Development (attached hereto). Arguably, it could also refer to the placement of cremated human remains in the
"ground" (i.e. below the surface of the earth).
The point is that this Resolution and the Green Hills Master Plan must be more specific in terms of defining and describing (i) the
types of "interments" authorized, (ii) the number of "interments" authorized, and (iii) the location of where the "interments" are to
occur. It is only in this way that there can exist a logical analytical bridge between the Council's action (amending the Green Hills
Master Plan and CUP — even when Green Hills has not requested the same — an action which it is contended is unlawful, ultra
vires, and an abuse of the Council's discretion because it violates the City's established protocol for the amendment of
Conditional Use Permits (in this case the Green Hills Master Plan CUP), incorporates purposeful ambiguity and lack of clarity
(making it needlessly more difficult to apply the rules, standards, and metrics going forward), and because it incorporates a "use"
("roof -top interments") which is not authorized or permissible under state law, and, if permissible under state law, can only be
permitted under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code if there is a specific "Finding" made that such "use" (as it is to be defined) is
"no more intensive" than other "similar" permitted uses. As noted in this email and in previous emails, this Resolution omits any
such "Finding" and is therefore legally deficient. Moreover, such a "Finding" cannot be made because (i) Green Hills has not
supplied this Council or the public with facts demonstrating how the proposed "roof -top interment" use will be "no more intense"
that the existing allowed "interment" uses (a requirement under Section 18.28.030(H); while (ii) there are facts before the Council
which demonstrate that there are already problems with noise and intensity (and density) of the current (non -"roof -top interment"
use which exists currently. That is before one explores the related potential safety issues with regard to (a) whether the weight of
the vaults and human remains on the roof of the mausoleum, combined with the weight of the soil and landscaping is safe and
proper; (b) the use of water to maintain the roof and whether it will draw mold and insects and other adverse safety impacts
attendant to the watering of the roof.
Most importantly, in order to make the "Finding" under the (Proposed) Resolution that the site is "adequate" to accommodate the
proposed "use" (Finding No. 1), or that the subject "use" (or more accurately the broad and limitless (in terms of specific
"densities" or "numbers" of "interments" permitted) "uses" to be permitted will have no adverse significant impact on adjacent
properties (Finding No.3), or that the proposed uses are "lawful" (Finding No. 4 — Consistent with the City's General Plan), it is
necessary to know in advance the number, type, and location of the various types of "interments" proposed. None of those facts
are contained in the record before this Council; and in the absence of such facts, it is not possible to make the logical "analytical
bridge" between the Council's conclusion (permitting an indeterminate number of "earth interments", "crypt or vault interments
inside a mausoleum", or "cinerary interments" in a columbarium. This renders the Council's action legally deficient under clearly
established Court rulings which direct that when the Council acts to grant a land use entitlement the "Findings" in support of the
entitlement grant must be supported by substantial evidence. (Orinda Association vs. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.
3rd. 1145); Topanga Association for a Scenic Community vs.County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3rd 506.
So be clear, the Resolution is imprecise, purposely vague and ambiguous, it fails to make the requisite "Findings" in support of
allowing what are described as "roof -top interments" (also undefined in terms of type, quantity, or location; and thus rendering
the Resolution devoid of any justifiable of supportable factual "Finding" which can support the Council's grant of such an
entitlement. Again, this is made clear in the context of the discussion about "Earth Interments" (also referred to as "below-
rg ade interments" in Section 17.28.040(A) (see Definition of "Grade" — Section 17.96.800 in the Index to Titles 16 and 17 of the
RPV Municipal Codes (attached hereto) — "Grade" refers to the " round surface" — The terms "roof' or "roof -top" are not defined
in the City Zoning Code. However, common sense says that the roof of a mausoleum is not the same thing as a "ground
surface", particularly given the fact that one logically thinking about "the ground" would associate with that thought the term
"earth" (or soil), not the term "roof' (or soil placed on a roof). This is also consistent with the state law definition of a " rg ave"
which is a "space of earth in a burial park" (Health & Safety Code Section 7014 - See discussion of this issue under recent
photo of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum.That discussion contains an explanation of the "misdirection", "misdescription",
,'misnomer" and "oxymoron" incorporated into the term "lawn crpyts" which is another undefined term under both the City's
zoning code and state law) (This photo along with the mischaracterized use descriptions is reattached to this email for
convenience.
Added to this ambiguity (which requires a mandatory Interpretation Review as per Section 17.78.050(A) (Interpretation Review
Mandatory and must be conducted by the body who took the final (initial) action because of noted discrepancies between the
2007 Master Plan, the 2015 Master Plan, and the current (proposed) 2017 Master Plan revision, particularly with regard to the
inclusion of a new (unapproved) category of "use"... "roof -top interments" (i.e. the interment of human remains on the roof -tops
of mausoleums). This represents a substantial increase in intensity and density of use which has not been clearly identified or
evaluated, most particularly as it relates to the underlying question and comparison between the number of earth interments
authorized under the Master Plan (as amended) and the number of new "roof -top interments" contemplated under the
(proposed) Amended Master Plan which, it is to be emphasized, for which, it is to be emphasized, neither Green Hills, nor the
City has formally initiated (but instead, has unlawfully attempted to "boot -strap" onto the shoes of what is otherwise supposed to
be a "compliance review" (quasi-judicial) hearing.
Also to be noted on the Google Photograph of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is the fact that there are numerous sub -
development area sites in "Area 2", all of which are lacking in any metric or measurement of the number of "earth interments" to
be permitted in Area 2. As was noted in my email to So Kim dated August 23, 2016 (See pages D-448 to D-452 attached to the
Staff Report), the 2007 Master Plan contemplates a grand total of 27,178 double depth earth interments, 388 single depth
earth interments, and 4,080 earth interments as part of family estates. This is for the entire Cemetery. These totals are not
broken down by Area as they should be so that it is clear where the density and intensity will occur. Relevant to this
determination is how to plan the cemetery map and future uses to minimize the adverse impact on surrounding homeowners. To
date, this criteria has been completely ignored.
This omission and lack of a breakdown of where the earth interments are to be located renders the Master Plan ambiguous and
in need of clarification because before approving any amendment to the Master Plan, it is logical and necessary to know and
understand the number of earth interments in place, those which are planned, and where the proposed additions are to be
allowed. This determination (of where the current earth interments are located, where the future earth interments are planned,
the number of authorized earth interments, the number of added earth interments, if any, contemplated under the proposed (de
facto) amendment (another reason to require a complete and formal "Master Plan (Conditional Use) Amendment" to be
submitted in writing which details precisely what is contemplated by way of future earth interments, and where (excluding roof-
top interments which are a separate category of "interments" which, it is contended, are not lawful under state law because there
is lacking any definition in the Health & Safety Code which contemplates interring human remains on a mausoleum roof; but if,
arguendo, they are lawful under state law, roof -top interments may only be authorized by way of an amendment to the Green
Hills Master Plan (CUP) after having made the specific "Findings" mandated under Section 17.28.030(H), that allowing "roof -top
interments" in a specific quantity (to which the Master Plan (proposed) amendment is otherwise silent) are "similar" and "no more
intensive" than the other approved uses (further taking into account not just the physical interment, but also the visitations which,
the record to this hearing reflects, can be quite loud, boisterous, and on-going (i.e. extended); all of which interfere with the quiet
enjoyment of neighboring homeowners.
As noted in my previous email, the Resolution which accompanies this Staff Report is woefully deficient because it omits any
reference to any such "Finding" even though it provides for "roof -top interment" (of an undefined and unspecified nature both as
to the amount and location). The Resolution is also deficient and defective for two core reasons:
a. Section 3 states incorrectly that this "modification" (really a proposed "Amendment without Application") of the Master Plan
does not expand the use beyond the revised Master Plan. This is not correct and the facts do not exist to support this conclusion
because of the allowance of an undetermined number (and the number needs to be determined up front) of "roof -top interment"
sites. These sites (even if legal, which it is contended are not authorized under state law) do, by definition, expand the use. The
degree of "use expansion" needs to be clarified and known. That is why it is necessary for the Council to carry out the mandate
under Section 17.78.050(A) (copy attached as part of "Index to Title 16 and Tile 17) for an "Interpretation Review" to clarify the
nature and extent of the proposed use, intensity, and density to be added by proposed "roof -top interments" (again assuming
they are even legal).
b. Secondly, the proposed Resolution incorrectly and falsely states that it constitutes a "minor modification" (see Section 2, page
4 of 9, page "13-4") to the existing conditions of approval. This conclusion is contradicted in two key ways:
1. The entire justification for the Council's action in "conflating" the Compliance Review of Green Hills' conduct (a
quasi-judicial act) with the grant of new and added land use entitlements (a quasi -legislative act because it operates to amend
the scope of the conditional use permit (i.e. Green Hills Master Plan) (undertaken without Green Hills ever having applied for
such an amendment) is premised on the provisions of Section 17.78.040 of the RPV Municipal Code (See Notice of Hearing
attached hereto). However, a factual prerequisite which must exist before Section 17.78.040 is even invoked is that there must
be an amendment to the "project" which constitutes a "substantial revision". Then (also undefined, but for purposes of this
analysis, assumes "project" to mean the Green Hills Master Plan) and only then may the City Council exercise direct jurisdiction
over the proposed "substantial" (proposed) amendment. This is a glaring inconsistency which cannot be logically reconciled.
This proposed "amendment" to the Green Hills Master Plan which is allowed under this Resolution cannot be both
(simultaneously) a "substantial revision" under Section 17.78.040, and a "minor modification" for CEQA purposes. This renders
the CEQA "Finding" defective, inconsistent with the facts, and internally inconsistent with the underlying justification for the
Council's direct action in the absence of the normal protocol under Chapter 17.60 (Section 17.60.040 in particular) which vests
jurisdiction in the Planning Commission for all CUP applications.
2. Under Section 17.60.05(E) mandates (uses "shall" language) that any change which "substantially intensifies"
occupancy (use) shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit which follows the protocol of Section 17.78.040 (i.e.
direct Council review of the CUP Amendment application). If, therefore, the underlying factual premise for the Council's acting on
this proposed Resolution is that the proposed "amendment" to the CUP is constitutes a "minor modification" (as set out in
Section 2), that conclusion is directly contradicted by both the fact that what is being proposed is (by definition) "substantial"
because under Section 17.78.040 (cited in Section 6 of the Resolution) the only way the Council may act directly without prior
Planning Commission review is if the proposed revisions are "substantial".
This contradiction is logically and factually irreconcilable; and is further aggravated by the lack of clarity and specifics relating to
the metrics of the proposed "intensity" and "density" of the proposed "project" (the Green Hills Master Plan), most particularly as
to the number and location of authorized "earth interments", and number and location of authorized "vault and crypt interments
inside a mausoleum", and the number and location of authorized "cinerary interments" inside a columbarium.
This lack of clarity (which is needless and should be corrected) is further complicated by the fact that the zoning code has no
definition of "grade"; although, as noted above, "natural grade" is defined in Section 17.96.040.) In its plans submitted to the City
on the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, there is a reference to the roof -top of the Mausoleum being some kind of new level of
"Grade". Since the roof is not on the "ground", but and since "natural grade" makes a specific reference to "the ground", it is a
complete logical "disconnect" to conclude that the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum can constitute some kind of "new
grade" or any kind of "grade". Once again, therefore, in the absence of clarification, and an amendment to the Rancho Palos
Verdes Zoning Code (definitional section in particular), it is simply not possible for the City Council to make the "Finding" that (1)
the Site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use (as amended and enhanced) (Finding No. 1, page 5
of 9 of Proposed Resolution), or (2) that there will be no significant adverse effects on adjacent property owners (Proposed
Finding 3), or (3) that the proposed use (as amended and magnified) is lawful and consistent with the City's General Plan
(Proposed Finding No. 4), or that the imposed mitigation conditions set out in Finding No.5 (on page 6 of 90 (page B-6) will
effectively, competently, and fairly promote and protect that public, safety, and general welfare.
This ambiguity again triggers the mandatory "Interpretation Review" provisions of 17.78.050 (Interpretation Review Procedure for
Approved Applications. This was already done, as Ms. Loveys did invoke Section 17.78.050, but her submittal was rejected. This
rejection is the subject of another lawsuit by Ms. Loveys against the City to compel the City to process her Interpretation Review
Petition in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the zoning code. The Council should not exacerbate the issue now by
purposely voting to approve a Resolution which contains needless ambiguities which Green Hills will use to "game" the system
going forward by submitting specific projects which cannot be objectively evaluated in terms of compliance since the "metrics"
upon which to gauge compliance are so egregiously lacking.
What this Council needs to do is to ask that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission work to clarify any and all
ambiguities and submit a recommendation to the City Council prior to the Council's action to amend (even should Green Hills
make application) its Master Plan (conditional use permit). In summary, in its current form, Interpretation Review is now
mandated. It is not a matter of the City Council's having the discretion to ignore (and therefore exacerbate) these needless
ambiguities.
Other Ambiguities Which Need to be Corrected in the Resolution:
1. All references to "burial plots" in the introductory "Whereas" paragraphs need to be stricken with the appropriate references to
the types of "interments" contemplated substituted;
2. The reference to "burials" in the Finding No.1 (stated in the context of the statement that there are 1800 "burials" annually (a
fact unsupported in the record) needs to be stricken. A substitution needs to be made to clarify the number of "earth interments",
the number of "vault and crypt interments inside each mausoleum", and the number of "cinerary interments" in columbaria occur
annually; and where they occur. This "Finding' is rendered meaningless in the absence of some basic specificity as to these
"interments". That is because "intensity" and "density" of use is a factor which impacts on the underlying issues of whether the
proposed use is consistent with the size and shape of the site, whether the proposed "use" (which again needs to be specifically
defined in terms of the number and location of the "interments" contemplated and allowed) will significantly adversely impair the
property rights of adjoining property owners, and whether the proposed use is otherwise "lawful" under California state law;
3. Section 5, Item No. 6 (Pate 7 of 9) — reference to "Burials" should be removed. "Burial" of vaults can only refer to "earth
interments". However, the use in this context (dealing with grading) could be interpreted to refer to grading for "roof -top
interments".. a "use" which cannot be authorized under this Resolution without the Council's making a "Finding" that such a
"use" (roof -top interments) is (i) consistent with state law, (ii) consistent with what is allowed under City law (i.e. does not
represent a more "intensive use" than the "uses" (i.e. specific "interments" contemplated under the City's cemetery zoning law)
under Section 17.28.030(H) (a "Finding" which cannot be made in the absence of facts which demonstrate numbers and venue
(i.e. where the "roof -top interments" are planned, and the number (i.e.the intensity or density) of the "interments" contemplated,
and (iii) will not constitute a threat to public safety, health, or welfare;
4. Condition No. 1(b) — It should state that no grading is to be allowed for "roof -top interments". The conflation of "earth
interments" with "roof -top interments" in this context is ambiguous, misleading, and lays the foundation for future problems
because it allows Green Hills to "game" the system by contending that by "earth interments", it is intended that "roof -top
interments" be included. This contravenes state law because state law does not specifically contemplate "roof -top interments"; it
contravenes City law because the Cemetery Zoning Code does not specifically contemplate "roof -top interments"; "roof -top
interments" is never defined anywhere in this Resolution; no provision is made to know, understand, appreciate, or anticipate the
number of location of "roof -top interments", even assuming such a use is even lawful. Green Hills has failed to state where it
intends or contemplates such use going forward, except on the roof -top of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum; a fact which is omitted
in this Resolution or the conditions; thus leaving the adjoining residents in the lurch with regard to the ability to invoke their views
regarding mitigation measures; purposefully deferring such discussion. Because Green Hills as already recorded with the
County Recorder land use interests reflective of "plots" to be sold which occupy space on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum (See Photo of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum and accompanying descriptions attached, including a copy of the
recordation.. which the Council should order revoked.... given that no such land use interests (or rights) (on the roof -top of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum) have been given to Green Hills (further evidence of Green Hills' efforts to continually "game" the
system);
5. Paragraph 1(e) of the Conditions needs to be revised to specify the number and location (by Area) of the authorized "earth
interments" (all it says now is that they are permitted "throughout the cemetery".. for the reasons noted above, this is clearly and
obviously deficient since it fails to provide any metric with regard to the "intensity" and "density" of use; a factor which clearly
impacts on the extent to which adjacent properties may be adversely impacted by the cemetery use.The reference to "Family
Estates" is also ambiguous since it is not clear whether what is intended are "earth interments" or "roof -top interments", what
constitutes a "family estate" and the number and location of family estates to be "permitted'.. all important in creating a "metric"
by which to evaluate Green Hills "compliance" with the conditions, going forward. Absent some general framework in terms of
numbers and venue of interments (of the types authorized), Green Hills is simply given a blank check. There is no way to
meaningfully control development or otherwise measure compliance. As such, this represents "planning malpractice", or
"planning mis-practice" in the face of political expediency; all to the detriment of the citizens, the social contract, and the
intellectual honesty and integrity of the Planning Process and the people's faith and ability to rely on its fair, open, and objective
implementation;
6. Paragraph 1(f) of this Condition needs to define what is meant by the term "Roof -Top Interment". As noted herein, "roof -top
interments" are not specifically contemplated either in state law or local zoning law; and to the extent such a "use" (the interment
of human remains on roof -tops) is to be permitted, the City Council must adopt a "Finding" under Section 17.28.030(H) that such
a use (where contemplated — and that fact is not disclosed anywhere), and the extent of the proposed use (also never referred to
anywhere in the Resolution or Conditions) is both "similar" and "no more intensive" that the existing (permitted) uses. This entire
issue can easily be resolved by the Council's requiring Green Hills to simply follow the law by (1) applying for an amendment to
the Green Hills Master Plan and (2) identifying in that amendment the location and number of "roof -top interments"
contemplated.Whether what is being proposed by way of amendment is "substantial' will determine whether the City Council
hears the matter "de novo", or whether the amendment is first processed through the Planning Commission. This is not being
done here; Green Hills has not made a formal application to amend its CUP (its Master Plan); and yet the City Council and City
Planning has chosen to proceed as if Green Hills had done so by conflating what is a "Compliance Review" process with a "CUP
Amendment" process; using compliance review as a ruse to amend the Green Hills Master Plan without either Green Hills
having formally applied or without the Planning Commission having acted (all in this "bait and switch" context where the Council
has chosen to divest the Planning Commission of jurisdiction over compliance review via the pretense that and desire to
"substantially" amend Green Hills Master Plan (CUP) (or citing zoning code provisions which enable the Council to assert
jurisdiction in such a context) when the Resolution itself inconsistently says the proposed revisions or modifications are "minor"
(Section 2) and do not expand the use beyond that the existing Master Plan (Section 3).... thereby undermining the entire legal
premise upon which the Council's asserting of jurisdiction to modify (i.e.amend) the Master Plan resides;
7. Paragraph 1(g) needs to be revised or eliminated because it allows for yet another undefined category of "interments".. .
called "Additional Interment Area".... where "mausoleum buildings and garden areas shall be allowed to be "retrofitted" to
accommodate niches and vaults throughout the property. Again, this "throughout the property" reference is vague, ambiguous,
and ill-defined. It seems to represents an significant expansion of use of an undetermined amount, both as to numbers and
venue. What is contemplated? Where it it contemplated? This is carte blanche given to Green Hills; and in the absence of
greater specificity, it cannot be determined how the "intensity" and "density" of the Cemetery's use will be impacted. This is the
City Council abandoning its responsibility to the people and to the system to act responsibly . It is not possible for any of the
proposed "Findings" in support of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment proffered here to be made in the absence of
specificity. Why, for example, even have "Areas" of development identified. They become meaningless in this context. Adjoining
property owners are entitled to know up front what Green Hills generally contemplates going forward. Green Hills should be
made to have to plan and deal with having to frame its business model and business operations in a way so as to respect the
rights of the adjoining property owners. The City Council must reconcile any conflicting interests that exist. Giving Green Hills
this kind of open-ended prerogative abandons the citizenry in favor of a political and economic special interest (Green Hills);
8. Paragraph 2 —Future Improvements —cannot be effectively implemented absent some clear metrics on the "intensity" and
"density" of future development. Therefore, this paragraph should provide for a protocol which requires Green Hills to report
yearly on its operations detailing the number of "interments" during the prior year; whether its plans have changed; how it intends
to implement and abide by what should be clearly quantifiable use limitations going forward; and suggesting specific changes to
effectuate compliance with the metric and venue standards (the clear standards) otherwise established. The Planning
Commission should be reasserted into the process as a filter to enable competent, thorough, and fair City action (including
eventual action by the City Council);
9. Paragraph 2(a)(4) incorporates the same infirmities as Paragraph 1(g) above. What is contemplated here is the future use of
fences, wall, and other structures as columbaria to hold "cinerary interments" (cremated human remains). It is clear that Green
Hills business plan has retaining walls and other "structures" being used as "interment" sites. This is clearly represents an
increase in use of the cemetery property which will result in more activity which will impact on adjoining property owners.
Specifics are lacking; the "green light" to "game" the system could not shine any brighter. On the one hand, Green Hills is
certainly free to formally apply for a CUP Amendment; and to label that proposed amendment "substantial" or "minor". The City
is also free to change the zoning law; but the City is not free to give Green Hills special treatment under the zoning code; or to
exempt Green Hills from its application. The City needs to require Green Hills to be honest about its intentions so that proper
planning can be done in a way which is fair to the citizens. That is not being done here. The number, types, and location of the
specific "interments" to be allowed Green Hills needs to be specified. Like any other land use, the degree of "density" or
"intensity" must be established so it can be measured, compliance and be evaluated, and proper legal "Findings" made. These
factors are absent here. The "Findings" in the Resolution, as noted above, either cannot be made because there is no factual
support; or because there is no way to objective measure compliance or consistency going forward.
10. Paragraph 2(a)(6) — Grading — The same analysis applies to "Grading".. Here there is the further problem with regard to
possible "grading" on roof -tops.. a circumstance not contemplated under the RPV Municipal Code (given the definition of
"grade" noted above). Saying, therefore, that Grading should be consistent with the Master Plan Conditions is saying absolutely
nothing in this context. To be noted is that Green Hills has already violated the prior conditions by "over -grading" (See
acknowledgment in Condition 1(b)) (without penalty). Yet there is no provision, going forward, for the City to confirm, by Area,
how Green Hills performance is to be policed. The problem is further made ambiguous by the fact that it is not clear if, whether,
or to what extent, the grading figures need to be revised to incorporate the use of soil to construct the (undefined) number of
"roof -top interments" Green Hills is contemplating under the Master Plan. This renders this paragraph defective and in need of
serious modification to eliminate the general reference (yet again) to permitted grading "throughout the property" (what does this
mean?). Moreover, the reference to "mass installation of vaults" would seem to include the storage of vaults on roof -tops in
anticipation of their future use as interment sites.... a practice which is intended to fool the people or deflect away from what is
Green Hills business model (unannounced) to populate the mausoleum roofs with interred human remains. The degree to which
this "mass installation" is to be contemplated is not identified. Yet again, this is both a deflection, diversion, and deception of
Green Hills intentions. Vague generalities "like mass installation" of vaults are used.... when what is meant could include
"storage", or "storage on roof -tops", or "placement on roofs" in anticipation of using the roof as an interment venue. This "piece -
meals" the project and deceives the public. Step -by -tiny -step, the scope of the Master Plan gets expanded; without metrics,
without any meaningful guide; all with the purpose and objective of "spiking" public comment. This is what the City and Green
Hills did back in 2007 when misleading notices were sent out on the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum fiasco, where the public (and
the Visa Verde Homeowners) were misled into believing the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum was going to be constructed to the east
of their complex, only to find out years later that it was approved to be constructed 8' from their property line with roof -top
interments included (with the 8' set -back included at the last minute... ). Why would this City Council repeat this sequence of
events; and permit Green Hills to employ these kind of deceptive techniques yet again? This grading provision must be
tightened up to provide for an Area by Area breakdown; for reports, broken down by area, every six months, made to the public
and council; and to exclude grading for "roof -top interments" as being included within the ambit of these grading provisions until
it is clear that (1) "roof -top interments" are lawful under state law; and (2) the City has made the necessary "Findings" under
17.28.030(H) that the allowance (or permitting) of roof -top interments, in a specific number, at a specific location is and will be
..no more intensive" that the other uses allowed under the Green Hills Master Plan". Finally, the reference in the last sentence to
the right of the Director to refer future improvements to the City Council must be amended to be consistent with the City's zoning
code. Such a referral can only take place under one circumstance which involves two criteria: (1) Green Hills applying to amend
its Master Plan (conditional use permit); and (2) the proposed amendment constituting a "substantial revision" to the Master
Plan. Every other proposed development to occur within the ambit of the Master Plan Conditional Use Permit Conditions must
be (in the words of the ordinance (Section 17.78.040) "a substantial revision", with the director deciding what is considered
"substantial". The Director has no authority under the City's zoning code to ignore the Planning Commission's role where the
amendment is not "substantial". Moreover, what is considered "substantial" is also subject to the Interpretation review mandates
of Section 17.78.050 and thus can be challenged in that context. This sentence is therefore either vague or very overbroad as
written in that it gives the director more discretion that he actually possesses;
11. Paragraph 2(b)(4) — Direct City Council Review of "new structures" in undesignated areas to be considered and processed
as "revisions" (without a reference to whether those revisions are "major" (substantial) or "minor"). This is wholly unlawful and a
direct violation of the City's procedures and protocol attendant to the review of future projects. The entire purpose of having a
Master Plan is to provide a road -map to future development; with the specifics of each development evaluated in the context of
the Master Plan CUP. This entire approach is being gutted by this provision because it de facto, gives the City Council the ability
to review "non -substantial revisions" which the City's protocol gives to the Planning Commission. It creates confusion since "any"
modification to the Master Plan is to only be reviewed by the City Council. Nothing in the RPV City Codes gives the Council this
power. The protocol attendant to Conditional Use Permit issuance and amendment is set out in Chapter 17.60. An application is
required; and "non -substantial revisions" go through the Planning Commission. Only "substantial" revisions go directly to the City
Council. The language of this condition should be made to mirror what is contained in the City's zoning code, and specifically
Chapter 17, with specific citations;
12. Paragraph 6(a) — The references to "earth interments" needs to be specified and defined as consisting solely of "interments"
in the ground, not on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum;
13. Paragraph 6(d ) — "Roof -top" interments should be defined. The number of "roof -top interments", if determined to be lawful,
and assuming the proper "Findings" required under Section 17.28.030(H) are made (which "Findings" for the reasons cited
above, cannot be made) should also be stated. Otherwise, it is not possible to make any of the "conditional use" findings that
these proposed revisions (amendments) to the Master Plan) will not have a significant adverse impact on adjoining properties;
nor is it possible to draw consistency with the conclusion in the Resolution that the changes proposed are "minor" or
"insubstantial" (for CEQA purposes); or do not work to "expand the use beyond that of the (existing) revised Master Plan (for
Municipal Code adherence purposes);
14. Paragraph 8(b) — Ground Structures — Given Green Hills desire to use "structures" (the inside of walls; the top of retaining
walls; the tops of buildings (including mausoleum buildings) as venues to "inter" human remains, general references to
"structures" are vague. It needs to be clear in each instance whether the "structure" is intended to be used as a venue to "inter"
human remains. While this paragraph applies to Area 4, given that Green Hills has chosen to apply to use the retaining wall in
Area 2 (Inspiration Slope) as a columbarium as well as a retaining wall, it becomes necessary to greater clarity as to the use
intended of the "structure". If more "interments" are contemplated, then that fact needs to be noted up front; not later. Otherwise,
the entire purpose of having a Master Plan is undermined. Green Hills is pretty much given carte blanche to do what it wants,
how it wants, when it wants. Moreover, the types of "interments" contemplated in this paragraph are not identified. They need to
be identified. Are we talking about "earth interments", "vault interments inside a mausoleum", or "cinerary interments"? The
absence of clarification makes this condition unworkable and unusable. There are no metrics with which to gauge compliance;
the public has no idea of the "intensity" or "density" contemplated; all of which works to render the Master Plan protocol which is
the core planning "tool" utilized for the Green Hills build -out pretty much useless, to the prejudice of both the public and the City's
credibility with the public.
15. Paragraphs 9 (d) and 9(e) — Structure Setbacks vs. Earth Interment Set -backs. This is the Vista Verde problem. Is what is
contemplated here in Areas 5 and 6 "roof -top interments"? What is meant by "structure". Will the adjacent property owners end
up with "interments" of any type within the 20' set -back? Again, the factors of "intensity" and "density" are impacted here. This
condition needs to clarify that no "interments" or any kind are to be allowed within 40'. Otherwise, it is not clear how the "finding"
can be made that this development standard is not substantively intrusive to the property rights of the adjoining property
owners?
16 Paragraph 11(g) — Additions to the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum should go through the Planning Commission as part of an
CUP amendment process. That fact should be clarified. Removing Planning Commission consideration is inconsistent with the
City's zoning code if such an addition is considered not "substantial".
17. Paragraph 11 (h) - Roof -top interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum should not be permitted. This is the
subject of pending litigation; and until the litigation is resolved, this Paragraph should be omitted and a ban imposed on all roof-
top interments pending Green Hills being required to procure a variance and an amendment to its CUP.
18. Paragraph 11(f)(2) — The reference to "roof -top earth interments" is a complete misnomer and should be stricken. There is
no such thing as an "earth interment" on the roof of any building. "earth" refers to the "ground" ... the "grade"... and until the
City amends its zoning code to define "grade" as the top of a building, characterizing the interment of human remains on a roof-
top (or anywhere else other than in the ground (i.e.the earth)) cannot be considered to be an "earth interment";
19. Paragraph 11(f) (9) — The reference to "below grade" interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum building is a
misnomer. As noted above, "Natural Grade" is a defined term under the City's zoning laws. It refers to "ground". "Ground" is
considered the "earth", not the roof -tops of buildings. One cannot have an "interment" which is "below grade" on the roof of the
building given the definitional structure of the City's zoning code. Similarly, state law does not contemplate "interments" of
human remains on the roofs of buildings for the reasons previously cited (i.e. where "grave" is a "space of earth" and a "burial'
means the placement of human remains in a "grave" (i.e. a space of earth). Health & Safety Code Sections 7014 (definition of
Grave); Health & Safety Code Section 7013). So therefore, one cannot dispose of human remains by way of "burial" on the roof
of a building. Therefore, this reference to "below grade interments" needs to be stricken from this paragraph;
20. Paragraph 13(a) (b) — Setbacks for Areas Not Specified — Here is where Green Hills is seriously expanding the scope of use
and where the potential for a Vista Verde problem is created. The language used "interment sites" is vague because neither the
types of numbers of "interment" uses are specified. They need to be. Anywhere there is a difference between set -backs
distances and "interment" distances, those distances need to be reconciled. Otherwise, there will be "roof -top interments" on
structures which will could impact adjacent property owners. Therefore, the category of "Areas Not Specified" should be
eliminated. Why have a "Master Plan" unless the Master Plan categories various areas broken down by the "intensity" and
"density" of the various uses contemplated in each area. What the City Council and Green Hills is attempting to do is virtually
"gut" the Master Plan and turn it into a de facto "specific pian". This represents a significant extension of the potential use of the
Cemetery, which, contrary to the EIR Finding, should trigger an EIR work-up. This has not been done. Instead, Section 2 of the
Resolution falsely states that this effort by the City Council to conflate Compliance Review into a de facto Amendment to the
Master Plan represents but a minor revision of the Master Plan. Perhaps that could be said if we were just talking about
modifications to effectuate merely a compliance review; but to engage in this kind of "bait and switch" where there is a
substantial and major revision to the Master Plan (without Green Hills having ever applied for such a revision) is improper,
unlawful, and a special interest give -a -way, and a misuse and misapplication of the process. If Green Hills wishes to amend its
General Plan CUP, then Green Hills needs to make application. If those proposed amendments, after investigation, are deemed
substantial, then the Planning Commission can be by-passed and the matter taken directly to the City Council. But until the
specifics of what is intended by the amendments has been evaluated, no modification to the Master Plan beyond that needed for
compliance review purposes should be undertaken. To do otherwise subverts the planning process; and infects the political
process with bad -faith, gamesmanship, and political favoritism. It creates the need for litigation and burdens and prejudices the
citizenry who reasonably expect that the laws and the processes will be followed and not ignored. Allowing this provision to
remain is a rank abuse of discretion. Unspecified areas should not be developed until they are specified as development areas,
and it is clear what the expected "density", "intensity" and "future use" can reasonable be expected.
Changes to the Master Plan as part of Compliance Review need to be separated from changes to the Master Plan desired by
Green Hills outside of Master Plan Compliance Review. They are not the same and should not be conflated.
21. Paragraph "GS -1" —What is a "ground interment site"? Does it include "grading" on "roof -tops" of buildings?
22. Paragraph 31 — Green Hills should be directed to revoke all 'maps" recorded with the County Recorder which reflect or show
that Green Hills possesses a transferable real property interest consisting of space on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum within which to "inter" human remains. Green Hills has once again acted in bad -faith in recording such property
interests when to date, Green Hills does not possess any such property interest. To the extent that the reference in the
Resolution to "roof -top interments" is intended to validate such an act, the conditions and this paragraph need to make clear that
such is not the case.
23. Paragraph 32 — Green Hills should have to post $25,000 with the City for the City's use in retaining outside counsel to
defend the City against challenges to the land use entitlements granted under this proposed Resolution as part of the Indemnity.
This is in keeping with what the City of Los Angeles does currently in connection with such matters.
Finally, a general point to be noted:
The City Council acts in three capacities: In a legislative capacity (when it passes zoning laws or grants land use entitlement
rights (such as when it grants a conditional use permit allowing a "conditioned" use)); in a "judicial" capacity (when it reviews
Green Hills compliance with the conditions of the CUP — Master Plan); and in an executive capacity (generally when it oversees
the City Manager, to whom it has granted broad discretion in non -land use matters). I respectfully ask the City Council to be
mindful of these distinctive roles because it is never a good idea to "mix and match" the Council's legislative role with the
Council's quasi-judicial role. There should be less "politics" when "judging" than when "legislating". To conflate the two as the
Council has done here leads to error, abuse of discretion, and unlawful conduct.
Whether Green Hills has fully complied with its obligations under the existing Master Plan and CUP is a completely different
question than whether the Master Plan and CUP should be amended to accommodate Green Hills business model or business
plans to develop its property going forward. There are different procedures to be employed, depending on whether the General
Plan amendment is "substantial" or "minor".
Even though Green Hills has not been treated well by the Planning Commission, that is not a reason for this Council to accede
to Green Hills' political objectives and deny the Planning Commission the responsibilities the City Council gave to the Planning
Commission under the November 15, 2015 Resolution, pursuant to the City's zoning laws and protocol. The City Council has
abused its discretion in assuming jurisdiction here under the false auspices that it can amend the Master Plan and CUP for
reasons unrelated to the issue of compliance review, and then, while it is at it, review the nature and extent of Green Hills
compliance.
If Green Hills wishes to amend its Master Plan and CUP, then Green Hills has to formally make application to effectuate that
amendment. The City can, on its own initiative, cause the Master Plan and CUP to be amended, but it needs to say so straight-
away that this is what the City fully intends. Then the facts and details attendant to that amendment are put in a "Notice" to the
public,and public comment is received and considered on that precise issue (the nature and extent of the Master Plan
Amendment to the CUP. All of this assumes that the proposed Master Plan Amendment is "substantial". Otherwise, the "regular"
(procedural -protocol) provisions of the City's zoning code apply. That means respecting and utilizing the Planning Commission's
role under Chapter 17.60 of the City Municipal Code.
However, the City's notice to the Public of this January 31, 2017 Hearing is (as with other City Hearing Notices respecting Green
Hills) blatantly misleading and false. Why? Because the Notice says that the City Council is conducing a "Compliance Review";
with a reference to "amendments" being used in the context of said "Compliance Review". Nothing is stated in the Notice which
talks about the City Council acting to amend (substantially or otherwise) the Green Hills Master Plan and CUP outside of its
evaluation of "compliance review" (See attached Notice). This misleads the public because the public is focused on "compliance
review", when it is clear that a strong subordinating intent is to amend the Green Hills Master Plan and CUP using the
Compliance Review process as a ruse in order to do so. This is dishonest; it is conniving; it is disrespectful of the public trust;
and it is wrong.
Therefore, the City Council should do as follows:
1. Refrain from passing the Resolution as written;
2. Direct Green Hills to make formal application to amend its CUP and Master Plan to the Planning Department, who shall
determine if said proposed amendments are "substantive" or "minor";
3. Then, if substantial, and a proper CEQA work-up has been completed, indicate it will hold a hearing, after public notice, on
whether to exercise its legislative authority to grant, allow, or permit such amendments, and if so, under what conditions; and
only after
4. Making the appropriate findings (particularly with regard to the subject of "roof -top interments") in support of its action.
For the reasons cited above, any other action by this council beyond strictly evaluating the question and review of Green Hills'
compliance with its obligations and commitments under the current Master Plan will be met with the commencement of a writ of
mandate action to set aside the Council's action.
Thank you for your consideration of these additional points.
Noel Weiss
(310)822-0239
From: Noel Weiss
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 7:00 AM
To: Brian Campbell ; jerry.duhovic@rpvcaa.gov ; Susan Brooks ; Ken Dyda ; Anthony Misetich ; Doug Wlllmore ; Dave Aleshire
Subject: Objections to Staff Report - Compliance Review of Green Hills
Members of the City Council:
In the name of "Compliance Review" as to the nature and extent to which Green Hills has complied with its obligations under the
"CUP" (Conditional Use Perm it)(Condition N-3 — Page 13 of Conditions attached to Resolution No. 2015-102), what appears to
be occurring here is a complete and unlawful revamping of the City's land use entitlement protocol as it pertains to the land use
entitlement rights for the operation of Green Hills Memorial Cemetery. This exceeds by leaps and bounds the "scope" of the
"Compliance Review" that is before the Council.
Pursuant to the authority of Summit Media, LLC vs. the City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal. App.4th 921 (copy enclosed) , any
action by the City in violation of its own codes and protocols designed to circumvent the same and create a de facto special
exception for Green Hills is ultra vires and void ab initio. In the Summit Media case, the City of Los Angeles ignored its zoning
laws which controlled the use of billboards and granted to two billboard companies special rights and privileges to use their
billboards in a way which contradicted the City's (billboard) zoning code. The City did so in the context of a settlement
agreement which settled litigation commenced by the billboard companies which challenged the billboard use limitations on
commercial free speech grounds. The Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of the Superior Court) held that the City's action
was illegal (ultra vires — in excess of its powers — an abuse of discretion) because the practical effect was to exempt the billboard
companies who had sued the City from the City's billboard laws. In short, selection exemption and special interest action
favoring City Hall insiders cannot pass legal muster.
This is directly analogous to the current circumstance with Green Hills. The scope of this "Compliance Review" hearing is limited
to measuring (to the extent possible) if, whether, and to what extent Green Hills has complied with its obligations and duties
under the Green Hills Master Plan. This task is made more difficult and challenging given the vague metrics which currently exist
with respect to the Master Plan's failure to lay out or specify in detail the precise number of "earth interments" allowed in each
development "Area", the precise number of interments allowed inside mausoleums contemplated in each of the various
development "Areas", and the number of "cinerary interments" to be permitted (under the CUP) in each development area. Each
of these factors relate to the "intensity of use" to be allowed or "permitted" under the City's Cemetery Zoning Code (Chapter
17.28 of the RPV Municipal Codes), and specifically Section 17.238.030(H) (See Exhibit D-465 to the Staff Report) which gives
the Director the discretion to allow "such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive".
When Ms. Sharon Loveys initiated an Interpretation Review procedure under Section 17.78.050 and Section 17.78.090 with
regard to (1) the storage of vaults on the roof -top of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum in violation of the "CUP" conditions, and (2)
the vague and ambiguous provisions of the CUP as they relate to if, whether, or the extent to which "roof -top interments" are to
be permitted, the City rejected her application on the ground that there was pending litigation concerning the Pacific Terrace
Mausoleum. This rejection is the subject of a pending lawsuit asking the Superior Court to mandate the City follow its laws and
procedures and initiate and complete the Interpretation Review requested by Ms. Loveys. (See copy of lawsuit enclosed).
Now we have another parallel circumstance where Green Hills again appears to be receiving favorable (special) treatment. In
this case, the special treatment is taking the form of the City's once again ignoring its zoning laws and procedures (enacted for
the broader public benefit) and going out of its way to reach out to benefit Green Hills at the expense of the social contract that
exists between the City and its citizens. Specifically, the City here has, in violation of its zoning laws and specifically the protocol
attendant to how land use entitlements in favor of Green Hills are to be "permitted", has:
1. Ignored its own directive in the existing Conditions (N-3) that the Planning Commission first hear all matters related to Green
Hills Compliance Review; and
2. Used (or more accurately) misused the Compliance Review process to unlawfully allow the Compliance Review Process to
"morph" into a de facto "CUP" Amendment process where Green Hills is granted new land use entitlements (and thus amend the
existing Green Hills Master Plan and CUP) (specifically the right to "roof -top interments" (i.e. to inter human remains on the roofs
of mausoleums)) without the benefit of Green Hills being required to first formally apply for an amendment to the CUP. The
"Notice" of this January 31st "Compliance Review" Hearing (copy enclosed) is defective to the extent that it falsely states (or
implies) that Green Hills has ever applied for an amendment to the CUP or the Master Plan. There is no dispute that Green Hills
has not done so; and the last time the Council ordered Green Hills to do so, on September 1, 2015, the Council (after firing the
City Attorney) completely reversed itself and said that Green Hills did not have to apply for an amendment to the CUP (as
pertains to the right to conduct roof -top interments on the roof of the Pacific Terrace Mausoleum) because Green Hills had a
"vested right" to do so in light of the City's having granted Green Hills building permits and related use permits (this, despite the
City's own Investigation Reports that in procuring those permits, Green Hills had practiced deceit on the City).
10
What makes this all the more ironic is the City's reliance on Section 17.78.040(6) of the Municipal Code in the Public Notice of
this Hearing in support of the Council's right to make substantive changes to the Green Hills Master Plan without the benefit of
Green Hills' ever having applied for a CUP Modification. In its overwhelming desire to benefit Green Hills at the expense of its
adherence to its own laws, the City's action is truly "oxymoronic" because Section 17.78.040(6)) assumes a circumstance which
does not exist here... Namely, a circumstance where an applicant proposes a "substantial revision" to the plans or to the project
(in this case the Green Hills Master Plan). Green Hills has not proposed a "substantial revision" or any "revision" to its Master
Plan. Yet, the City is allowing Green Hills the benefit of such revisions (again particularly as regards (i) the right to use
mausoleum roof -tops as a venue for the interment of human remains, and (ii) the divestment of the Planning Commission of all
jurisdiction to hear appeals from Planning Department determinations with regard to Green Hills specific development proposals
in contravention of the provisions of Chapter 17.80 of the RPV Municipal Codes, and specifically Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to
the Planning Commission)) and thus unlawfully exempting Green Hills from the zoning laws and protocol that (at least in theory)
apply to all the citizens of the City. Apart from the breach of the City's fiduciary duties to its citizens (more of a moral issue), the
City lacks the legal power to favor a special interest (in this case Green Hills) in this manner.
Therefore, it is requested that the City Council follow the law and do as follows:
1. Direct the Planning Commission to first hear all factual matters attendant to Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of the
CUP, as per Condition "N-3" of the Conditions adopted by the Council on November 17, 2015; and then file a report with the City
Council concerning the same; and
2. Direct Green Hills to file a formal application to amend its Master Plan and CUP (Conditional Use Permit) with the Planning
Department, consistent with the City's zoning laws and protocol, as a precondition to the City's evaluation of if, whether, and to
what extent the Green Hills Master Plan should be amended.
It would be an abuse of discretion for the City Council to substantially amend the Green Hills Master Plan under the (false) guise
of having conducted a "Compliance Review", particularly in the absence of (1) Green Hills having first applied for such an
amendment, and (2) specific "Findings" (which are lacking here) under Section 17.28.030(H) that such "uses" are (a) similar to
other allowed uses, and (b) "no more intensive" that than the (conditional) uses already allowed under the current CUP. (See
Attachment D-465 to the Staff Report — Copy of Section). To be noted is the fact that 17.28.030(H) also specifically
contemplates that an appeal to the Planning Commission be allowed; following which there is an appeal to the City Council. The
new condition (2(b) (Page 5) eliminates this protocol by providing for a direct review by the City Council. Nothing in the RPV City
Codes gives the City Council the right, power, or authority, to ignore its laws in this matter and make special provision for a
special interest (Green Hills) to get special treatment. If the City Council wishes to amend its Cemetery Zoning Code, it is free to
do so. However, it is ultra vires and unlawful for the City Council to start making special exemptions for special well-connected
special interests like Green Hills. Apart from being unlawful, it sets a bad example and bad precedent.
The absence of any formal "Findings" in support of allowing Green Hills a use right (to inter human remains on the roofs of
mausoleums) renders the Council's action an abuse of discretion; particularly in the absence of any formal application by Green
Hills to amend the CUP, and most particularly in the absence of any such "roof -top interment use" contemplated either under the
RPV City Codes of State law. (See explanation set out in Photos of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum enclosed herewith).
For the record, with regard to specific violations of the current CUP, the following is to be noted:
1. Green Hills is violating the CUP by storing vaults on the roof of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The City has no authority to
allow Green Hills such a right without Green Hills having formally applied to modify the CUP. It has not done so. The City
Manager's letter agreement with Green Hills "permitting" the same is unlawful because the City Manager has no power to grant
land use entitlement rights; and absent a formal amendment to the CUP, the City has no right to "permit" such use;
2. Green Hills is violating the CUP by virtue of its having recorded with the County Recorder "real property interests" consisting
of "space" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum within which human remains are to be interred when the City has
never granted Green Hills any such land use entitlement rights; when State law does not formally contemplate the existence of
any real property (land use) entitlement rights; and when the City's zoning code does not specifically contemplate the existence
of any such real property (lane use) entitlement rights. For the record, there are only three types of interments which the City's
cemetery zoning law contemplates under Section 17.28.030(A): (1) "earth interments"; (2) interments in crypts or vaults inside
mausoleums, and (3) "cinerary interments".
3. There is no way to adequately measure Green Hills' compliance with the conditions of the CUP because there are no specific
metrics which detail the precise number of authorized earth interments, cinerary interments, and interments inside mausoleums.
Therefore, to the extent that proposed Condition 1(e) states that "earth interments" are permitted, it is needlessly vague and
therefore prejudicial to the process because it fails to detail or delineate the specific number of earth interments to be permitted
in each development area. The same applies with regard to "cinerary interments" and vault of "crypt interments" inside a
mausoleum.
11
Therefore, as part of the compliance review process, the City Council should remand this matter back to the Planning
Commission with instructions to hold hearing on how to amend the CUP in a way to create metrics which would measure the
"intensity" of use of the Cemetery so that future compliance reviews can be undertaken in a more objective manner, particularly
as it relates to the number of interments (of all categories) to be allowed under the Master Plan and CUP.
4. The record at the Compliance Review Hearing should reflect the fact that Green Hills has taken it upon itself to store vaults
and crypts in other areas of the Cemetery not currently authorized by the Master Plan; most particularly in Area 6. The Master
Plan provides for a storage area. Green Hills has (and continues) to store vaults and crypts in unauthorized areas.
What the City Council is about to do is to invite further litigation should it adopt the Staff Report. It benefits no one to try to
"game" the system in this way.
Green Hills, like every other citizen, should be required to follow the law and protocol. This Council certainly has the discretion to
amend its zoning laws and protocol. What the Council respectfully cannot do is ignore its laws; or pick and choose those laws to
follow and those laws it will ignore.
The Compliance Review should be limited to the precise factual issues pertinent to Green Hills'.compliance. To the extent
conditions need to be modified to clarify conditions relevant to that issue, then amend those conditions. However, please do not
act to enact substantial modifications to Green Hills land use entitlements and rights under the Master Plan and CUP under the
false guise of conducting a compliance review, and most particularly without Green Hills first being required to apply for and
procure a conditional use permit formally amending its Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues and contentions
Noel Weiss
(310-) 822-0239
Thank you
.4avaSt This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
12
Chapter 17.28 - CEMETERY (C) DISTRICT
❑ Sections:
❑ 17.28.010 - Purpose.
❑ The cemetery district provides for the permanent interment of human remains.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 187 § 8 (part), 1984)
❑ 17.28.020 - Uses and development permitted.
❑ Only the following uses may be conducted or constructed in cemetery districts:
Q
Temporary special uses and developments, if a special use permit is first obtained,
pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits);
:1
Commercial filming or photography, if a city film permit is first obtained, pursuant to
Chapter 9.16 (Still Photography, Motion Picture and Television Productions) of this
Municipal Code;
N
Temporary vendors, if a temporary vendor permit is first obtained, pursuant to Chapter
17.62 (Special Use Permits); and
M
Other uses as provided in any applicable overlay or special districts.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
❑ 17.28.030 - Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.
❑ The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a
conditional use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
A.
Burial park for earth interments, mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or
columbarium for cinerary interments;
1
B.
Mortuary,
C.
Associated sales and office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery,
including flower sales;
D.
Churches;
E.
Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;
F.
Public utility structures;
M
Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.83.060 (Small wind energy
systems); and
H.
Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such
a determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning
commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located
in the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may
be appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are
similar and compatible with the local coastal program.
(Ord. 481 § 22, 2008; Ord. 377 § 10, 2002: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 187 § 8
(part), 1984)
❑ 17.28.040 - General development standards.
The following standards shall apply to cemetery districts:
N
A.
Setbacks. The following setback provisions apply to all structures and below -grade
interments:
1.
Front and Street Side. The front and street side setbacks shall be twenty-five feet.
2.
Interior Side and Rear. If abutting a residential zoning district, the interior side
and rear setbacks shall be forty feet. If abutting a nonresidential zoning district, the
interior side and rear setbacks shall be twenty-five feet.
A
Building Height. The maximum height of any building shall be sixteen feet, except
with the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning commission,
pursuant to Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permit.)
C.
Roof Equipment. All roof equipment shall conform to the height limits specified in
Section 17.48.050 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) and shall be
adequately screened from private properties and the public right-of-way.
FBI
Signs. The provisions of Section 17.76.050 (Sign permit) shall apply.
E.
Parking, Loading and Access. The provisions of Chapter 17.50 (Nonresidential Parking
and Loading Standards) of this title shall apply. Where a cemetery district abuts a
residential district, additional parking requirements may be imposed by the director or
planning commission if warranted by a proposed project or use.
F.
Storage. Except for those outdoor uses permitted by a conditional use permit or special
use permit, all maintenance and groundskeeping equipment shall be housed in
permanent, entirely enclosed structures.
3
G.
Lighting. All exterior lighting in cemetery zoning districts shall conform to the
performance standards of Section 17.56.040 (Environmental Protection). Before any
development is approved, a plan showing the locations and specifications of all exterior
lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the director.
H.
Transportation Demand Management Development Standards. All development shall
be subject to the applicable transportation demand and trip reduction measures
specified in Section 10.28.030 (Transportation demand management and trip reduction
measures) of this Municipal Code. Any transportation demand or trip reduction
measures required pursuant to Section 10.28.030 (Transportation demand
management and trip reduction measures), shall be implemented in accordance with all
applicable standards and specifications of this title.
Deliveries and Mechanical Equipment. Where a cemetery district abuts a residential
zoning district, all deliveries of goods and supplies; trash pick-up, including the use of
parking lot trash sweepers; and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment
which emits noise levels in excess of sixty-five dBA, as measured from the closest
property line to the equipment, shall only be allowed between the hours of seven a.m.
and seven p.m., Monday through Sunday, unless otherwise specified in an approved
conditional use permit or other discretionary approval.
J
Where a cemetery district abuts a residential zoning district, buffering and
screening techniques shall be utilized along the district boundary line, and
additional setbacks for structures, parking and activity areas may be imposed by
the director and/or planning commission.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 187 § 8 (part), 1984)
4
INDEX TO TITLE 16 AND TITLE 17 OF RPV MUNICIPAL CODES
Title 16 - SUBDIVISIONS
• Chapter 16.04 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
• Chapter 16.08 - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS
• Chapter 16.12 - PARCEL MAPS
• Chapter 16.16 - TRACT MAPS
• Chapter 16.20 - DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
• Chapter 16.24 - VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS
• Chapter 16.28 - C
Title 17 - ZONING
• ARTICLE I. - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
• ARTICLE II. - COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
• ARTICLE III. - INSTITUTIONAL AND CEMETERY DISTRICTS
• ARTICLE IV. - OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS
• ARTICLE V. - SPECIAL DISTRICTS
• ARTICLE VI. - USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
• ARTICLE VII. - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND REVIEW
• ARTICLE VIII. - ADMINISTRATION
»»»»»» »»»»»»» »»»»»»>
ARTICLE III. - INSTITUTIONAL AND CEMETERY DISTRICTS
• Chapter 17.26 - INSTITUTIONAL (1) DISTRICT
• Chapter 17.28 - CEMETERY (C) DISTRICT
• 17.28.010 - Purpose.
17.28.020 - Uses and development permitted.
• Only the following uses may be conducted or constructed in cemetery districts:
• A.
• Temporary special uses and developments, if a special use permit is first obtained,
pursuant to Chapter 17.62 (Special Use Permits);
• B.
• Commercial filming or photography, if a city film permit is first obtained, pursuant to
Chapter 9.16 (Still Photography, Motion Picture and Television Productions) of this
Municipal Code;
• C.
• Temporary vendors, if a temporary vendor permit is first obtained, pursuant to Chapter
17.62 (Special Use Permits); and
• D.
• Other uses as provided in any applicable overlay or special districts.
• (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• 17.28.030 - Uses and development permitted by conditional use permit.
• The following uses may be permitted in the cemetery district, pursuant to a conditional
use permit, as per Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permits):
• A.
• Burial park for earth interments, mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or
columbarium for cinerary interments;
• B.
• Mortuary;
• C.
• Associated sales and office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery,
including flower sales;
• D.
• Churches;
• E.
• Developments of natural resources, except in the coastal specific plan district;
• F.
• Public utility structures;
• G.
• Small wind energy systems, pursuant to Section 17.83.060 (Small wind energy systems);
and
• H.
• Such other uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive. Such a
determination may be appealed to the planning commission and the planning
commission's decision may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures). If a proposed use or development is located in
the coastal specific plan district, the city's final decision regarding such other use may be
appealed to the California Coastal Commission for a determination that the uses are
similar and compatible with the local coastal program.
• (Ord. 481 § 22, 2008; Ord. 377 § 10, 2002: Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 187 § 8 (part),
1984)
17.28.040 - General development standards.
• The following standards shall apply to cemetery districts:
• A.
• Setbacks. The following setback provisions apply to all structures and below grade
interments:
• 1.
• Front and Street Side. The front and street side setbacks shall be twenty-five feet.
• 2.
• Interior Side and Rear. If abutting a residential zoning district, the interior side and rear
setbacks shall be forty feet. If abutting a nonresidential zoning district, the interior side
and rear setbacks shall be twenty-five feet.
• B.
• Building Height. The maximum height of any building shall be sixteen feet, exce t
with the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission, pursuant to
Chapter 17.60 (Conditional Use Permit.)
• C.
• Roof Equipment. All roof equipment shall conform to the height limits specified in
Section 17.48.050 (Lots, Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height) and shall be
adequately screened from private properties and the public right-of-way.
• D.
• Signs. The provisions of Section 17.76.050 (Sign permit) shall apply.
• E.
• Parking, Loading and Access. The provisions of Chapter 17.50 (Nonresidential Parking
and Loading Standards) of this title shall apply. Where a cemetery district abuts a
residential district, additional parking requirements may be imposed by the director or
planning commission if warranted by a proposed project or use.
• F.
•
Storage. Except for those outdoor uses permitted by a conditional use permit or special
use permit, all maintenance and groundskeeping equipment shall be housed in
Permanent, entirely enclosed structures.
• G.
• Lighting. All exterior lighting in cemetery zoning districts shall conform to the
performance standards of Section 17.56.040 (Environmental Protection). Before any
development is approved, a plan showing the locations and specifications of all exterior
lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the director.
• H.
• Transportation Demand Management Development Standards. All development shall be
subject to the applicable transportation demand and trip reduction measures specified in
Section 10.28.030 (Transportation demand management and trip reduction measures) of
this Municipal Code. Any transportation demand or trip reduction measures required
pursuant to Section 10.28.030 (Transportation demand management and trip reduction
measures), shall be implemented in accordance with all applicable standards and
specifications of this title.
• I.
• Deliveries and Mechanical Equipment. Where a cemetery district abuts a residential
zoning district, all deliveries of goods and supplies; trash pick-up, including the use of
parking lot trash sweepers; and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment
which emits noise levels in excess of sixty-five dBA, as measured from the closest
property line to the equipment, shall only be allowed between the hours of seven a.m. and
seven p.m., Monday through Sunday, unless otherwise specified in an approved
conditional use permit or other discretionary approval.
• J.
• Where a cemetery district abuts a residential zoning district, buffering and screening
techniques shall be utilized along the district boundary line, and additional setbacks for
structures, parking and activity areas may be imposed by the director and/or planning
commission.
• (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 187 § 8 (part), 1984)
• ARTICLE VII. - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND REVIEW
• • Chanter 17.60 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
o • 17.60.010 - Purpose.
o • 17.60.020 - Application.
o • 17.60.030 - Filing fee.
o • 17.60.040 - Public hearing.
o • 17.60.050 - Findings and conditions.
o • 17.60.060 - Appeal.
o • 17.60.070 - Time limit.
o
• 17.60.080 - Failure to comply.
o
• 17.60.090 -Amendments.
o
• 17.60. 100 -Revocation.
• • Chapter
17.62 - SPECIAL USE PERMITS
o
• 17.62. 010 - Purpose.
o
• 17.62.020 - Uses and developments permitted with special use permits.
o
• 17.62.030 - Temporary vendor permit.
o
• 17.62.040 - Application.
o
• 17.62.050 - Notification.
o
• 17.62.060 - Action by director.
o
• 17.62.070 - Appeals.
• • Chapter
17.64 - VARIANCES
o
• 17.64.010 - Purpose.
o
• 17.64.020 - Application.
o
• 17.64.030 - Filing fee.
o
• 17.64.040 - Public hearing.
o
• 17.64.050 - Findings.
o
• 17.64.060 - Appeal.
o
• 17.64.070 - Conditions.
o
• 17.64.080 - Failure to comply.
• • Chapter
17.66 - MINOR EXCEPTION PERMITS
o
• 17.66.010 - Purpose.
o
• 17.66.020 - Scope.
o
• 17.66.030 - Application.
o
• 17.66.040 - Notification.
o
• 17.66.050 - Action by the director.
o
• 17.66.060 - Appeals.
• •Chapter
17.67 - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES
o
• 17.67.010 - Purpose.
o
• 17.67.020 - Applicability.
o
• 17.67.030 - Definitions.
o
• 17.67.040 - Application requirements.
o
• 17.67.050 - Reviewing authority.
o
• 17.67.060 - Procedures.
o
• 17.67.070 - Action by the director.
o
• 17.67.080 - Notice of determination.
o
• 17.67.090 - Appeal of determination.
o
• 17.67. 100 - Expiration of approval.
4
• • Chanter 17.68 - ZONE CHANGES AND CODE AMENDMENTS
o • 17.68.010 - Purpose.
o • 17.68.020 - Adoption procedure.
o • 17.68.030 - Initiation of zone change and/or code amendment.
o • 17.68.040 - Zone change and/or code amendment review procedure.
o • 17.68.050 - Modification.
o • 17.68.060 - Application.
o • 17.68.070 - Filing fee.
o • 17.68.080 - Notification.
o • 17.68.090 - Planning commission action.
o • 17.68. 100 - Adverse planning commission recommendation.
o • 17.68.110 - Time limit for development.
o • 17.68.120 - Extension of decision deadlines.
• • Chapter
17.70 - SITE PLAN REVIEW
o
• 17.70.010 - Purpose.
o
• 17.70.020 - Application.
•
• 17.70.030 - Approval.
• • Chapter
17.72 - COASTAL PERMITS
o
• 17.72.010 - Purpose.
o
• 17.72.020 - Scope.
o
• 17.72.030 - Determinations.
o
• 17.72.040 - Uses and developments permitted.
o
• 17.72.050 - Uses and developments excluded from the coastal permit
procedure.
o
• 17.72.060 - Filing fee.
o
• 17.72.070 - Notice.
o
• 17.72.080 - Public hearing.
o
• 17.72.090 - Findings.
o
• 17.72. 100 - Appeals.
o
• 17.72.110 - Final action.
o
• 17.72.120 - Concurrent permits.
o
• 17.72.130 - Coastal zone diagram.
• • Chapter
17.74 - RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
o
• 17.74.010 - Concept plan review.
o
• 17.74.020 - Residential planned development permit application.
o
• 17.74.030 - Revisions to plan.
•
• 17.74.040 - Bond for all common area and off-site improvements.
o
• 17.74.050 - Occupancy permit.
o
• 17.74.060 - Time limit.
o
• 17.74.070 - Finding and conditions.
• • Chapter
17.76 - MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS AND STANDARDS
o
• 17.76.010 - Parking lot permit.
o
• 17.76.020 - Antennas.
o
• 17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges.
o • 17.76.040 - Grading_ permit.
o • 17.76.050 - Sign permit.
o • 17.76.060 - Extreme slope permit.
o • 17.76.070 - Large family day care home permit.
o • 17.76.080 - Convenience stores.
o • 17.76.090 - Automobile service stations.
o • 17.76.100 - Reserved.
o • 17.76.110 - Exotic animal permit.
o • 17.76.115 - Large domestic animal permits.
o • 17.76.120 - Arcades.
o • 17.76.130 - Geologic investigation permit.
o • 17.76.140 - Bed and breakfast inns.
o • 17.76.160 - Disclosure of geological conditions.
o • 17.76.170 - Review for development within flood -prone areas.
o • 17.76.180 - Cargo containers.
o • 17.76.190 - Single -room occupancy facilities.
• Chanter 17.78 - MISCELLANEOUS
•
17.78.010- Fee waivers.
• 17.78.020 - Acceptance of conditions.
• 17.78.030 - Consideration of multiple applications.
• 17.78.040 - Amendments to approved applications.
A.
An amendment, which proposes a substantive revision to the plans or project approved
by an application that has been granted in accordance with this title, may be initiated by
the property owner, at any time it is deemed necessary or desirable, upon petition to the
director and submittal of a fee, as established by resolution by the city council. The
determination of what constitutes a substantive revision shall be made by the director.
Amendments to the project shall include, but are not limited to, the deletion or
modification of existinz conditions of approval, or the inclusion of new conditions of
approval
The amendment to the proiect shall be considered by the same body which took the
final action in granting the original application, utilizing the same hearing and noticing
procedures, review criteria and appeal procedures as required by this title, for
consideration of the original application.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• 17.78.050 - Interpretation procedure for approved applications.
A.
In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted
in accordance with this title, or to further define or enumerate the conditions of
approval of an approved application, an interpretation procedure shall be followed
whereby the body which took the final action in granting the original application shall
conduct an interpretation review of the decision in question. Said interpretation review
may be initiated by the director, planning commission, city council or upon the written
request of the property owner or any interested person. Said interpretation review shall
utilize the same notice, hearing process and review criteria required by this title for
consideration of the original application. The interpretation review procedure shall be
applied, but not be limited to the following situations:
1.
Discrepancies between approved plans and subsequently revised plans;
2.
Interpretations of conditions of approval;
3.
New issues stemming from construction of the approved project which were not
addressed or considered as part of the original proiect approval;
4.
New minor project modifications that are similar in scope to the Project considered
under the original application; and
5.
Minor modifications to the approved project as a result of and in coniunction with city
decisions on subsequent discretionary applications.
B.
In cases involving the interpretation of a decision of the planning commission and/or
city council, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the
appropriate review body. The director's written interpretation shall include a
determination on whether said interpretation decision constitutes a minor,
nonsubstantial revision to the approved application. Upon review of the director's
interpretation, the appropriate body shall either:
1.
Concur with the director's interpretation, and if the interpretation results in a minor
revision to the approved application, approve the revision by minute order; or
Make a determination that the subject interpretation may result in a substantive
revision to the originally approved application and thus require a formal review
hearing; utilizing the same hearing, noticing requirements, review criteria and appeal
procedures, required by this title, for consideration of the original application.
C.
In cases where the interpretation review is initiated by the director, planning commission
or city council, no fee shall be required. In cases where the interpretation review is
initiated by an applicant/property owner or interested party, a fee, as established by
resolution of the city council, shall be required. Cases in which an interpretation
review shall be considered as initiated by an applicant/property owner or interested
partv include but are not limited to:
1.
Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an
applicant or interested person as to whether a subsequently revised plan is consistent of
the originally approved plan; and the applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of
the review body which took the final action on the approved application; and
2.
Situations in which there is a difference of opinion between the director and an
applicant or interested person on the interpretation of a condition of approval, and the
applicant or interested person seeks the opinion of the review body which took the final
action on the approved application.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• Chanter 17.80 - HEARING NOTICE AND APPEAL PROCEDURES
. 17.80.010 - Title and purpose.
• 17.80.020 - Effect of filing.
• 17.80.030 - Appellate authority.
• 17.80.040 - Notice of decision by director.
• 17.80.050 - Appeal to planning commission.
• 17.80.060 - Action by planning commission.
17.80.070 - Appeal to city council.
• 17.80.080 - Action by city council.
• 17.80.090 - Notice of hearing.
• 17.80.100 - Hearing transcript.
• 17.80.110 - Denial without prejudice.
• 17.80.120 - Appeal fee refund.
• 17.80.130 - Appeals by city council.
• Chapter 17.82 - PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
• 17.82.010 - Purpose.
• 17.82.020 - Application.
• 17.82.030 - Notification.
• 17.82.040 - Action by planning commission.
• 17.82.050 - Action by city council.
• 17.82.060 - Required findingspproval.
• 17.82.070 - Recordation.
• 17.82.080 - Ongoing review.
• 17.82.090 - Amendments or repeal of approved development agreements.
• Chanter 17.83 - GREEN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
• 17.83.010 -Intent and purpose.
• 17.83.020 - Incentives for participation in voluntary green building program.
• 17.83.030 - Green building application requirements for obtaining single-family and
multifamily projects.
cts.
• 17.83.040 - Green building application requirements for commercial, institutional
and/or mixed-use projects.
• 17.83.050 - Application procedures for renewable energy systems photovoltaic and
solar water heating).
• • 17.83.060 - Small wind energy systems.
• ARTICLE VIII. - ADMINISTRATION
Chapter 17.84 - NONCONFORMITIES
• • 17.84.010 - Purpose.
• • 17.84.020 - Applicability.
• • 17.84.030 - Continuance of nonconformities.
• • 17.84.040 - Nonconforming lots.
• • 17.84.050 - Nonconforming uses.
• • 17.84.060 - Nonconforming buildings and other structures.
• Chapter 17.86 - ENFORCEMENT
• 17.86.010 - Purpose.
• 17.86.020 - Evidence or procedure.
• 17.86.030 - Prohibited uses.
D
• 17.86.040 - Enforcement.
• 17.86.050 - Disqualification for violation.
• 17.86.060 - Suspension or revocation of permits.
• 17.86.070 - Expiration of permit upon nonuse.
• 17.86.080 - Penalty
• 17.86.090 - Penalty for violation.
•
17.86. 100 - Statute of limitations
• Chapter 17.88 - ZONING MAP
• 17.88.010 - Purpose.
• 17.88.020 - Zoning map.
• 17.88.030 - District boundaries.
• Chapter 17.90 - INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE
• 17.90.010 - Purpose and scope.
• This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal
Code:
• A.
• In cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaninm or intent of any provision of
Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code, or to further deme or enumerate the uses permitted in
the various zonink districts. Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all
situations of the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or
circumstances thereon.
• B.
• An adjustment of an open -space hazard zoning district boundary line (except within the
coastal zone) up to one hundred feet from the location depicted on the city's official
zoning map if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise
location of the open -space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map, based
on site conditions and geology.
• C.
• An adjustment of a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line, or open -space
hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone, up to five feet from the location
depicted on the city's official zoning map, if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a
more accurate and precise location of the open -space hazard district boundary line on the
official zoning map, based on site conditions and approved geology.
• D.
• An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line, other than the open -space
hazard district boundary line or a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line, of up
to thirty feet from the location depicted on the official zoning map.
• (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• (Ord. No. 532, § 5, 2-21-12)
10
• 17.90.020 - Initiation.
• A.
• An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010(A), 17.90.010(C) or 17.90.010(D) may be
initiated by the city council, planning commission, director, or by any person upon the
written request and payment of fee, as established pursuant to city council resolution.
• B.
• An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010(B) may only be initiated by the owner of
the property on which said open -space hazard zoning district is located.
• 1.
• The written interpretation request shall include the property address, the requested
distance that the zoning district boundary line or area is to be adjusted from the location
depicted on the zoning map, and the property owner's original signature. Furthermore,
said written request shall be accompanied by a scaled site plan, including the property
lines, the existing open -space hazard boundary line, and the proposed new boundary line
with the scaled distance of the proposed movement of the boundary line, as well as a fee
for a geological site inspection by the city's geotechnical staff to verify that the proposed
adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not adversely
impact the public health, safety and welfare.
• 2.
• Requests for interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010(B) for any lot or parcel cannot
exceed a cumulative total of one hundred feet from the original location of the open -
space hazard line.
• (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• (Ord. No. 532, § 5, 2-21-12)
17.90.030 - Basis of interpretation.
• A.
• An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code,
considering all the relevant provisions thereof, and shall be consistent with such intent.
Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of the various
zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein.
• B.
• In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses
permitted in a particular zone, consideration shall be given to the similarities and
differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the
characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone.
• C.
• In the case of an interpretation involving the location of a coastal specific plan setback
zone boundary line, consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
• D.
• In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard zoning
district boundary line, consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports,
only if required by the city's geotechnical staff after the initial geological site inspection.
Otherwise, the interpretation will be based upon the geological site inspection and site
conditions.
• (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• (Ord. No. 532, § 5, 2-21-12)
11
• 17.90.040 - Preparation, notice and transmittal.
A.
For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010(A), within thirty days after the initiation
of an interpretation, the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to
the planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such
interpretation has been prepared Such notice shall be published and given to the
property owner, any interested parties, and any affected homeowner associations, as
required for a code amendment, pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code
Amendments) of this title.
• Within f1fteen calendar days after the date of the notice, the planning commission, city
council or any interested person may make a written request to the director for a
hearin . If no such request for a hearing is received, the interpretation shall become
effective and final rifteen calendar days after the date of the notice.
• B.
• For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010(B), 17.90.010(C) or 17.90.010(D),
within thirty days after the initiation request has been deemed complete by staff, the
director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the
interpretation, owners of all abutting properties, and any interested person. Within five
calendar days after the date of the director's notice, the person requesting the
interpretation, the abutting property owners, and any interested person may file a written
appeal of the decision of the director to the planning commission, and any decision of the
planning commission to the city council, pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal Procedures) of this title. Within fifteen calendar days of filing an appeal, the
appellant appealing a decision related to Section 17.90.010(B) and (C) must submit the
basis for the appeal supported by a letter or report from a registered geologist or
geotechnical engineer. If no timely written appeal is submitted or if a written appeal is
submitted but no follow-up geological letter or report is submitted within the time frame
specified, the decision will be final.
• (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• (Ord. No. 532, § 5, 2-21-12)
17.90.050 - Planning commission hearing and action.
• A.
• If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.0100) is received, or
if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010(B), 17.90.010(C),
or 17.90.010(D) is filed, a hearing shall be held by the planning commission within
thirty calendar days of the date of such request or appeal.
• B.
• After the hearing, the planning commission may, by resolution, adopt the proposed
interpretation, adopt a modified or different interpretation, or refer the matter to the
director for further study. Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty
calendar (lays after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the
director's interpretation.
• C.
12
If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study, the director
shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the provisions of
Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.
• Unless the vlannine commission refers the internretation to the director for further
study, the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning commission
to the applicant, any interested person, and any affected homeowner association pursuant
to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of Decision by Director) of this title. The decision of the
planning commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the
date of notice of its action, unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance
with Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
• (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
• (Ord. No. 532, § 5, 2-21-12)
• 17.90.060 - Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17, 90.0100) is given final approval by the
director, planning commission or city council, the director shall enter the
interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made
accessible to any interested person. When an interpretation pursuant to Sections
17.90.010(B), 17.90.010(C) or 17.90.010(D) is given final approval, the interpretation
shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and updated on the city's official
zoning map through the procedure identified in Section 17.88.020(E).
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997)
(Ord. No. 532, § 5, 2-21-12)
• Chapter 17.92 - SEVERABILITY
• 17.92.010 - Severability.
Chapter 17.96 - DEFINITIONS
• • 17.96.010 - Purpose and applicability.
• • 17.96.020 - Access.
• • 17.96.030 - Advisory a enc.
• • 17.96.040 - Alley.
• • 17.96.045 - Amateur repeater.
• • 17.96.050 - Amusement park.
• • 17.96.060 - Amusement ride.
• 17.96.070 - Animal clinic.
• • 17.96.080 - Animals, large domestic.
• • 17.96.085 - Antenna.
• • 17.96.087 - Antenna assemblv.
• • 17.96.090 - Antenna, commercial.
• • 17.96. 100 - Antenna, noncommercial amateur radio.
• • 17.96.110 - Antenna, satellite dish.
13
• 17.96.120 - Antenna support structure.
• 17.96.130 - Antenna, television.
• 17.96.140 - Apartment.
• 17.96.150 - Apartments, community_
• 17.96.160 - Arcade, video game.
• 17.96.170 - Area, buildable.
• 17.96.180 - Area, gross floor.
• 17.96.190 - Arca,grosslot.
• 17.96.200 - Area, net lot.
• 17.96.210 - Automobile service and repair.
* 17.96.220 - Automobile service station.
17.96.230 - Basement.
• 17.96.240 - Bed and breakfast inn.
• 17.96.250 - Bedroom.
• 17.96.260 - Bee hive.
• 17.96.270 - Building.
• 17.96.280 - Buildingfrontage.
rontage.
• 17.96.290 - Building height.
• 17.96.300 - Building, maintenance.
• 17.96.3 10 - Building official.
• 17.96.320 - Building pad.
• 17.96.330 - Caisson foundation.
• 17.96.340 - Canopy.
• 17.96.345 - Cargo containers.
• 17.96.350 - Carport.
• 17.96.360 - Cellar.
• 17.96.365 - Child care facility.
• 17.96.370 - City.
• 17.96.380 - City council.
• 17.96.390 - City engineer.
• 17.96.400 - Cleared areas.
• 17.96.410 - Coastal appealable development.
• 17.96.420 - Coastal excluded development.
• 17.96.430 - Coastal nonappealable development.
• 17.96.440 - Coastal risk of adverse environmental effect.
• 17.96.450 - Commercial vehicle.
• 17.96.460 - Condominium.
• 17.96.470 - Convenience store.
• 17.96.480 - Conversion.
• 17.96.490 - Cut.
• 17.96.500 - Day care, large family.
• 17.96.5 10 - Day care, small family.
• 17.96.520 - Day nursery or day care center.
• 17.96.525 - Deck.
14
• •
17.96.530 - Dedicated land.
• •
17.96.540 - Density.
• •
17.96.550 - Density bonus.
• •
17.96.555 - Density, maximum allowable residential.
• •
17.96.560 - Development.
• •
17.96.570 - Development, cluster.
•
17.96.575 - Development, housing_
•
17.96.580 - Development site.
• •
17.96.585 - Development standard.
• •
17.96.590 - Director.
• •
17.96.600 - Driveway.
•
17.96.605 - Driveway, direct access.
• •
17.96.610 - Dwelling unit.
•
17.96.620 - Educational institution.
• •
17.96.625 - Emergency shelters.
• •
17.96.630 - Emergency work_
•
17.96.640 - Employee, home occupation.
• •
17.96.650 - Excavation.
•
17.96.660 - Export.
•
17.96.670 - Extreme slope.
•
17.96.680 - Family.
•
17.96.690 - Feasible.
.
17.96.700 - Fence.
.
17.96.710 - Fence, temporary construction.
•
17.96.720 - Fill.
• •
17.96.730 - Flags and pennants.
•
17.96.740 - Foliage.
•
17.96.750 - Frontage.
•
17.96.760 - Garage, private or public.
•
17.96.765 - Garage sale.
.
17.96.770 - General plan.
•
17.96.780 - Geologist, engineering.
• •
17.96.790 - Grade, finished.
•
17.96.800 - Grade, natural.
"Natural
grade" means the ground surface unaltered by artificial means.
(Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 277 § 8 (part), 1992)
• •
17.96.810 - Grade, preconstruction.
•
17.96.820 - Grading.
•
17.96.830 - Grading, balanced.
•
17.96.840 - Grading contractor.
•
17.96.850 - Grading plan.
• •
17.96.860 - Grading, remedial.
• •
17.96.870 - Grading, supervised.
.
17.96.880 - Guest house.
15
• • 17.96.890 - Hearinjzs officer.
• • 17.96.900 - Hedge.
• • 17.96.910 - Helistop.
• • 17.96.920 - Holiday, legal.
• 17.96.930 - Hotel.
• 17.96.940 - Household.
• • 17.96.945 - Household pets.
• • 17.96.950 - Income, household.
• 17.96.960 - Income, low.
• 17.96.970 - Income, moderate.
• • 17.96.980 - Income, verb
• • 17.96.990 - Interested person.
• 17.96. 1000 - Kitchen.
• 17.96. 1010 - Land coverage.
• 17.96.1020 - Landscaping_
• 17.96.1030 - Loading space.
• • 17.96.1040 - Lot.
• 17.96.1050 - Lot area or size.
• • 17.96.1060 - Lot, corner.
• • 17.96.1070 - Lot coverage.
• 17.96.1080 - Lot depth.
• • 17.96.1090 - Lot, downslope.
• 17.96.1100 - Lot, flag.
• • 17.96. 1110 - Lot, interior.
• • 17.96.1120 - Lot, pad.
• 17.96.1130 - Lot, through.
• • 17.96.1140 - Lot, upslope.
. 17.96.1150 - Lot width.
• • 17.96.1160 - Main building.
• • 17.96.1170 - Map, final.
• 17.96.1180 - Map, parcel.
• • 17.96.1190 - Map, tentative.
• 17.96.1200 - Market rate.
• • 17.96.1210 - Mechanical equipment.
• 17.96.1220 - Microwave.
• 17.96.1230 - Mobile home.
• 17.96.1240 - Mobile home park.
• 17.96.1250 - Motel.
• 17.96.1260 - Neighborhood character.
• 17.96.1270 - Neighborhood compatibility.
• 17.96.1280 - Nonconforming.
• 17.96.1290 - Nursery school.
• 17.96.1300 - Off -sale.
• 17.96.13 10 - Off-site improvements.
16
• •
17.96.1330 - Owner.
•
17.96.1340 - Parcel.
• •
17.96.1350 - Parcel, existing.
• •
17.96.1360 - Parcel of record.
•
17.96.1370 - Parcels, abutting.
•
17.96.1380 - Parcels, adjacent.
• •
17.96.1390 - Parcels, contiguous.
• •
17.96.1400 - Parking area, private or public.
•
17.96.1410 - Parking space.
•
17.96.1420 - Person.
•
17.96.1430 - Pervious surface.
• •
17.96.1440 - Placed or displayed.
•
17.96.1450 - Planning commission.
•
17.96.1460 - Pool, swimming or ornamental.
.
17.96.1470 - Privacy.
•
17.96.1480 - Promontory.
.
17.96.1490 - Public right-of-way.
.
17.96.1500 - Public works projects.
•
17.96.1510 - Recreation, active.
•
17.96.1520 - Recreation, passive.
•
17.96.1530 - Recycling center.
•
17.96.1540 - Recycling dropoff or collection facility_
•
17.96.1550 - Recycling program, community service.
•
17.96.1560 - Recycling single -feed reverse vending machine.
•
17.96.1570 - Recycling unit, mobile.
.
17.96.1580 - Relay tower.
•
17.96.1590 - Residence.
•
17.96.1595 - Restaurant.
•
17.96.1600 - Retail store.
.
17.96.1610 - Ridge.
•
17.96.1620 - Ridgeline, structure.
•
17.96.1630 - Room.
•
17.96.1640 - Row house.
•
17.96.1650 - Scale.
•
17.96.1660 - Senior resident, qualifying.
•
17.96.1670 - Service station.
.
17.96.1680 - Setback.
•
17.96.1690 - Shopping center.
•
17.96.1700 - Shopping district.
•
17.96.1710 -Sign.
•
17.96.1720 - Sign, announcement.
•
17.96.1730 - Sign area.
•
17.96.1740 - Sign, billboard and outdoor advertising.
•
17.96.1750 - Sign, contractor.
17
• • 17.96.1760 - Sign, directional.
• • 17.96.1770 - Sign, flashing
• • 17.96.1780 - Sign, freestanding,
• • 17.96.1790 - Sign height.
• • 17.96.1800 - Sign, illuminated.
• • 17.96.18 10 - Sign, moving or rotating
• • 17.96.1820 - Sign, off -premises.
• • 17.96.1830 - Sign, on -premises.
• 17.96.1840 - Sign, permanent identification.
• • 17.96.1850 - Sign, product advertising
• • 17.96.1860 - Sign structure.
. 17.96.1870 - Sign, temporary.
• • 17.96.1880 - Sign, temporary banner.
• • 17.96.1890 - Sign, temporary promotional.
• 17.96.1900 - Sign, under -canopy.
• 17.96.1910 - Sign, window.
. 17.96.1920 - Site.
. 17.96.1930 - Site plan.
• • 17.96.1940 - Slope drain.
• 17.96.1950 - Slope, man-made.
• • 17.96.1960 - Soils engineer.
• 17.96.1970 - Stock cooperative.
• • 17.96.1980 - Stockpile.
• • 17.96.1990 - Story.
• • 17.96.2000 - Street.
• 17.96.2010 - Street side.
• • 17.96.2020 - Street, private.
• 17.96.2030 - Structural alteration.
• • 17.96.2040 - Structure.
• "Structure" means anything constructed or built, any edifice or buildinz of any kind,
or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts ioined tomether in some
definite manner, which is located on or on top of the mround. For "structures"
mentioned in Section 17.02.040 of this title, please see Chapter 17.02 for definition. (Ord.
320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 277 § 8 (part), 1992)
• . 17.96.2050 - Structure, accessory.
• • 17.96.2060 - Structure, advertising.
• • 17.96.2070 - Style.
• • 17.96.2080 - Subdivision.
• • 17.96.2090 - Subdivision design.
• • 17.96.2095 - Supportive housing
. 17.96.2100 - Temporary.
• • 17.96.2105 - Tower height, small wind energysystem.
. 17.96.2110 - Trailer.
• 17.96.2115 - Transitional housing.
18
• • 17.96.2120 - Unit, affordable.
• • 17.96.2125 - Units, affordable housing.
• • 17.96.2130 - Unit, dwelling.
• • 17.96.2150 - Unit, primary dwelling_
• • 17.96.2160 - Unit, second.
• • 17.96.2180 - Use.
• 17.96.2190 - Use, ancillary.
• 17.96.2200 - Use development or alteration.
• • 17.96.2210 - Use, primary.
. 17.96.2220 - Vegetation.
• 17.96.2230 - Veterinary clinic.
• 17.96.2240 - Video game.
• 17.96.2250 - View.
• 17.96.2260 - Viewing area.
• • 17.96.2270 - View restoration commission.
• 17.96.2280 - Visitor -serving use.
• • 17.96.2290 - Wall.
• • 17.96.2300 - Wall, common.
• 17.96.23 10 - Wall, downslope retaining-.
• 17.96.2320 - Wall, garden.
. 17.96.2330 - Wall, retaining.
• 17.96.2340 - Wall, side yard retaining.
. 17.96.2350 - Wall, upslope retaining_
• 17.96.2355 - Wind energy system, small.
• 17.96.2360 - Window, bay.
• • 17.96.2370 - Window,ag rden.
• 17.96.2380 - Windscreen.
• • 17.96.2390 - Yard.
• 17.96.2400 - Yard, front.
• 17.96.2410 - Yard, rear.
• 17.96.2420 - Yard, side.
• • 17.96.2430 - Zoning district, base.
19
PHOTO DEPICTING INSPIRATION SLOPE MAUSOLEUM DEVELOPMENT
Photo taken January 9, 2017 off of Google Maps depicting Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (still under construction), circa
2016. The reference to "Lawn Crypts" on the photo is a legal "Misnomer" and should be disregarded because neither
state law, nor the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal (Zoning) Code formally define "lawn crypts". These are legally
considered "earth interments". Under the RPV City Municipal Code (§17.28.030(A)), use of cemetery property
contemplates only three types of (official) "uses" attendant to the disposition of human remains. All three categories use
the term "interment'. Those three types of officially contemplated "uses" are (i) "earth interments", (ii) vault or crypt
interments in a mausoleum (which makes the use of the term "lawn crypts" a misnomer), and (iii) cinerary interments in a
columbarium. This definitional matrix is duplicated in state law which defines a "crypt" as "a space in a mausoleum of
sufficient size, used or intended to be used to entomb uncremated human remains" (Health & Safety Code §7015)
(Emphasis Added). "Entombment' means the process of placing human remains in a crypt or vault". (Health & Safety
Code §7012) (Emphasis Added). "Interment' means the "the disposition of human remains by "entombment' or "buriaP'
in a cemetery. (Health & Safety Code §7009) An "Earth interment' contemplates what is commonly thought of as a
"buriaP'; a term which is also a specially defined under state law. "Burial' means the process of placing human remains
in a grave. (Health & Safety Code §7013). (Emphasis Added). Health & Safety Code §7014 defines a " rg ave" as "a
space of earth in a burial park used, or intended to be used for the disposition of human remains." (Emphasis Added).
This is another reason the reference to (or labeling of any use consisting of) "lawn crypts" is misleading. "Crypts" are, by
definition, placed "inside" a mausoleum. There can be no "lawn" inside a mausoleum. Nor can there be "lawn crypts" on
the Mausoleum Roof (where apparently the "plots" have already been recorded (May, 2014) with the County Recorder
(See Below). The reference to "lawn" is an obvious reference to what one normally considers "the ground" or "the earth".
The term "lawn crypts" is therefore a legal "oxymoron", is legally meaningless, and completely misleading. It should
therefore be discarded as part of any cogent, comprehensive, or competent legal analysis. Green Hills Master Plan
needs to be amended to reflect these proper legal definitions so as to avoid any future confusion as the Master Plan is
built -out.
WAA
2N'D ADD1'1•ION 1.AlY'N CRYPTS TO THE AMENDED .1IAP OF INSPIRATION SLOPE_ AIAU.SOLEUM O
CRFs \ HILLS 11L IAM.tt NU
AMF
pNSp
1�R/.TIU(Y •
PCs 9 95 C ,SL r' bGFU 1 NE DATA saswrs a L
.. - - Hf'c7t NG C15TA•CE
• y
J SOL TON EN[;INEERb
60RIVRA 770M
bi+ti%!Fi-.... NiNELA Fr�(o,nvtanffli,• •r _
.�-M let t-al oe_
r. n
Vx
. MuA irin[o
Lysh}jek L-4w.\ ( Rim /.1N'.1TK)\ ... .. -
. ._Jh/;2&1 St R1f1 C0%TR(N .... •-. - '.. -�.t.1
--. • zPP{N/ -- a ..r
This is what the certification says relative to the Inspiration Slope situation. "Plots" or "land
interests were "recorded" by Green Hills on Inspiration Slope despite the fact that Green Hills
has nothing legal to sell because the City has not given Green Hills the right to "subdivide"
"interment sites" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The City Planners now this;
the members of the City Planning Commission know this; the City Council either knows this or
will come to know this. The Planning Commissioners are concerned. But there is only so much
they can do until the City Council provides the requisite leadership by insisting that the current
zoning law be followed. Green Hills is practicing deceit on the public by recording a document
which purports to subdivide "land" on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum when no
such "land" exists. While the law allows and contemplates the subdivision of airspace "within"
(i.e. inside) a Mausoleum, nothing in law contemplates or permits the subdivision of roof
space on a mausoleum building and labeling that "roof space" ... "land')..... This
Certification is dated May 24, 2016. It was recorded on June 14, 2016, as per the "cover page"
noted below.
2
This Pago is part of your document • 00 NOT DISCARD
20160682217
I
II IIIlIII�Ii it illi �?IIII II NIS ISI Ifl
R.
t �
RwcorciedlFllact irr +3if)cial Racarsfx
}
Rorar(totl% (,WJcP, L.Angel" County,
� �
Galifarnio
(t6tp#W}a
061 4116 AT 11:06AM
Paq�:
0002
VPI.!.: it 00
I AXL!? () 00
(1(10:1,: 0 01)
VA 10
I Iili II' I1 ��I li I ISI 1 I ILII .II VIII I II II' IIID III ���I II I II II ISI
LEADSHEET
I VIII II I i l lil l l llll 111 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1
III 1111111 IN III I III 1111
201606143310034
00012216922
1111=111Hill 111111111
007611695
SkQ:
02
DAR-j]NCounter (Hard Copy)
111 iU � 11��i�f ItiCII� (I�1��
THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED
Description: L•oe Angeles,CA Vocrament - Y.4-D—XV 2G16.6$2217 Psge: Z of 2
Order: 1 Comment:
3
AM
CITYOF RANCHO PALOSVERDES
January 5, 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a
public hearing on Tuesday, January 31, 2017, at 6:30PM at Hesse Park Community Building,
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider the following:
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW — The City Council will
conduct an annual review of the applicant's compliance with the Conditions of Approval
associated with the Master Plan's Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on
November 17, 2015 per Resolution No. 2015-102. Pursuant to Section 17.78.040(8) of the
RPVMC, which states that amendments to a project shall be considered by the same body
which took the final action in granting the original application, the City Council may add,
delete, or modify the Conditions of Approval as deemed necessary or appropriate.
PROJECT LOCATION: 27501 Western Avenue
APPLICANT/LANDOWNER: Green Hills Memorial Park
If you have any comments or concerns about the proposed project, please communicate those
thoughts in writing to Ms. So Kim, Senior Planner, by Friday, January 20, 2017. By doing so, you
will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration for the staff analysis of the project. All
correspondence received after January 20, 2017 will be given separately to the City Council on the
night of the meeting. Please note that written materials, including emails, submitted to the
City are public records and may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may
be televised and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to omit
personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may become part of the
public record regarding an item on the agenda.
If you would like the opportunity to review the City Council -adopted Conditions of Approval
(Resolution No. 2015-102) or the Master Plan, they are on file in the Community Development
Department at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, and are available for review
from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM Monday through Thursday, and from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Friday.
Additionally, said documents are also available for viewing on the City's website
(http://www.rpvca.gov/376/Green-Hills-Memorial-Park-Master-Plan).
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Senior Planner So Kim, at (310)
544-5222, or sokCarovca.gov for further information.
SCinc, ,
Ara i ranian, ICP
Community Development Director
NOTE: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge this application in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the public review period described in this notice.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, GA 90275-5391
PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293
E-MAILPLANNING@RPVGAGOV/ WWW.RPVCA(OV
From:
roma.khan@akerman.com
Sent:
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 2:05 PM
To:
CC
Cc:
daleshire@awattorneys.com; Doug Willmore; Ara Mihranian; So Kim; tfrew@ghmp.com;
ellen.berkowitz@akerman.com
Subject:
Green Hills Memorial Park
Attachments:
City Council (dated 01-31-17).PDF
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please see the attached correspondence.
Thank you,
Roma Khan
Legal Assistant to Ellen Berkowitz, Brady R. McShane and Lisa Kolieb
Akerman LLP 138th Floor 1 725 South Figueroa Street I Los Angeles, CA 90017-5438
Dir: 213.533.5948 1 Main: 213.688.9500 1 Fax: 213.627.6342
roma. khan@akerman.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
it. Thank you.
Ellen Berkowitz
Akerman LLP
38th Floor
725 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5438
Tel: 213.688.9500
Fax: 213.627.6342
Dir: 213.533.5945
Dir Fax: 213.599.2664
ellen.berkowitz@akerman.com
January 31, 2017
VIA E-MAIL — cc(a-)_rpvca.gov
Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
This law firm represents Green Hills Memorial Park ("Green Hills"). We are writing to
you at the City Attorney's request to respond to certain arguments raised in the email
correspondence ("Email") submitted to you yesterday by attorney Noel Weiss, entitled
"Objections to Staff Report — Compliance Review of Green Hills."
The Email claims that, should the City adopt the Conditions of Approval ("Conditions")
as proposed by City staff, the City would be engaging in a "complete and unlawful
revamping of the City's land use entitlement protocol," similar to the actions of the Los
Angeles City Council in a controversial case involving billboards. "Complete and
unlawful" sounds rather ominous and mirrors the hyperbole -laden language the author
has used in the three (yes, that's 3) lawsuits filed to date against the City and Green
Hills. Nevertheless, like the boy who cried wolf, the current allegations are based in
neither law nor fact.
The city of Los Angeles billboard case is in no way analogous to the situation here. In
that case, the court found that the city of Los Angeles had no authority to exempt two
billboard companies from compliance with City ordinances governing billboards. The
Email appears to be suggesting that the City of RPV is also exempting Green Hills from
compliance with the City's ordinances governing cemeteries. It is difficult to envision
' The two billboard companies were exempt from: (i) a total prohibition/ban on billboards in the city; (ii) numerous
zoning and building laws, including 10 specifically identified city ordinances; and (3) penn.itting requirements.
sA V+'!s�Il.�:Otl€
(40603634;1)
Honorable City Council Members
January 31, 2017
Page 2
how such a claim could credibly be made, given that the action before you tonight
involves the imposition on Green Hills of thirty-three (33) pages of detailed Conditions —
many of them extremely onerous, burdensome and costly — governing use, structure
height, landscaping, building placement, burial placement and security, among many,
many other topics. The Email discounts the fact that the City has imposed all of these
Conditions on Green Hills, and seems to contend that unless the City: (i) defines
precise limitations on the number of interments: (ii) requires an application for a
modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow for rooftop burials and (iii)
requires the Planning Commission to hear the annual review first, the City has, in effect,
exempted Green Hills from compliance with all zoning laws, just as the city of Los
Angeles exempted the billboard companies from compliance with its billboard
ordinances. Nonsense.
First, there is nothing in the City's Code or state law that suggests limitations on the
number of interments is appropriate, necessary or warranted. Limits of that nature were
never contemplated in the City's Code, which permits burials and other types of
interments on cemetery property. City Code §17.28.030(A). Nor are they contemplated
in the State law, which allows cemeteries to be used for burials and the interment of
human remains. Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 7003, 7001. The Email points to
language in Section 17.238.030(H) of the City's Municipal Code related to the Director's
ability to allow other "no more intensive" uses at the cemetery, as somehow suggesting
that the City intended to place limits on the numbers of burials. This is not at all what
the Code says. The Code — just as State law — allows the cemetery to be used for
cemetery purposes (subsection (A)), as well as other ancillary uses, such as those
enumerated in subsections (B) -(G) (i.e., mortuary, sales offices, churches, and small
wind energy systems). Subsection (H) simply states that the Director can permit uses
other than the uses enumerated in subsections (A) -(G), so long as such uses are
similar and not more intense than those in described (A) -(G). The Email's implication
that subsection (H) limits the number of burials at Green Hills is simply false, as burials
are expressly permitted by subsection (A).
Second, the Email suggests that the proposed Conditions grant Green Hills "new land
use entitlements" — namely, "rooftop burials" — even though Green Hills has not applied
for an amendment to its CUP to allow for such use. The proposed Conditions do no
such thing: they do not grant any right to rooftop burials. In fact, quite the contrary.
The City has made it abundantly clear that, should Green Hills wish to have burials on
the roof of Inspiration Slope, it must apply for an amendment to its CUP.2 Further, the
Conditions explicitly state that future rooftop interments are subject to approval by the
City Council, pursuant to the multi -layered procedure set forth in Paragraph 2.b. (See
subsection (2) of 2.b.) While the Email devotes multiple paragraphs to its erroneous
2 T the extent the Email is referring to rooftop burials at Pacific Terrace, these were expressly approved
10 years ago, in the 2007 amendment/revision to the Master Plan.
(40603684;1)
Honorable City Council Members
January 31, 2017
Page 3
claim that the Conditions effectively amend the CUP by allowing rooftop burials
(paragraphs filled with legalese and Code citations in an effort to lend an air of apparent
legitimacy to this argument), the fact is that the argument is just plain wrong. The
Conditions do not grant Green Hills the right to have rooftop burials, nor do they grant
any other new land use entitlements.
Third, the Email claims the City has violated its own laws which require the Planning
Commission to first hear all matters relative to Green Hills' annual review. To the
contrary, the City Council has the authority under Section 17.78.040 of the Municipal
Code to allow it to assume jurisdiction of the annual review. In any event, we should
note that the Planning Commission commenced the last annual review in February,
2014. After conducting months of hearings, the annual review was not concluded until
November, 2015, when the City Council rendered its final decision on the matter.
Arguably, the Planning Commission's actions violated Green Hills' right to due process
— a right that is intended to ensure that decisions of local legislative bodies and advisory
agencies (such as Planning Commissions) be determined "expeditiously." See
Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa, 86 Cal. App. 3d 873, 886 (1978);
Griffis v. Cty. of Mono, 163 Cal. App. 3d 414 (1985) Suffice it to say, under these
circumstances, the nearly two year thrashing to which Green Hills was subject could
hardly be deemed "expeditious" and provides ample justification for the City Council to
take direct jurisdiction of the annual review.
The Emails raises a number of other points, all of which are equally as specious as the
points discussed above. For example, the Email contends that Green Hills violated its
CUP (not to mention State law and City Code sections) by recording a map for the roof
of Inspiration Slope, The Email espouses the notion that Green Hills should not file
maps for an area until the City grants an explicit land use entitlement to use that area.
That notion evidences a lack of understanding of the provisions of State law, in which
the primary regulations governing cemeteries can be found. For one, State law
requires maps to be recorded when property is to be dedicated for cemetery purposes.
See Cal. Health & Safety Code §8551 ("cemetery authority shall file the map ... in the
office of the recorder . ..") and to update and amend those maps as necessary. Id.
§8554; see also $8550. Local government agency approval is not a prerequisite to filing
and recording such maps. In fact, Green Hills has had maps recorded for the
Inspiration Slope area since 1991, and updates them from time to time as it further
refines its plans. Such actions are fully in keeping with State law.
The Email also goes on at length about Green Hills' storage of vaults at Inspiration
Slope. The author has attempted to raise this issue with the City on numerous
occasions, including seeking a request for an interpretation on the subject, and
eventually filing a lawsuit when he did not obtain the answer from the City he wanted.
Accordingly, this matter will be litigated in a court of law. It is no longer an appropriate
subject to attempt to litigate before the City Council.
{40603684;1}
Honorable City Council Members
January 31, 2017
Page 4
At your request, we would be happy to provide you with any additional information
concerning the above issues. In the meantime, we look forward to the hearing tonight.
Si
Ellen Berkowitz
AKERWAN LLP
cc: David Aleshire, Esq. (via e-mail)
Doug Willmore (via e-mail)
Ara Mihranian (via e-mail)
So Kim (via e-mail)
Thomas Frew (via e-mail)
,40603684;1}
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ACTING CITY CLERK
DATE: JANUARY 30, 2017
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, January 31, 2017 City Council meeting:
Item No.
Description of Material
Letter from Green Hills Memorial Park Introducing Management
Team; Letter from Tony & Barbara Molino; Emails from: Councilman
Dyda; Diane Smith; William Spinelli; Rudy Svorinich; Debbie
Landes; John Anderson; Louis Verde; Bob Nelson; Colleen Lafave;
Pastor Howard Mayeda; Claudia_Grzywacz; David Turner; Jim
Matsuo and Family; Vince Reher Vince Giuliano; John Moody;
Sharon Cook; Dave Albert; Lisa Chieppa; Bob Shafer
Respectfully submitted,
Ter&s'6 Takaoka
WA01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2017 Cover Sheets\20170131 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
Inwg t , Qmiunir.rn cit, Cary, and Respect
January 23, 2017
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
RE: Introduction from Green Hills Memorial Park Management Team
Dear Mr. Campbell, Mr. Duhovic, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Dyda, Mr. Misetich:
Green Hills Memorial Park appeared at a recent Planning Commission meeting and was most
appreciative of the opportunity to speak during public comment. We were very pleased for the chance
to share how proud we are of Green Hills's long-standing commitment to the South Bay community.
As was mentioned during the meeting, Green Hills recently came under new management. On
December 14, 2016 the Board of Directors voted to approve our team beginning new efforts with the
city of Rancho Palos Verdes and with those neighbors surrounding our property line. Our team is
absolutely committed to listening and dedicating ourselves to being a respectful, welcoming member of
the community. Our new management team has over 85 combined years in memorial park operation,
and has deep roots in the South Bay. I have attached our biographies to this letter for your reference
and review.
In the coming weeks and months, the management team and I hope to work collaboratively with the
city and neighbors to ensure that Green Hills remains a resource for Rancho Palos Verdes for decades to
come. To that end, we are looking forward to an open dialogue with the City Council, our neighbors, and
city staff to address specific questions and concerns. I'd also like you to know that we have held
meetings over the last few months to hear directly from our neighbors, which has led to several changes
at the park — and we intend to continue those discussions so we can be more responsive to their
concerns.
Please feel free to reach out at any time with any questions you may have. on behalf of the entire
management team of Green Hills Memorial Park, we're looking forward to working with you and thank
you for your time.
Best,
Thomas W. Frew
General Manager, Sales and Administration
GREEN HILLS
t- A'-Gwwllia/ -A/54/
Integrity, Commitment, Care, Protection and Respect
Management Team Contact Information
Tom Frew Eman Zubi
General Manager — Sales and Administration Field Training Manager
erttbi. a)Y ghn� corm.
310-521-4412 310-521-4360
Nick Resich Cherish Martinez
Park Operations Superintendent Sales Operations Manager
nresichrJi nt7_i om cmartincz ),Jiji t .cc�m.
310-521-4301 310-521-4379
Steve Espolt Natasha Kalani
Manager of Strategic Planning and Compliance Sales Office Manager
sespoltk)g'l ml�.corn nkalaniO), hn p.com
310-521-4401 310-521-4456
Chris Wendel
Sales Manager
c��rc*r�clel'it)�-17.t�a .,.corm.
310-521-4327
General Manager - Sales and Administration
As a graduate from the University of San Francisco,
Tom began his career in the automotive industry where
he worked as a Business Manager for an Asset
Management firm. Their holdings consisted of
dealerships spread across the U.S. from Hawaii to
Florida.
After 16 years he joined G�alpin Motors, a $1B company consisting of 1,100
employees, as the Corporate Controller. Tom was part of the executive team at
Gilpin working directly for Bert Boeckmann. His most memorable moment
with Galpin was the opportunity to work alongside of Lee Iacocca on a special
vehicle project.
Tom came to Green hills Memorial Park as the company Controller and
recently moved in to his current position. His main objective when beginning
this endeavour was to build a management team. that worked cohesively on
company goals and increased their giving back to the community. During his
time they have achieved new successes and added two new community events.
These events are highly attended and provide local residents an opportunity to
experience the joy of life within the cemetery boundaries.
Tom enjoys wofking in the same community where he, his wife and three
children live. It has afforded him opportunities to watch his children play
various sports while attending South Torrance high. His oldest son will be
graduating from the University of Arizona this May with a degree in Economics.
His younger son will graduate high schoolin June and still deciding if he will
attend college in the South or on the West Coast this coming fall. His youngest
child, daughter, is a sophomore in high school and strives to attend a notable
university in the fall of 2019.
Park Operations Superintendent
Nick was a student athlete at Loyola Matymount
University where he was co -captain for the Lions
soccer team..
After graduation Nick spent fifteen years as a General
Contractor building numerous homes in the
community.
Nick capitalizes on his experience while serving as Parr Superintendent with his
construction knowledge and. project management. He oversees a team consisting
of several trades including landscaping, plumbing and the interment crew, which is
responsible for the interment process.
As a. resident of ILancho Palos Verdes, Nick enjoys working close to home
allowing him to participate as a youth soccer coach for his children. A father of
four, Nick balances a full schedule both professionally and personally.
Nick is also involved with .AYSO, Seed to Plate and Pediatric Therapy Network
olganizations.
Manager of Strategic Planning and Compliance
Born in Compton, California Steve has lived in the
South Bay/Lo ng Beach community most of his life.
He graduated in 1979 from the Cypress College of
.Mortuary Science. With the exception of a tour of
duty in the United States Air Force, Steve has served
the funeral/ cemetery profession his entire career.
Throughout Steve's career he has held various licenses with the State of
California including Embalmer, Funeral Director, Cemetery Salesperson and
Cemetery Broker. He was also on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles
Funeral Directors Association.
His knowledge of the many rules and regulations governing the funeral and
cemetery industry led him to be selected as the Manager of Strategic Planning
and Compliance at Green Hills Memorial Park. Tn this position Steve is
responsible to ensure the continued compliance by staff to all State and Local
ordinances as well as Green Hills Memorial Park Rules and Regulations. He also
provides data analysis and advice on future development and business
objectives.
Steve is an avid pet lover and spends much of his free time volunteering with
ForeverHonie Pet Rescue working to find homes for abandoned and unwanted
cats and dogs.
Sales Manager
After graduating Bucknell University in 1991, Chris
Wendel entered the Death Care Industry and has spent
over 25 years serving the Houston and I,os Angeles
communities. Chris has spent these last two and a half
decades working both with families that have just
experienced a loss as well as families that need
assistance with advanced planning.
During his time in the industry, Chris has hired, tnelined and mentored over 150
counselors, many that are still serving families today in Houston and Los
.Angeles.
Chris understands that the key attributes of passion, integrity and service must
be present in an individual to properly serve his client families and he has made
it his life's work to recruit and hire these special individuals so that the families
of Green Hills will be served with dimity and love.
When Chris is not working, he enjoys spending time With his wife Darcy and
daughter Madison. He enjoys hiking, skiing, entertaining and watching his
beloved Buffalo Bills and New York Yankees.
FieId 'Training :Manager
Eman innnzigrated to the United States from Israel in
2003. She left behind loving relatives, cherished friends
and a successful business - to give her children a better
future.
As the Field Training Manager, Eman leads a
compassionate group of people who Put the needs of
others before their own.
She feels blessed and honored to work fora company that strives to help and care
for families during the darkest days of their lives. Eman makes it a life mission to
assist as many families as possible in pre -arranging their end of life plans.
A resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since 2007, Eman and her husband have two
children who attend Paps Verdes Peninsula High School. The Zubi family is
involved with The Friendship Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to
making a difference in the lives of youth with special needs through social and
recreational activities at home, school and in the community.
During free time Eman enjoys watching her son play soccer for the high school
team. She has also been very involved with her daughter, who -will graduate this
,Tune, in completing college applications. Eman is proud of her daughter's
acceptance to the University of Alabama, where she will study aerospace
engineering.
Sales Operations Manager
After graduating from California State University
Dominguez :Culls with a degree in Business
Administration, Cherish began a family and was a full
time mother.
Once her youngest child entered pre-school, Cherish
began a career with Lisa's Bon Appetite as the Event
Coordinator and remained so for 4 vears.
In her position with Green Hills Memorial Parr, Cherish is responsible for
maintaining the Governing Principles as contracts are transacted. Her efforts
protect families and ensure each is receiving the integrity, care, protection and
respect they deserve. Cherish is most passionate in her goal to assist families in both
at need and pre -planned situations.
As a resident of the South Bay for over 35 years, Cherish and her husband find joy
in the ability to be involved with their two children. .Tram coaching youth sports to
vacations, the Martinez family males every free moment one spent with family.
Cherish has spent time with the Zippi Memorial Fund assisting in finding homes for
homeless animals.
Sales Office .Manager
Natasha began her: career at Green hills Memorial Parr
working part-time while attending California State
University I Ong Beach where she received a degree in
communication. After graduation Natasha immediately
joined the Green Hills' team as a full-time employee.
.Natasha has assisted Green 1 -fills' families over the years in securing at -need
arrangements as well as assisting in pre -planning enol -of -life decisions. She is
compassionate and supportive at the time of loss because she remembers first-
hand how painful it can be to lose a loved one. Having laid her grandparents to
rest here, Natasha brings an elevated sense of empathy to every family she serves
at Green Hills Memorial Parr.,
Natasha Kalani, a Rancho Palos Verdes resident, was born and raised. in the South
Bay Area. She supports local charities and organizations, most specifically the
Torrance South Bay YMC:,A, and has been singing for events throughout the
community, including Green Hills's Memorial. Day Service since the age of 13
years old.
Tony & Barbara Molino
2133 MacArthur Street
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
310-514-2668
January 27, 2017
Hon. Brian Campbell
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Hon, Ken Dyda
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re; Green Hills Memorial Park
Hon. Jerry Duhovic
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Hon, Anthony Misetich
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Honorable Mayor Campbell and City Council Members;
Hon, Susan M. Brooks
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
,IAA,-..1:� 0 / 0-, 17
I have been informed that you will be hearing the matter regarding Green Hills Memorial Park's master plan
at your council meeting on January 31, 2017, Unfortunately I cannot attend your meeting so I hope you will
consider the request in this letter,
For decades, Green Hills has been an exemplary friend and neighbor to our community. As a resident of
Rancho Palos Verdes for 30 years I have had several dealings with Green Hills. Also, I am the past Lt.
Governor for Kiwanis International, South Bay Division. Green Hills has help several local Kiwanis clubs
over the past 20+ years with donations, promotional assistance for fund raising events and service projects
that help us support the children in Rancho Palos Verdes and the South Bay Communities,
I'm proud to share Rancho Palos Verdes and our community with Green Hills because they've proven that
they care about families, residents and visitors alike, Not only do they open up their beautiful park as a
welcoming space for community events for all to enjoy, but they have also always worked closely with their
neighbors to fix any issues that may arise,
I understand that they have added additional security to reduce noise and activities at their park. Time and
time again Green Hills has shown how they are dedicated to working with and supporting our community.
Rancho Palos Verdes must be willing to do the same for them; This is why I urge you to support Green Hills
and their Master Plan as approved.
Thank you your leadership and dedication to beautiful city,
Sincerely,
Tony Molino
From: Ar Mihrd ni n
To: So Kim
Subject: Fwd: Green Hills CUP
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:49:38 AM
FYI.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ken Dyda <Ken.D ari�r n ca.gcnv>
Date: January 25, 2017 at 8:51:08 AM PST
To: Ara Mihranian <A • M ! ig ,) >
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore(&ro�ca.gov>
Subject: Green Hills CUP
HI,
My apologies. I sent you the working copy. This is the corrected version.
Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan
Exhibit' A'
CUP review January 31, 2017
Page 1.
In item lb April 12, 2016 document memorializing showing city
accepted baseline topography.
Page 2.
In item d. is confusing in that grade shall not exceed 3.1 and then talks about
grades of 4.1 suggest in the first sentence read finish "in uncontrolled" slopes
and great shall not exceed 3.1
in item e.
1. If the maximum height is limited to 36 inches measured from the
highest adjacent grade what is the potential height with respect to the lowest
grade for the plot?
2. "Aboveground structures" are not defined. Are they limited to the 36
inch walls, elaborate headstones etc.? If they are not defined can 6 foot
maximum be applied? Very unclear.
In g. What kind of structures are permitted and what are the limitations to
retrofitting accommodate niches and vaults?
In item h. Why the change from 36 inch height to 42 inch height? This section
could potentially be used to override the 36 inch height measured elsewhere.
Inconsistency creates problems.
Page 3.
In item (21 small building why the change in ninth from 12 feet to 16
feet? Why is 6 feet high allowed within the required setbacks? This provision
could lead to abuses. Setbacks are meant to be left open.
Page 4.
In item
-W again were increasing the height from 36 inches to 42 inches
in height. And a 42 inch high features are not permitted why even talk about not
exceeding 16 feet? Again this is unclear and can be manipulated to the advantage
of green Hills.
In item (4) fences and walls. If walls and fences are permitted to a height
of 7 feet throughout the property this can again be used to negate earlier
restrictions. There needs to be consistency throughout this project with respect to
walls features etc.
In item (5). This potentially allows grading to create retaining walls with
no specific height limitation.
In item (6) grading. What is mass installation of walls? Could it be a
mausoleum? Could it be a columbarium? What are the limitations for height?
Page 5.
In item b. City Council review. If the conditional use permit is subject to
direct review and approval by the city Council why next to the lack last line the
words directly by the have not been stricken?
Page6.
Item (1) again it seems structures up to 16 feet in height are not
controlled. Why?
Item 3 (bottom of page) why was the 30 day requirement prior to
planning commission or community development deleted for silhouettes?
Page 7,
Item 5. C. This is a cemetery not a public park. This condition should
apply to any and all internment 'vaults or niches.
Page 8.
Item 6 a grading. Where is the imported dirt coming from? How will it
be certified to be clean without uncompacted building material or hazardous
material?
Item D retaining wall. Do you really mean 14.16 height?
Page 9.
Item g supervision. This condition is the appropriate one and should
include a reference to the cemetery's rules and replace item 5. C. On page 7.
Let's not allow applicants to pick and choose.
In 7. a. The quality of the imported dirt needs to be clearly specified.
Page 10.
Iten 8. b. This should be the wording used on page 3 item 2.
Page 11
Item f. To be consistent it would be best if supervision were identified
one time and if not the EXACT wording should be used in all cases.
Page 13
Item H again a repeat of supervision during services.
Page 14.
Item 10. a. In line 3 the word building should be singular.
Page 15.
Gen. comment. Setbacks for nonresidential zoning districts are set at 25
feet why then are some setbacks on the West side only 5 feet?
Page 17.
Item (5) sound, The prohibition of amplified sound should apply to the
entire cemetery except for those noted in this item.
Page 18.
Item (81(81 supervision. Again look at all references to supervision to make
sure that they read exactly the same so that people cannot pick and choose the
one that suits their particular agenda. It's called consistency.
Page 22
item b. Again why 5 feet on the West side effects adjacent to
nonresidential property which elsewhere stated to be 25 feet?
Item 15. You have addressed noise how about picnics and alcohol
consumption?
page 25
Item 20 b "let it Snow, harvest Festival, and Shakespeare in the Park"
are not related to cemetery services and should not be allowed. This is not a
public park for events.
Page 27
AQ — 1 light fixtures should be designed to provide the appropriate
surface with a light source well hidden from view. (Bieber lights for
equivalent)
page 28
A Q —14 the order conditions why the director or the city Council review
future improvements. As stated to whom does it leave the choice and why?
Page 31
item 30. Again I don't understand the 5 foot setback since the West side.
If it's nonresidential property shouldn't be 25 feet has expressed elsewhere in
these documents?
Page 32
31 recordation of final maps. Not only shall the director be notified 30
days in advance but provided with a copy that is being sent to the county for
recordation. This will ensure that the city is aware of all the conditions and
loopholes that he may want to address in that final map.
Page 33
Item d What happened to the $200,000 indemnification by green Hills
for litigation?
Page 34
item 34 the property owner's agreement to the CUP makes it tantamount
to a contract and therefore obligates the city as well as the property owner to
fulfill all the conditions.
Ken Dyda
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ken.dyda@ravca.Eov www.rpvvca.gov
P (310) 375-3932
This , t -thrall rnessa(4e contains inforrrlaWn belonging to tfae City of Rancho Palos; Verdes, which may be privileged,
confiden'Uai and/or protcreted from elisdOSLJre, I he inf=1m 10,ion is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named, Unauthorized disSernin ation, "fistrilDurtion,tar copying is "Arictly prc}libited, If You received this enl ail in error,
or aro rant an intended recipient, please notify the -,~ender imrneJiats ly. Thank prau for your ass�is ance and cooperation.
From: Ar
A Mihrani n
To: 5o Kim
Subject: FW: Green Hills Review.
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:33:33 AM
FYI...
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
cram rcvca.ov
www.rpvca:ov
I")o you really need to print this e-inail?
I his e rn ail rnessage cora'<"sins information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Veale:, which may be ,arlvilectt:xd, confidential and/or
protrtAted f,ona disclosure, ihe inforrnation is intendecl only for use of ihca individual or entity na€rae:ci, i.inauthodzed dissernination,
dist:rltwtion, or copying is strictly probibited. If you recd ived this sarn;ii in e� ror, or arca n"A an intended recipient, please, notify t ae serldtxr
intirl ediate'ly, Thank you for y°o.ar cassist��,rxe and coopertatlon.
From: Ken Dyda
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:25 AM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Doug Willmore <DWiIImore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Green Hills Review.
Ara,
Here are my preliminary comments.
Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan
Exhibit'A'
CUP review January 31, 2017
1.
Page 1.
In item 1b April 12, 2016 document memorializing showing city accepted baseline
topography.
Page 2.
In itemd.. is confusing in that grade shall not exceed 3.1 and then talks about grades of 4.1
suggest in the first sentence read finish "in uncocntrolled" slopes and great shall not exceed
3.1
in item e. 1. If the maximum height is limited to 36 inches measured from the highest
adjacent grade what is the potential height with respect to the lowest grade for the plot?
2. "Aboveground structures" are not defined. Are they limited to the 36 inch walls,
elaborate headstones etc.? If they are not defined can 6 foot maximum be applied? Very
unclear.
In item e. What kind of structures are permitted and what are the limitations to retrofitting
accommodate niches and vaults?
In item h. Why the change from 36 inch height to 42 inch height? This section could
potentially be used to override the 36 inch height measured elsewhere. Inconsistency creates
problems.
Page 3.
In item (2) small building why the change in ninth from 12 feet to 16 feet? Why is 6
feet high allowed within the required setbacks? This provision could lead to abuses. Setbacks
are meant to be left open.
Page 4.
In items again were increasing the height from 36 inches to 42 inches in height. And
a 42 inch high features are not permitted why even talk about not exceeding 16 feet? Again
this is unclear and can be manipulated to the advantage of green Hills.
In item (4) fences and walls. If walls and fences are permitted to a height of 7 feet
throughout the property this can again be used to negate earlier restrictions. There needs to
be consistency throughout this project with respect to walls features etc.
In item (5). This potentially allows grading to create retaining walls with no specific
height limitation.
in item (6) grading. What is mass installation of walls? Could it be a mausoleum?
Could it be a columbarium? What are the limitations for height?
Page 5.
In item b. City Council review. If the conditional use permit is subject to direct review
and approval by the city Council why next to the lack last line the words directly by the have
not been stricken?
Page6.
Item (1) again it seems structures up to 16 feet in height are not controled. Why?
Item 3 (bottom of page) why was the 30 day requirement prior to planning
commission or community development deleted for silhouettes?
Page 7.
Item 5. C. This is a cemetery not a public park. This condition should apply to any and
all intern ment'svaults or niches.
Page 8.
Item 6 a grading. Where is the imported dirt coming from? How will it be certified to
be clean without uncompacted buio;lding material or hazardous material?
Item D retaining wall. Do you really mean 14.16 height?
Page 9.
Item g supervision. This condition is the appropriate one and should include a
reference to the cemetery's rules and replace item 5. C. On page 7. Let's not allow applicants
to pick and choose.
In 7. a. The quality of the imported dirt needs to be clearly specified.
Page 10.
8. b. This should be the wording used on page 3 item 2.
Page 11
item f. To be consistent it would be best if supervision were identified one time and if
not the.EXACT swording should be used in all cases.
Page 13
item H again a repeat of supervision during services.
Page 14.
Item 10. a. In line 3 the word building should be singular.
Page 15.
Gen. comment. Setbacks for nonresidential zoning districts are set at 25 feet why then
are some setbacks on the West side only 5 feet?
Page 17.
Item (5) sound. The prohibition of amplified sound should apply to the entire
cemetery except for those noted in this item.
Page 18.
Item (8) supervision. Again look at all references to supervision to make sure that they
read exactly the same so that people cannot pick and choose the one that suits their
particular agenda. It's called consistency.
Page 22
item b. Again why 5 feet on the West side effects adjacent to nonresidential property
which elsewhere stated to be 25 feet?
Item 15. You have addressed noise how about picnics and alcohol consumption?
page 25
20 hours of operation subparagraph B open "let it Snow, harvest Festival, and
Shakespeare in the Park" are not related to cemetery services and should not be allowed. This
is not a public park for events.
Page 27
AQ -1 light fixtures should be designed to provide the appropriate surface with a light
source well hidden from view. (Bieber lights for equivalent)
page 28
a Q — 14 the order conditions why the director or the city Council review future
improvements. As stated to whom does it leave the choice and why?
Page 31
item 30. Again I don't understand the 5 foot setback since the West side. If it's
nonresidential property shouldn't be 25 feet has expressed elsewhere in these documents?
Page 32
31 recordation of final maps. Not only shall the director be notified 30 days in advance
but provided with a copy that is being sent to the county for recordation. This will ensure that
the city is aware of all the conditions and loopholes that he may want to address in that final
map.
Page 33
D. What happened to the $200,000 indemnification by green Hills for litigation?
Page 34
item 34 the property owners agreement to the CUP makes it tantamount to a contract
and therefore obligates the city as well as the property owner to fulfill all the conditions.
Ken Dyda
Councilman
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ken.dvda rx rpvca.gQv www.r vca. ov
P (310) 375-3932
This e retail rrressarJet cor:tains inforrnation W,, iIonging La the City o4 Rancho Palos Verd��F>, which may be privil!ged, confidential and/or
pr>Ced d from di
From: Ara„Mihrani n
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: Health and Safety of Residents near Green Hills Cemetery
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:28:17 AM
FYI...
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
www rpv�:.�v
kWA- Do you really need to print this e-rnail?
I his e-mail massage contains information be. onging to the City of rancho Palos Ve:.rdes, which may be hrivilnc,ed, confidential and/or
prote( wed from disclosure. Th a information is intended only for use of the individual or entity nrarned. Unauthorized dlss'erninatioil,
distribution, tar Copying is sfxictly prohibited. of you received this err€aii in error, or are not an intended redpient, pjeas e notify the sunder
ir> mediately. 1 flank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Diane Smith [mailto:radlsmith@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:00 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; PC <PC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: 'Bernadette Sabath' <miminotchew@gmail.com>;'Matt Martin'
<matthewhmartin@yahoo.com>; 'Glenn Cornell' <gcorne116@gmail.com>
Subject: Health and Safety of Residents near Green Hills Cemetery
Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission,
Green Hills Cemetery is rapidly expanding immediately next to Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita
residential communities. Much of Green Hills Cemetery expansion includes the compact interment
of human remains in mausoleums.
Before going further I would like you all to read this article:
rata.t/rae:ooieof.ourevervdavlfe,comlr)rob lerrts-mausoleums-6?O9,html
The article includes: "Although the issue is not often discussed in the public forum, it is a matter of
great concern to public health authorities ..."
The article states: "Body fluids ... are undisputed bio -hazards. According to Environmental Protection
Systems, a company that installs containment systems for cemeteries and mausoleums worldwide, if
decomposing bodies are not safely sealed off from their surroundings, toxic fluids may seep out of caskets
and crypts, make their way down into the water table and from there, enter the food chain. "
And "F"01e, iIr..1 111, odr)I("tn s Vvithf.a'",,oIa,�1nI`
Though mausoleum burials are also marketed as being cleaner and drier than below -ground burials, these
purported benefits do not reflect the realities of decomposition. Interred bodies can become bloated with
gas or expel fluids that lead to explosions or leaks within the casket. Leaks and explosions can damage a
mausoleum by creating cracks or eroding materials. These occurrences are not unique to mausoleums, but
below -ground casket explosions aren't as noticeable or serious as above ground explosions." (Mausoleum
venting problems existed at least as early as the start of construction of the Area I I mausoleum — see patent
atlr>t//nrww.raolr.rom/pier.}.. ,lite..fi`>33)
The prevailing winds expose Lomita residents to the fumes of decomposing bodies from the Area 11
mausoleum EIGHT FEET from their property line. The Area 11 mausoleum is downwind of many of their
balconies, dining rooms and bedroom windows.
RPV residents north of the larger Inspiration Slope mausoleum are also downwind.
RPV residents south of the numerous planned mausoleums are downslope of the mausoleums. With
temperatures in Southern California regularly exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit I am concerned about the
health and welfare of residents living around Green Hills Cemetery with Green Hills' plans to condense and
compact bodies so close to residential housing,
During the last City Council campaign I met a homeowner contractor who told me that Green Hills' workers
walked off the job when they came across ooze coming out of a mausoleum. Since I had heard rumor that
Green Hills was built near an Army dump I thought it was a petroleum "ooze." I simply responded
something like "that's creepy — I didn't hear about that." My later research led me to what is called "Site
31" at the North section of Green Hills Cemetery where a clean-up is in the works. (Fact sheet provides
information about the San Pedro Facility Restoration Advisory Board, as well as contact information
for the Navy.
I also heard a staff member state she needed to follow up with the Health Department on an issue.
I just don't have time to chase rumors and detail this stuff out but I believe it is necessary to get answers
and back-up to these rumors and concerns before allowing Green Hills Cemetery to continue expansion.
After all, our City spent a considerable amount of money to investigate Green Hills Cemeterv's construction
of the Area 11 mausoleum. Our independent compliance expert found many more instances of Green
Hills' non-compliance besides the Area 11 mausoleum. Our City's internal investigation concluded Green
Hills was not honest and Joel Rojas described the Area 11 construction as a perfect storm of errors.
It was a huge mistake to give authority to staff to allow changes without planning commission
knowledge/consideration/agreement THEN and it would be a huge mistake to allow staff to allow
changes without planning commission knowledge/consideration/agreement NOW. As you well know,
the Internal investigation was sloppy and not complete — it did not even investigate through construction to
the final sign off. To date, the City continues to refuse to provide copies of the final construction drawings
which drawings were different than the drawings approved by the Planning Commission. So many
questions about the drawings exist, like were the drawings made by an expert in mausoleum construction
and venting? These drawings should not be kept secret by the City.
I personally do not believe our Citv Staff has the time (and possibly qualifications — no offense intended) to
deal with Green Hills Cemetery issues, including the Cemeterv's venting systems' effects on the health and
safety of residents, especially when Green Hills Cemetery has proven itself to be dishonest in the past.
Since Green Hills Cemetery has not been in full compliance with their CUP since the discovery of major
errors in the Area 11 mausoleum no further work can be conducted at Green Hills until it is in full
compliance. I am not an attornev but that is how I understand the agreement. If individual homeowners
and other commercial developers cannot go forward with their projects until thev are in full compliance
then the same should be true for Green Hills Cemeterv. Green Hills Cemetery should not be given special
treatment over residents and developers, however, they have been given special treatment.
The Citv conducted both compliance reviews and internal investigations to find out what went wrong so
that the mistakes are not repeated. Please provide reassurance that the health and safetv of all of our
residents have been thoroughly considered before allowing Green Hills Cemetery to go forward with
further mausoleum construction. if we take steps now to make sure the air and soil are safe then we may
avoid costly lawsuits in the future.
See: htLp://www.buLterfliesaridwlieels,or-R/'017/rioL-so clean nr-�t so -dry/
Because of these complex issues it is my opinion that the ON should make exception in the case of Green
Hills Cemetery and hire a companv qualified and insured for independent compliance review to oversee
anv further development at Green Hills Cemeterv. The costs of such an independence compliance review
company should be offset by an increase in City building fees for Green Hills Cemetery.
I am writing this to you as an individual and not on behalf of any organization or association I may be
affiliated with. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Smith
2704 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 547-3856
From: Bill Spinelli
To: CC; Ara Mihranian; DouWillmore; So Kim
Subject: Green Hills Memorial Conditional Use Permit
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:54:26 PM
Dear City Council Members, Ara Mihranian, Doug Willmore and So Kim,
I am writing to give my support to my neighbors at Vista Verde, Peninsula Verde and Rolling
Hills Riviera. The CUP for Green Hills Memorial Park needs to include all the concerns
these neighbors have raised over the years. With the review of the CUP on January 31, 2017
please take their requests and consider them in your decisions.
I am requesting that you restore the 40 foot setback and 16 foot height limit set forth in
subsections A and B of Section 17.28.040 of the city's municipal code and conduct
appropriate testing of the soil and GH and of dirt which it has been stockpiling in what it call
Areas 5 and 6 of their property.
Sincerely,
William Spinelli
1916 Galerita Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
From: Bill SQinelli
To: rhrharpvnama1Lcom
Cc: City Council; Ara Mihranian; C3oun N/illmore; PC'; m
Subject: Re: Green Hills Review of Conditions of Approval
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:31:58 PM
Dear Councilmembers, Ara Mihranian, Doug Willmore, Planning Commission and So Kim,
This email was originally sent to you from the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners gmail
account. It was sent from rhrharpv(A)gtnail.com. I was on the City's web page today and
reviewed the letters submitted as public comments for CUP for Green Hills Memorial Park
and noticed that the letter written by Glenn Cornell (see attached) was not on the web page.
The PDF file comes in as "not virus scanned" and its is a large file.
Please verify that the file was received.
Thank you,
Bill Spinelli
310-433-1515
Co -Chair of RHRHA Membership
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:00 PM, RHRHA HOMEOWNERS < wrote:
" Dear Councilmembers,
Please review the attached letter written on behalf of Rollings Hills Riviera Homeowners
Association by our Treasurer Glenn Cornell. It raises the associations concern regarding a
conditional use permit granted in the past to Green Hills Memorial Park.
Thank you for you time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill Spinelli
Membership Co -Chair
I Glenn Cornell letter to City Council.pcif
2004 Velez Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
January 19, 2017
Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park
Council members:
1 am writing on behalf of the Rolling hills Riviera Homeowners Association (hereinafter RH.RHA)
regarding a conditional use permit granted in the past to Green Hills Memorial Park (hereinafter GH),
which you are scheduled to re-examine at a meeting on January 31, 2017. RBRHA is concerned about
certain activities which GIA has been doing pursuant to that permit, particularly as they af%ct our
residents whose properties abut GH. Among these concerns is an easing of limitations on construction
in the cemetery which permits in -ground burials to within 8 feet of their properties and the future
construction of multiple mausoleums taller than 16 feet as close as 40 feet to their property lines.
Another concerns possible air pollution and soil contamination from interment activities. Dusting and
possible air pollution from dirt which the cemetery continues to pile in an area close to their homes
constitute a third. Accordingly, RHRHArequests the following:
1. Restore the 40 -foot setback and 16 -foot height limit set forth in subsections A and B of
Section 17.28.040 of the city's municipal code; and
2. Conduct appropriate testing of the soil at GH and of dirt which it has been stockpiling in
what it calls Areas 5 and 6 of its property. Should such testing demonstrate the presence
of toxins or harmful contaminates, determine appropriate measures to protect those who
reside near GH and require GH to take steps necessary to implement those measures.
Setbacks and Reight Limits:
Rancho Palos Verdes' Municipal Code contains a chapter regarding cemeteries. It mandates that all
their strictures be limited to 1.6 feet in height and that all structures and burials be set back a minimum
of 40 feet from those borders which the cemetery shares with a residential area. (Section. 17.28.040(A)
and (B).) Further, it „rants certain city officials the power to increase setbacks if the need arises.
(Section 17.28.040(J).)
Such restrictions on cemetery activities are hardly unique. Great Britain's Burial Code of 1855 forbade
in -ground burials within 100 yards of a dwelling, and the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1879
extended that restriction to 200 yards, ("Pollution Potential of Cemeteries" (2002), p. 9; as this entire
paper with tables runs to more than 100 pages, the cover page — to help those who want to locate the
paper and read it in its entirety -- along with the parts cited in this letter are attached.) Our city's code
section dates to the early 1980s when GH consisted mostly of lawn, with graves and markers that were
flush with the ground, and a handful of buildings. Moreover, there was little activity in the the areas
adjacent to RHRHA, which GH now designates as Areas 5 and 6.
The cemetery business appears to have changed since the adoption of 40 -foot setbacks in 1981. Some
cemeteries in Los Angeles have sought to become destinations — even showing movies at night at their
facilities. Mausoleums have become more common. Ceremonies and visitors at GH seem to have
become noisier, almost celebratory.
If 40 -foot buffers and 16 -foot height limits were reasonable restrictions a few decades ago, increasing
the setbacks would have been a logical response to the increased noise and activity levels which have
become more commonplace at the cemetery. Instead, GH, no doubt feeling pressure to find new burial
sites to sell, applied for the setbacks to be decreased and the height limits increased and began laying
the groundwork to develop a series of mausoleums. Our city agreed. However, experience since those
changes has shown that they have not afforded the residents near the cemetery the protections they
need from noise and loss of privacy (and, as discussed below, from possible air and soil contamination)
and that returning setbacks and decreasing building size are the changes needed now. Accordingly, the
RHJRJJA requests that, when you re -visit GH's conditional use permit, you restore the setbacks and
height limits set forth in the city's municipal code.
Litigation Threat. During a recent meeting at which this request was raised, city's staff mentioned
legal concerns — apparently, the possibility of a lawsuit by Green Hills — if it were to make the
adjustments RH.RHA seeks. Staff s concerns are misplaced. The California Supreme Court, in an
analogous situation, stated that "it is beyond question that a landowner has no vested right in existing
or anticipated zoning. [Avco Community Developers, Inc. v South Coast Regional Commission (1976)
17 Cal.3d 785, 796, 553.P.2(1546.]
In. A veo, a developer had obtained a grading permit from Orange County for a housing tract which it
proposed to build in an area near the ocean. However, before the developer received a building permit
from the county, a ballot proposition which created the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
(precursor to the California Coastal Commission) was passed and went into effect. It required that the
developer also obtain a permit from the new commission before the project could proceed. The
developer challenged that requirement and applied to the courts to issue a writ to compel the
commission to allow the development to move forward. The trial court declined, and a. unanimous
Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In doing so the Court pointed out that, although the developer
had expended money preparing the tract for development, it had yet to receive or even apply for any of
the necessary building permits and had not even submitted plans for the structures which it claimed it
wanted to build. Accordingly, it had no vested right to proceed,
Here, Green Hills was granted a conditional use permit but has yet to undertake the development on its
south border outlined in that permit. None of the mausoleums proposed in it has been built. Indeed,
their appearance and even their dimensions and capacities have yet to be disclosed. They are at this
time nothing more than general concepts. Moreover, G14 appears to have just begun selling plots in
Areas 5 and 6, and burial activity there seems to have been minimal.
In light of Avco, fear of legal action by Green Hills would be a feeble excuse for our city to refuse to
restore the limitations set forth in its own municipal code. What is more, the city has expressly
reserved the right to re -visit the conditional use permit in question. Presumably this was done so the
city could make adjustments to it including, one would hope, adjustments that reflect concerns that
might arise about - .. the health, safety and welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood and in
the community as a whole." (Municipal Code Section 17.60.040(C),)
Contamination and Areas 5 and 6 Dirt Pile*.
Few of us think much about what goes on at a cemetery. Rarely do our thoughts extend beyond an
impression of green and calm. As it turns out, reality is not so tidy.
Embalming the corpse involves the use of a variety of chemicals, fbi-maldehyde and methanol being
among the most common. (Jeremiah Chiappelli and Ted Chiappelli, "Drinking Grandma: the Problem
of Embalming" (2008), Journal qj'Fnvironmental Health, vol, 71, no. 5, pp 24-28); a copy is hereby
attached,) Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and a Proposition 65 substance. (Office of
Environmental Hazard and Health Assessment, www.P651VVarnings.ca.gov.) With time, these chemicals
along with the products of decomposition escape the casket and burial vault. This process occurs
whether the interment takes place above ground (as in a mausoleum) or in -ground. ("Drinking
Grandma," supra., and Josh Slocum and Lisa Carlson (2011), "Not So Clean, Not So Dry," a copy of
which is attached.)
More recently, the Ilhiladell)hici.ttiqiiiteiIL)ail)i News, Philadelphia's major newspaper, offered a report
about the funeral industry in an article entitled "Everything You Want To Know About
Embalming . . And Even Things You Don't," (September 14, 2016) in which it discussed, among other
matters, the impact of embalming on the environment with particular focus on the dangers posed by
embalming fluid on the soil and water and, if the body is cremated, on the atmosphere. It reads in part:
"When an embalmed body decays, the fluid can seep into the ground and affect surrounding soil and
water ecosystems, and if cremated, the formaldehyde enters and remains in the atmosphere for up to
250 days. . . [where it can combine with condensation and Mir] onto plants, animals and water
supplies." (A copy of this article is hereby attached.)
As citizens have become more aware of environmental and health hazards posed by activities which
many used to accept as normal, governmental bodies have begun to examine the funeral business and
harms it may pose. "Pollution Potential of Cemeteries" (cited above) reports the preliminary findings
of a study sponsored by the government of Great Britain. As the paper reflects, embalming is not
widely used in Great Britain so the study's focus is more on the impact of the products of
decomposition. These include the various microbes which are part of the normal flora in and on a
living body that may escape and be harmful after death. (pp 53-54.)
The study acknowledges that concerns about the funeral industry are evolving and that more
investigation is needed. Research about the impact of the decomposition of human corpses and of the
materials used in coffins is just getting under way, and hard data can be difficult to come by. Likewise,
identification and study of the wide array of bacteria and viruses which played roles in the function of
the body when it was living but may prove harmful once they escape it is relatively new. Plus the
authors recognize that many variables can affect their impact, such as the concentration of burials in an
area and the type of soil and the configuration of soil layers underlying the cemetery. The study, not
surprisingly, urges further study of these matters. (see p. 53.)
The study's authors do cite recommendation-, from what they consider the "most comprehensive"
investigation — one done in Australia. One such recommendation concerns the concentration of
interments. It states: "Ideally interments should be well spread in time and position within the
cemetery" (see p. 54.) Plainly, the greater the concentration of contaminants, the greater the need for
caution. This matter will be raised again in this letter on the subjJect of mausoleums in which the
number of bodies interred in a small space can be quite high,
Another recommendation concerns setbacks and reads: "Buffer zones should be mandatory in
cemetery design, ideally at the cemetery boundary." (see p. 54.) In acknowledgment that an array of
factors may affect the impact caused by the gases and fluids which are bound to escape from each
burial site, it refrains from specifying how extensive such buffer zones should be. However, the
numbers discussed at various points in the article are in the tens of meters. Nowhere is a buffer as
small as 8 feet advised.
In light of these papers and the small. setback which now exists along GH's south border, concerns for
those who reside near GH should include at least two general types of contamination and pollution.
Soil contamination. The leaching of bacteria, viruses and embalming fluids as well as the products of
decomposition into the ground may have contaminated and continue to contaminate the soil under GH.
These substances are also known to migrate -- especially downhill, which in this case is toward GH's
border with RFIRHA. Residents whose properties abut GH. do not have the 100 yard margin between
their land and any burials once afforded in England. Indeed, they no longer have even a. 40 foot buffer.
Now it is only 9 feet. The area abutting these residents has not yet been extensively used by GH. Only
a few burials seem to have occurred there so far. Accordingly, our association requests that the 40 -foot
setback, set forth in the city's municipal code, be restored and that burials, sale of burial plots and other
activities which will disturb the soil, such as roadway construction, be hatted within 40 feet of GH's
south border. What is more, RHRHA requests that the soil at Green Hills be tested for the presence of
toxins and harmful contaminates so that it can be determined whether the 40 -foot buffer needs to be
increased to protect those who live nearby.
Dust and air contaminants. Contamination of the soil under and around Green Hills is not the only
hazard posed by activities at Green Hills. Certain practices at the cemetery are adding another
dimension to the problem.
Not all the soil which is removed when a grave is dug can be replaced, since the burial vault takes up
space. Green 14ills puts this extra dirt in a stockpile in what it calls Areas 5 and 6. GH claims to
conduct about .1800 burials annually —or about 35 each week. (p, 5, RPV Resolution No. 2015-102.)
The result is that dirt is continually being added to this pile from sites all around the cemetery, thereby
continually refreshing and potentially concentrating contaminants in it.
This pile sits just to the north of those who live along Avenida Feliciano. In dry weather, dusting from
the pile can be considerable, That by itself constitutes a nuisance; and that reason alone warrants
taking steps to ensure that the stockpile be kept at least 40 feet away from GH's south border, that its
height be capped at 16 feet and that additional dust control measures be studied and implemented, if
indicated.
Dusting is not the only concern, however. As discussed above, the stockpile's soil may be
contaminated. The dust it creates is not simply a nuisance; it may be a health hazard.
testing. RHRHA requests that the City order appropriate soil testing at GEL including the dirt in the
Areas 5 and 6 stockpile and that this be performed on a regular, ongoing basis. If the dirt in the pile
proves to contain toxins or harmful contaminates, RHR11A requests the city retain the services of
appropriate experts to determine the best way to deal with the stockpile and to make sure that excess
dirt from future burials is handled and located properly.
Area 6 Mausoleums. As noted above, gases and fluids produced by decomposition are formed
whether the interment occurs in -ground or above -ground. Then they escape. ("Not So Clean," cited on
page 2 of this letter.) What is more., mausoleums concentrate more bodies into a space than could
normally be achieved with. in -ground burials. For these reasons, mausoleums should incorporate
features to vent the gases and channel and treat the fluids; and the mechanisms which perform this
venting and channeling must be continually .rnonitored and maintained. Unfortunately, experience is
revealing that many such structures fail these requirements. ("Not So Clean," cited above.)
Accordingly, RHRHA requests that the city undertake appropriate studies before it approves any further
mausoleum construction at, OR in order to ensure that each structure is engineered and maintained so
that such products are properly vented and treated and do not concentrate in unacceptable levels in or
around GH. We make that request even for those that may be sited 40 or more feet from GH's south
border and stand less than 16 feet high.
RHREA asserts the conditional use permit granted to GH in the past did not, with the aid of hindsight,
afford residents in the area around the cemetery the protection they expect and usually get from our
city. Our city now has an opportunity to re -visit that permit and must face what to do going forward. It
can continue down the same path taken by prior officials, who quite possibly acted without the benefit
of more current information about the operation of cemeteries in general and GH in particular. That
course may well have the efTect of exacerbating those missteps and allowing them to impact even more
of our city's residents. Or it can draw the line now and take the measures requested herein to minimize
problems and the risk of -future harm.
My fellow RHRHA residents and I appreciate your time, attention and patience. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at (310) 831-3033 or ZCornell §@
,&mail.!q9m if you should have any questions.
Thank you
l"nc rely
Glenn Cornell,
Treasurer, Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association
cc.: Ara Mihranian (w/attachments)
So Kim (w/attachments)
.Doug Will more (w/attachme.nts)
Planning Commission (w/attachments)
C P Young, K M Blackmore, A Leavens and P J Reynolds
Research Contractor:
W Rc plc
Environment Agency
Rio House
Waterside Drive
Aztec West
Bristol.
BS 12 4UD
R&D Project Record P2/024/1
Publishing Organisation:
Environment Agency
Rio House
Waterside Drive
Aztec West
Almondsbury
Bristol BS12 4UD
Tel: 01454 624400 Fax. 01454 624409
ISBN 185705 022 3
01 Environment Agency 2002
All tights reserved. No part of this docarinent may be reproduced, stored it -L a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without the prior permission of the Environment Agency.
The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Environment Agency. Its
officers, servant or agents accept, no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising firom the
interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon views contained Herein.
Dissemination status
Internal: Restricted
External: Restricted
Statement, of use
This report should be read in conjunction with Draft R&D Technical Report 223. It is intended to
provide guidance to Agency staffwhen considering development proposals far new or existing
cemeteries. Through the use of this document a consistent, risk based approach, will be adopted
Nationally by the Agency. It is envisaged that the report will also be of use to local authorities, parish
councils and other parties interested in developing, and planning future burial sites. In this respect
early consultation with the local Environment Agency Office is advisable.
Ilesearch contractor
This document was produced under R&O Pr(�Iwt P2-024 by:
WRc ple
Henley Road
Medmenham
Marlow
Buckinghamshire
SU 211D
TO: 01491 571531 Fax: 01491 579094
WRc Report No.: EA 4659
Environment Agency's Project Manager
The Enviromnent Agency's Project Manager for R&D Project P2-024 was:
David Hybert - Thames Region
R&D Project Record P2/024A
4. LEGISLATION, REGULATION AND GUIDANCE IN
RELATION TO BURIAL GROUNDS
4.1 Introduction
This section draws together information gathered on the laws of England and Wales which
control the siting and operation of burial grounds, information collected on guidance provided
currently or in the past by national and regional bodies and a consideration of proposed
European Union Directives which may influence future trends.
4.2 Legisladon
The principal legislation related to burial grounds is summarised below:
I Cemeteries Clauses Act 1847. This Act applied to places of burial other than
cemeteries provided by burial authorities (vide s 214 Local Government Act 1972) -
Ch 13, p 201 Polson, 1975, Ss 20-22 relate to water (see also Goodman and Beckett,
1977). The Act provided for a fine of £50 for allowing offensive matter from a cemetery
to enter water, with an additional fine of LIO per day from 24 hours after the notice is
first served until the offence is stopped (s 22). This Act was one of the earliest which
dealt specifically with the control of water pollution, and certainly the first to address
specifically the problem of contamination from cemeteries.
2. Burial Act 1855. Prohibited interment within 100 yards of existing dwelling without
consent. Position clarified by Burial Act 1906 (Polson 1975, pp 202,203).
3. Public Health Act .1875 and Public Health (Interments) Act 1879. ProMbit houses
being built within 200 yards of a burial ground (see (loodman and Beckett 1977).
4. Dogs Act 1906 (6 edn. 7, C32). The section relating to burying of carcasses states "Any
person who shall knowingly and without reasonable excuse perinit the carcass of any
head of cattle belonging to him, or under his control, to remain unburied in a field or
other place to which dogs can gain access shall be liable on conviction under the
Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 to a fine not exceeding ;E10 [Dogs Act 1906, s, 6, as
amended by Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928, s. 3, and Criminal Justice Act 1967, 3rd
Schell.]. In this Act, the expression "cattle" includes horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats
and swine [Dogs Act 1906s. 7].
5. Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Contains provisions for the development of
burial grounds and contains provision. for remains to be removed and re -interred (Polson
1975, pp 257-260).
6. Local Government Act, 1972 sections 214 and 215 + Schedule 26, brought together
Victorian and later legislation (Polson, 1973, p 204).
R&D Project Record P2/024/1
7. Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 (amended from 1974), Article 9 and Pts 11
and III of Schedule 2, grant of burial rights not to exceed 100 years, but grants made
earlier may be in perpetuity. Commonwealth War Graves Commission exempted from
100 year rule (Polson, 1975, pp 234-237).
The Local Authority (LA) rules specify a minimum depth of burial of 3 feet, or not loss than 2
feet in friable soils. No depth is specified for private cemeteries, In generat, the nearer to the
surface a body is buried, the faster it will decay. This is an important factor in assessing
potential risk to the environment, both in the short and long term. Rapid decay could lead to a
short sharp impact on the local environment, conversely slow decay could mean less impact
but over a longer timescale.
4.3 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) - Code of
Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water
Although this Code of Practice is directed at the on-farm disposal of dead animals, it is widely
employed within ED.Vironmesit Agency Regions to assess the acceptability of burial ground
proposals. The code suggests that, if other ways of disposing of carcasses are not practical, and
a notifiable disease is not suspected or has been ruled out, carcasses may be buried on farms.
In order to comply with the Code, the burial site must:
* be at least 250 metres away from any well, borehole or spring that supplies water for
human consumption or to be used in farm dairies;
® be at least 30 metres away from any other spring or watercourse, and at least 10
metres from any field drain;
® have at least one metre of subsoil below the bottoin of the burial pit, allowing a hole
deep enough for at least one metre of soil to cover the carcass;
& be free of standing water when first dug,
4.4 Southern Water Authority, Aquifer Protection Guidance 1985
The Southern Water Authority first issued its Aquifer Protection Guidance in 1.978. 'I'lic 1985
revision made specific reference to the view that would be taken by the Authority in the case
of proposals for new cemeteries or extensions to existing sites. The guidance was based on
zonation of the area, using ainixture of calculated saturated zone flow times and aquifer types.
Zone I was defined as the 50 day flow zone around public supply and. major private supply
sources, irrespective of aquifer material, Zone 2 comprised the outcrops of the Chalk and
Upper Oreensand. aquifers, other granular aquifers were classed as Zones 3 and 4, and
imperricablestrata (non -aquifers) as Zone 5. The principal guidance may be summarised:
• Zone I -No cemeteries and no burial of animal carcasses;
® Zone 2 to 5 - Cemeteries acceptable.
R&D Project Record P211024/1 10
8. DISCUSSION AND FITNIDIN GS OFLITERA,ruRE
REVIEW
8.1 Discussion
Examination of .much of the so-called evidence of environmental contuminatioti from burial
grounds shows it to be hearsay and circumstantial. Attributable and verifiable data are sparse,
and may be incomplete, with historic data often being anecdotal and relating to practices
which are no longer cat -tied out in the UK. There is very little infonnation related specifically
to the situation in England and Wales, although studies from other northern European
countries and from parts of North America may provide acceptable analogues.
The results of the computer aided literature search and the extensive contacts made during the
course of the surveys produced only twenty four sets of data related to groundwater
composition beneath or adjacent to burial grounds, of which rather less than half were in
hydrogeological or climatic situations which may find parallels in England and Wales. The
results of the survey are suniniarised in Table 8, 1, but are given in full in Appendix A.
Results from sampling on more than one occasion are only available for a small number of
cemeteries in Holland, at Branston in England and in Australia. The data set was insufficient
to allow statistical analysis and quantification of the observed impacts from cemeteries.
The evidence gathered and assessed from around the world indicates that there is a potential
for water pollution associated with the siting of burial grounds, particularly in those locations
where burials from a large area are concentrated to a single cemetery, and where the
hydrogeological conditions are such that any other potentially polluting activity would require
a properly conducted risk assessment to be completed before authorisation.
The perception of the funeral industry is that there is awareness amongst their members of the
potential problems, but not necessarily amongst planners in Local Authorities.
It appears that potential problems associated with intensive embalming may not be as serious
in the United Kingdoir.i as in other countries, particularly in view of the movement away fi-om
formalin to saline solution as a short term preservative, and the cessation of the use of toxic
rrietals in embalming preparations. However, some 15% of the UK funeral industry is now
owned by American interests and pressure towards more intense embalming and the securing
of more "perpetual" grave sites is possible.
The situation. regarding the potential emission of pathogens in water from burial grounds
remains ambiguous and although further sources of information were sought, little Finn
field-based evidence was obtained. This is an area where more field-based research is
required, particularly relating to survival of pathogens in the groundwater environment.
8.2 Findings
I Unequivocal evidence of water pollution from burial grounds is confined principally to
situations of shallow water tables, high burial rates and an area in which
R&D Project Record P2/024/t 53
hydrogeological factors favour the persistence of anoxic ground conditions. Conversely,
burials in low permeability areas {tion -aquifers) may lead to the prolonged presence of
decay products in anaerobic conditions, which could threaten local surface waters,
2. The amount of field-based research is very limited. The most comprehensive study is
currently being undertaken in Australia (Knight, 1996, Knight and Dent, 1998), and the
preliminary findings are summarised below:
® There has been widespread, low level detection ofindicator and pathogenic bacteria,
and nutrients, in the groundwaters. However, their effects and longevity is unknown;
• There should be prevention of direct contact of decaying remahis with groundwater
tables as this will provide pathways for pollution. The prevention of burials into
water tables appears a sound policy;
• Appropriate hydrogeological assessment and/or monitoring should be carried out to
determine groundwater level fluctuations so that the base (invert level) of all burials
is well above any fluctuations. Perched and/or seasonal water tables should also be
considered;
® Buffer zones should be mandatory in cemetery design, ideally at the cemetery
boundary. If they are planted with trees this should reduce groundwater flows leaving
the cemetery boundary with the trees take -tip nutrients and maybe even accumulating
trace metals. No burials should occur adjacent to the cemetery boundary;
• Ideally interments should be well spread in time and position within the cemetery to
reduce the impact.
3. There are no published papers, and little raw data, detailing, cases of pollution from
cemeteries in the UK. This may be an area for more research and a progranime of
monitoring boreholes located near cemeteries.
4. Although evidence from the United States has suggested that in the past soils at burial
grounds may have become contaminated by toxic metals in embalming fluids, such as
arsenic, current UK embalming practices are such that similar pollution, is extremely
,unlikely in the future.
5. There is little evidence that atmospheric; emissions are likely to present problems from
future cemeteries.
R&D Project Record P2/024/1 54
111812017 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. -Free Online Library
rlR RY
fr
2a_R64,749 arikias antl rtiaYe�
'v dwffib
Pwiceicals - Literature
Search i
Keyword lilts ` °Author Topic
Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming.
-ter r
3 &Zsy Steps ....._ �
"u$'i,,kt;�7�]IU4(4rrlFr�f
�Y �daa
IIClick ,Doweozd<
AQa's fr
21 Download on owweirs]-te I
,'91 Get Frew Forma Ond"tet w N"'Bodorrrsonime cr nr
'
j,nk/Paxr�. % "tier 0
The Origin and Spread of Embalming In the United State,
While embalming has origins going back to ancient Egypt, Its mets are not as deep in the Uniledl States. The modem pnctice or embalming owes its odgina to the American Civil War.
Faced with the problem of shipping dead soldiers home, the army commissioned Dr. Thomas Holmes to develop a mothcd of preservation (Roach, 2003). He came up with and embiamirg
fluid that used arsenic as the main ingredient because it was effective in killing the microorganisms responsible for decomposition (Knoefes & fAcGee, 2002).
(ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
After the Civil War, the practice of embalming spread and became increasingly common. The final train ride of Abraham Lincoln's embalmed body form Washington, D,C., to Illinois raised
awareness even more. Opeo-casket funerals became the norm (Roach, 2003). The; era of arseniubased embalming lasted until the Body 1900s when it was loaned because of harmful
health effects (Knoefm & McGee, 2002) and because it interfered with criminal investigalims, of cases where arsenic poisoning was suspected (Iserson, 1994).
This firs an of embarming provides a Near example of the impact of embalming on the environment. Studies in Iowa and New Yoh found elevated levels of arsenic in the groundwater
"downstream" of lana l9th-century cemeteries, as well as higher levels of copper, zinc, and lead -elements associated with casklits (Knoefes & MuQee, 2002}
Despite this. embalming and open -casket funerals continues to be the noon in America. A number of rationales have been given for the expansion of these practices. Urban population
density prevented traditional funeral practices such as leaving the body in the leader and holding the funreral service at home, And as life spans Increased and contact with death became less
common, the fear of death Increased. When death did occur, people had a desire to render death more aesthetically pleasing.
The most likely mason for the continues practice of embalming is that it fueled the expansion of the funeral industry. Dempsey (1977) wrote. "Economically speaking, there is no doubt that
viewing the corpse is one of the fundamentals of economy of the funenal Industry," Wham you make ths, body the centerpiece of the funeral, you Incur costs in dressing and preparing the
body a viewing roam with attandant chapel, floral costs, expensive caskets, and grave vaults. Today the funeral industry in the United States takes in approximately $13 billion per year
(Herrington & Krynski, 2002). The funeral industry remains the driving force behind embalming. Harrington & Krynski's 2002 study confirmed that funeral directors do Induce custraners Into
burial and embalming over cremation. This Irducsent is aided by state raga lations that tacitly encourage embalming by linking funeral home llcomes with embalming certifications.
Modem embalming entails replacing the blood with an embalming fluid. A slit is made in an artery and the embalming lime is inserted. The blood Is drained and disposed of via the regular
sewer. Roach (2003) notes, ",fust as blood in the vessels and capillaries once delivered oxygen and nutrients to the cells, now those sauna vessels, emptied of blued, are delivering
embalming fluid." Red coloring is added to the embalming fluid to give the hadies a natural coloring.
The primary ingredient in most modem embalming fluids is formaldehyde. it takes roughly 3.5 gallons to embafrrr the average adult (Cook, 1999). The National Funeral Director's Association
estimates that two million Americans; are embalmed each year, That translates into rouglly seven million gallons of formaldehyde being deliberately placed in the soil Bach year.
In addition, at least 42 other federally regulated "dangerous chemicals aria also commonly used in embalming and body preparation (iserson, 19,94.)," All of thess dangerous chemicals also
end up in the ground or being burned in a riematonum. Because formaldehyde makoc up the largest percentage of embalming fluid, It will ba the focus of this article.
Download This To PDF ;
Formaldehyde breaks down first into formic acid (which Is Itself hazardous) and then Into carbon dioxide. It is unclear holy long formaldehyde remains in the soli before It degrades or what
damage it does in the meantime (Cool,, '19991.
Formaldehyde has a big advantage over ersenic and other alternatives in that it helps stiffen the body and helps fix the body in a desired position. The more embalming find used the larger
the body lasts but in a less lifelike condition (Milford, 1998 Undertakers attempt to find Just the right balance of diluted embalming fluid to preserve the body in a lifelike condition long
enough for the funeral. Embalming "is designed to keep a cadaver looking fresh and uncadaverous for the funeral service, but not much longer (Roaoh, 200.3)."
The Dangers or Formaldehyde to Public Health and the Environment
Formaldehyde is used in the production of resins, plywood, parmanent-press cotton, certain molded plastics, and a variety of other uses (U.& Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1997).
It also occurs naturally during combustion. Most studies on the effects of forme7dehyde on public health and the environment focus on likbome exposure rather than groundwater or
walentxrmme, exposure. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that formaldehyde is harmful to public health and probably not a good thing to be adding to the environment.
In June 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer upgraded formaldehyde from a probable human carcinogen to a known human camirusgan (International Agency for Research
on Cancer, 2004). Based on animal and human reactions, they have proposed an air quality standard of 0.1 n>,1i tri.sup.3) (roughly .1 parts per million (ppm]) and a drinking water standard of
900 (micro)gliter, A World Health Oryanization study (WHO, 2002) found that formaldehyde arts as an irritant at law levels of exposure.
The Occupations] Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, 2009) has placed form aldehyde on its list of toxic chemicals with a permissible exposure limit of 0.75 riper over the cwrae of an
fight -hour workday. if formaldehyde levels exceed this, a warning must be posted which says, part, "fnitant and potential cancer hazard" A 1998 publication by the National Institute for
Ocrupaiienal Safety and Health states that embalmers are exposed to an average of 9 ppm while embalming. At levels betwoon 10 ppm and 20 ppm, formaldehyde causes more severe
symptoms; at levels or between 50 ppm and 100 ppm, it causes fluid on the lungs and death.
htps:/ www.thefreeli brary.com/Chinking+grandma%3A+the+problem+of+em balm! ng.-a0191018,*3 115
1/1612017 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. - Free Online Library
The National Cancer Instituto has reported that exposure to formaldehyde increases the risks of brain cancer and leukamla and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U,$,EPA) has
listed formaldehyde as a probable carcinogen since 1961 (Walton, 2003}. U.S. EPA also regulates formaldehyde as a hazardous waste. Embalming manufacturers also recognize the
occupational danger of formaldehyde (Bodine, 2004).
High formaldehyde exposure makes embalmers more susceptible to chronic bronchitis and eye arid skin imitation, A number of studies have found "that embalmers are at significantly greater
risk then the genoral populaces of getting cancers of the skin, brain, colon, sinuses, nose, throat and blood, kidney failure, arteriosclerotic heart disease, chromosomal damage, and cirrhosis
of the liver (Iserson 1994)" Crematory workers were found to have slightly elevated risks for some diseases that formaldehyde Is also known to cause.
A 1980s White House groundwater task force report raised the possibility that cemeteries would he a potential pollution source, but concerns were dismissed because of the lack of studies
about the problem, not lack of evidence (Cook, 1999), At present, U.S. EPA guidelines don't include recommendations about testing for formaldehyde and no safety standards have been set.
Cook reported that aNdies in Canada have turned up low concen trationa of formaldehyde outaids of cemeteries and that a study in Great Britain tumed up extremely high concentrations in
water that collected in the bottom of freshly dug grevses. A literature survoy for the Institute of Occupational Medicine revealed a number of similar studies of groundwater near comomdoe
from around the world (Creely, 2004). Studies of cemeteries in regions wham embalming is practiced found low levels of chemicals used in embalming fluid. C.maly noted that a study of an
Ohio cemetery found dramatic levels of arembli; and other heavy metals associated with vadcus embalming fluids as well as casket materials.
Embalming fluids also end up 3» time wastewater of funeral homes, This has been studied mere because of the potential health risks of draining blood and bodily fluids into the sewer system,
These studies have found that terga wastewater treatment facilities can adequately barrels the relatively small vokn no of dilated embalming fluid and blood (Green, 2003). A 2003 study by
the Nations! Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) found that a properly installed septic system can reduce formaldehyde levels to a seta level in facilities not camected to a sewer system
(Groan, 2003).
Formaldehyde also enters the atmosphere through cremation. Because all combustion creates some formaldehyde the contributions of cremation as assuredly do minimis. Nonetheless,
cremating are assuredly de minimis. 6lonetholess, cremating embalmed romaine would release a larger quantity of formaldehyde into the air. Once in the air, formaldehyde can last for up to
250 hours In good weather (WHO. 2002). Because forma ddehyde Ie highly soluble, it readily attaches to atmospheric moisture and washes out in precipitation, Embalming also renders the
remaining ashes slightly carcinogenic.
The environmental impacts of formaldehyde are toss known. WHO (2002) found that foonatdohyde injured or killed developing marine plant life as well as Via root systems of some plants.
They did not find any impact on larger wild animals throwh waterbome exposure. Embalmed bodies buried at sea take longer to decompose because fish and other marine life aro repolied by
the odor of the chemicals (Isomer, 1994). Formaldehyde is on a U.S. EPA list of the top 10% worst chemicals for hazardous impact on the environment (Bedino, 2004). Fortunately,
formaldehyde does not appear to be bioaccumulatwe WHO, 2002).
Only a small percentage of the total formaldehyde manufactured and consumed each year finds its way into embalming fluid. Nonetheless, this small percentage is placed almost directly
into the environment despte potential harm and questionable benefit.
The Current Legal Status of Embalming
Misconceptions on the legal status of embalming abound. For instance, more than half of Americans believe that embalming is legally required or that embalming is required before cremation
(Iserson, 1094). Another common misconception Is that embalming is required when tmnsportinfj a body across state lines. None of these claims Is tree. The funeral Industry stood to gain
from these mistaken beliefs and may have spread misrepresentations about the taw. To prevent this, the Federal Trade Commission passed a rule in 1964 forbidding the practice of claiming
that embalming is legally required.
Currently, embalming and embalming fluids are exempt from a number of federal environmental laws. Embalming fluids are included in the same exemption from the Federal insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that exempts natural pesticides like cedar, peppermint, and garlic, Wastewater disalxarge from the manufacture of embalming fluid is specifically
oxempt from the Clean Water Act. A permit is required under the Clean Water Act when burying a body at sea or apimading cremated mmalns at sea, but other than a requirement that the
burst be done more than three miles from the coast and that the body be weighted ao that it doesn't rise up again, the regulation is silent on embalming.
By contrast, some environmental laws do cover key ingredients in embalming fluid. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RC RA) def ries formaldehyde as a hazardous substance,
and as such. spills over 100 pounds ky carders and transporters must ba roportnd under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In the
context of wood furniture manufacturing operations, the Clean Air Act lists formaldehyde as a "volatile hazardous air pollutant.°
In defining hazardous waste, U.S. EPA ties devised a toxicity mixture test. If you add something toxic to something nontoxic, the whole thing becornas toxic. This becomes relevant to the
embalming process twice. The mixture rule first applies during the embalming procedure where wastewater containing a mixture of embalming and bodily fluids is flushed into the sower
system. A number of hazardous chemicals are used in the process and inadvertently mixing them in too high a proportion can trigger a violation (Green, 2003).
Applying the mixture test comes up a second time with the embalmed bodies. Whin you add embalming fluid, which is toxic, to a dead body, which is nontoxic, the whole becomes toxic
waste. Understandably, this is upsetting for mourning families end U.S. EPA seems to have modified their position. Under proposed emissions standards for crematories, U.S. EPA has
come to the conclusion that the human body should; not be labeled or considered "solid waste."
The biggest government regulation of the funeral industry is a 1984 Federal Trade Commission rule designed to stop certain unfair practices used by the funeral industry. Most relevant to this
dlSauab90n are rales against embalming bodies without authorization and forbidding claims that embalming preserves the body forever. in Harry and Byrant Co, v. Federal Trade Commission,
which uphdd the mile, the court found that even the funeral industry's own study indicated that "nearly ton percent of the funeral buyers in e given year would decline embalming if allowed to
choose."
Aside from the FTC rules and federal environmental laws, most laws regulating the funeral industry come at the state level. lwenty-eight states texture that funeral directors also be
embalmers in order to gat a license and 33 states require that funeral establishments maintain embalming facilities (Harrington & Krymid, 2002). Other licensing regulations require addriarat
education and training. Harrington (2003) explained that these state regulations solve mostly to impair the entry of now firms into the funeral rnarket and preserve a quasi monopoly for
existing forms,
The Rationale for Embalming
Only in Canada and the United States is the practice of embalming widespread, although it is spreading to England and Australia (Welton, 200311. This immediately rases suspicions about
the supposedly apparent necessity of embalming. Two main arguments have been put forth as to the necessity of embalming: embalming as a public; health measure and embalming as
psychologically necessary for the mourning. process.
Public Health
The first argument is that embalming is necessary as a public health matter (Milford, 1906). Common sense would suggest that refting corpses are indeed a public health risk. Because
embalming floods the body with disinfectants, it kills any infectious organisms that may remain. While this genemd theory is partially accurate, it overstates the role of embalming.
The only health risk from corpses comes from communicable diseases, such as typhoid, cholera, or the plague (Milford, 1998). In some ways, however, dead bodies are safer because, as
Milford puts it in The Amaduan Way of Death Revisited, dead bodies "don't excrete, inhale, exhale, or perspire."
Embalming alone is not foolproof; "Other infectious organisms are virtually unaffected by normal embalming practice, Including those that cause anthrax, tetanus, and gas gangrene (lesson,
1994).,'
A study in the United Kingdom suggests that rather than helping the public health, embalming actually harms the public health by exposing embalmers to the, bodily fluids of the deceased
(Creely. 2004). The same UK study provides a list of bloodbome diseases such that any body with these diseases should TM be embalmed, which further undercuts the public health
rationale of embatming.
Diseased blood in a hospital would he treated as medical waste and death with accordingly, yet when that same blood is extracted during the embalming prcoess, it is simply dumped Into
the savers (Mayor, 2000). Abeam embalming, neither blood nor embalming fluids would be ontoring the wastewater.
Psychological Benolit
The second argument in favor of embalming is that by preserving the body and having a viewing it enables the mourning family to form a "memory picture" that will somehow help with the
grieving process (Roach, 2003). As the public health benefit claims have, been criticized, mole emphasis has been placed on this psychological beroffl. "[W)Ith great candour it Is now
conceded,.. that the sole function of embalming is to produce a short-term, superficial but aesthetically pleasing preservative affect for the benefit of grieving relatives;' says Wilkins (1990).
https:ilwww.thefree4i brary.com/Drinkincg+grmdnia°/o3A+the+problem+of+ernbalm ing.-aD19101 B223 215
1/16/2017 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. -Free Online Library
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 16 C.F.R. [section] 453.3 (a), 23 G.F.R. [section] 1910.9048,(2008).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 40 C.P.R. [section] 302.4 (2008).
Roach, M. (2003). Stiff: The curious lives of human Cadavers. New York: WW. Notion.
U.S. Consurnmer Product Safety Commission. (1997). An update on formaldehyde. Retrleved February 27, 2003, from littp:/hvww.cpse.gov/c, ;,cptib/pubs!726.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Standards of performance for new stationary aouroes and emission guideliness for existing sources: Other solid waste incineration units, 69 Fed.
Reg. 71472, 71479 (Dec. 9, 20(4) (to on codified at C.F.R. pt. 60).
U.S. Envirornnental Protection Agency. 40 C.F.R. (section;] 261.3. (2008).
Welton, N. (2003, March-Aprt). Embalming toxins. E: The Environmental Magazine. Rebiovod Febnrary 27, 2008, from httptRfindar-ilcies.conUia'articles/ml_m1594/is fai_g84f>99.30
Wilkins, R. (1990). Deaft .. A history of marls obcossions and fears, p, 139-140. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
Word Health Organization. (2002). Concise international chernical assessment document 40, formaldehyde. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from
htV/Wwxr.inchem.o V documerds/cicads/cicads/cicad40.htm
Jenniah Chiappelil, J.D.
Ted Chiappelil, Or.P.H., M.H.A., M.S.S.M.
('.i)FY(J!.t,.i 'll,v Nfrt�:;!,.b f �:•:':;:,•.�!..::4flI'_i::',a:i: As;:�!:i1%;n
.r.,15.11..1 � .... .- .1. .�• Yh,:.. 3>.;: t ...v_r..i i�. xq+i j,:t t::_t"(':.
Ptoase bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated:
l'Ytx h:inolaWn: SPECIAL REPORT
Aall;on riLrL�3x2�+�Y-' .i!:A7k.'L1
PUCncanan: ,!,I,�A LQi
Gaopraphir. Cade: IUSA
M.: &vs_!_ ah
waRla: 4122
Pm.•Mus Arir.�; 7llq.!; >•Fr.;. ;,ryit y,:�inmutn anti ercsngn�; oinie,,;lnu �;,o a n� bacicta a�pmpune e,,: r+;Itlyg,Ce,,,;;yL'<i,eg i,��y_. r.x Nn;,'t:aeg comrc qg„
Nnzi Artichu: F1L�ldeiD.i:'i:�..;.x:It;:loa nnuJrat:apa{kin.J..go'_:3.?:I."c.RS!LvL'i!rt_m.':t;n Tr�l�i
Tnuiw:
[hrr_Uk
x!FAW-�.i..a
iu'ilstaq, a�s!.eusla
h;lr„snsx
sairt�nkcus
c:ro::rny�vAya
I_�I�nupa!t
4me.
X14 Lexus RX 350 $27,888
$27,888
CarGurus Gmat Deal.
AOvero-; xinunl. Bad Garot:u'� FkaP.>e is !;. ;:n:�+.a
AdvcrASPmanl, asd t,anner7 PI -10 K•1 U;'.r:o'n'
>.UtIsi9.!�!P:x11,210hilpsWwwwAhelreell brary.com/D rinking+grandm a%M3 the+problem +of+embalming. a0191018723 415
1/16/2017 Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming.- Free Online Library
Some funeral Industry surveys of mourning families Indicate that the viewing of the body does have Important positive psychological effects by allowing the gdevin g families to grasp the
finality of death (Dempsey, 1977). By allowing the mourning family to see their loved one, they can be assured that theirioved one is truly dead and that thew hasn't been any mix-up in the
morgue (Roach, 2003).
Amfflatfves to Embalming
"A body will keep, under normal conditions, for twenty-four hours," according to Jessica Mitfold (1998). Two exceptima to this gonorat rule are if the body Is opened or has been floating In
the ocean, it keeps for less 8me.
Freezing is the most viable aitemative for preventing decomposition In the short tern. it preserves tile body in a way that does not require toxic chemicals. At present many funeral homes
and hospitals are already equipped with refrigeration facilities (Funeral Consumers Alliance, 2003).
Other alternatives that preservo the body and prevent oddrr, include parking the body with dry ice and placing the body in a waterproof pouch with time (lswson, 1994).
Another ahemative to the open -casket funeral is known as green burial. Tha goal of green burial is to respect the natural course M decay and minimize the impact of the body an the
ervironmerd. One of the cies of green burial is that the body can not be embalmed. The reason for this, as Joshua Slocum, executive director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance, puts It, is
"from a common-sense standpoint, putting a chemical that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration deems toxic into the ground certainly can't be beneticlsl to the em ironmerrt."
Cremation is making great advances, being used in approximately 25% of all deaths in America (fserson, 1994). Theso peraWages have risen dramatically in recent years and the reasons
given are Illuminative. The lower cost of cmrnation is the single largest reason given, followed by wheat can be broadly called environmental reasons (Horton, 2003). It can be Inferred that the
increased use of cremation is a direct consumer choice away from embalming. 'this inference is given more weight in the study by Hamnglon and Krynski (2002), which demonshated that in
states which require funeral directors to be embalmers or have embalming facilities, cremation rates decrease due to funewl director inducement.
If preservation is truly the goal sought by embalming, two altematives reported by iserson offer much more practical promise. The first Is by completely encasing the body in plastic and the
second ismummification by dehydration. Both will preserve the body for a much longer time than the current embalming pmdfce.
Situations Where Embalming Is Still Useful
Surne cases exist where the benefits of embalming outweigh the health and environmental risks. Every first-year medical student must come face-to-face with a human cadaver for purposes
of medical education. Because the bodies road to last longer than the length of a funeral service, anatomy departments use a touch higher concentration of embalming fluid. The
corresponding increase in health risks for anatomy students can be dealt with by increased ventilation and greater diligence.
A need still exists for embalming in cases where the mourning family desires an opon-casket funeral of viewing and (fie body needs to be transported over a lang distance, such as when
dead soldiers are shipped home from overseas. Another case is when the vieraing tests over a longer period of time, such as President Reagan lying in state in the Capital or Pope John Paul
If tying in the Sistine Chapel.
Conclusion
The costs of embalming to the public health and environment are at best mild, and the benefits of embalming are cosmetic or illusory. Severely curtailing embalming would have a number of
immediate benefits for the public at large. It would remove a minor, yet blatant, source of pollution. Cemeteries would become less of a nuisance to live next to. Potential longterm health
consequences can be avoided. The inclusion of an embalming requirement in the licensing M funeral establishments fres served as a large impediment to any person do Thing to start a
funeral home. By removing embalming form the equation, it allows easier entry into the funeral market and the consumer benefit of lower prices and more options.
"[Fonnaidehydel is going to show up, but it's going to take a while. Were probably drinking great-grandmother Maude right now more than we aro someone who died last Saturday night."
says Julie Weafhedngton-Rice, an environmental consultant who has studied arsenic in groundwater (Cook, 1999). Frankly, that should be enough.
Corresponding Author: Dr. Ted Chiappelli, Associate Professor or Health Sciences, Western Carolina university, 0-05 Moore, Cuifawhes, NC 2372:3. E-mail: tchiapplli@emaii.wcu.edu,
REFERENCES
Bedino, J.H. (20(;4) Formaldehyde exposure hazards and health effects: A comprehensive review to, embalmers. 650 Champion Expanding Encyclopedia of Mortuary Practices 2633,
Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://www.champfon-newere.comiCHAMR POFS/encycio650.pdfitearch='embalming%20health'
Clean Water Act, 40 C.F.R. [section} 229. 1, 40 C.F.R. (section] 414.11, 40 C.F.R. [sertlonj 63,Subpt. JJ, Tbls. (2008)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 49 C.R.R. [section] 172.101, App. A. (2005)
Cook, J. (1999, Jan/Feb). Dead in the water. Mother Jones. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from wWww.ranular)ernes.corrlmoiher_ioneslJF991rrrok. lural
Credy, K.S. (2004, March), Infection risks and embalming (Instituto of Occupational Medicine Reseamh Report TM104101, 13ad 8.2). Retrieved February 27, 2008, from hUp]Avwvv.lora-
wadd.org/pubsAOM TM040i,pdf
Dempsey, D. (1977). The way we die: An Investigation of death and dying in Am -.alta today (p. 171) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 40 C.F.R. [section) 15225 (20081
Fedarai Trade Commission. 16 C.F.R. [section] 453.3 (a), 16 C. RR. [section] 453.3 (o), 16 C.F.R. (section] 453.5 (2008).
Funeral Consumers Alliance. (2003). Facts about embalming. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http//www.funorals.o4faq/wnbalm.htm.
Green, C.L (2003, November). Worry -tree wastewater. The Director. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http//www.nfd3.org/directorA[ticle.php?elD=2119& are= 1
Herrington, D.E. (2003). Breathing life into the funeral market. Regulation, 26(1), 14-18,
Harrington, D.. & Krynski, K.J. (2002). The effect of state funorat regulations on mernation rates: Testing for demand inducement in funem! markets. Journal of Law & Economics, 45, 199.
Harryand Bryant Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 726 F.2d 993, 996 (4th Cir. 1984).
Horton, K.E. (2003). Who's watching the uryptkeeper. The need for regulation and oversight in the crematory Industry. Elder Law Journal, 11, 425, 429430.
loternational Agency for Research on Cancer. (2004). IARC classifies formaldehyde as carcinogenic to humans. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from
hltpl/www.farr..fr/pagerooVPRELEASE9/pr 153a.htrnl
Iserson, K. (1994). Death too dust: What mappens to dead bodies? Tucson, AT: Geer. Press,
Knoefes, J. L., & McGee, M. (2002). Old cemeteries, arsenic, and health safety. Retrieved February 27, 2000, from www.watenndustry.org/aizenic-3.him
Mayer, R a (2000) Embalming: History, theory, and practice (3rd ad., p, 65). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional,
Milford, J. (1998). The American way of death revisited New York: Knopf,
National Environmental Protection Act. (1992). Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, 57 Federal Register 22290, (May 27, 1992) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1910) (Environmental
impact assessment).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (199(r). Controlling formaldehyde exposures during embalming. Retrieved Febmary 27, 21108, from http:tlwww.edo.gov/iiimWpdfs/98•
149, pdf
https:/hwww.thefredibi-ary,com/Drirkir)g+grandma%3A+the+problem+of+embalming: aOI91018223 315
1116(2017
Drinking grandma: the problem of embalming. -Free Online library
"`Fence and T.cWbgy> girAr LE6 ialsSA!G,S'.�
E!ixi[91utu� '12FkxA1 .:VLL.1t1L.S
�iarr:.t,.cracu>sA�ta> 24,'iR� sic.,a;n;tcu> .t>,hxi;rn.�at'.[t�:urur»e:vawJjcaDn
�uDlicaVonb Dy Netne PUDlw�lone Dy t)die Su1f:�X0
LA .1-
:A?G42 i.4.K LnEmiJ;'S.1&Aa-�f.5k 43.rap„.'. �-7:1:'SL:M
d&x�.k.':F:t a'I11i131
:�L:'sL:iZC»::2"J;:375'J.4: S&P.4RS�u:is;. Y.1b
L.k$5::"i�ASYiY3YZ
L'iLAei'.'ll@3M
Nips Wwvw.thefredibrarycomlArinking+grand ma%3A+itie+problem+of+embalm! ng: a0191018223 515
1/17/7.017 Not So Clean, Not So Dry - Butterflies and Wheels
r
Jun 21st, 20711 1 By Josh Slocum and Lisa Carlson
Category: AfftqMl
If you're looking for a diversion from fighting fashionable and religious nonsense; but you don't want to
miss your daily dose of sanctimony, look no further than the American funeral business. You'll seldom
find a culture as steeped in faux tradition, self -regard, mythology and jargon as the Dismal Trade.
What the typical American endures ---and pays for—when a family member dies would strike most
readers from other countries as having a through -the -looking -glass quality. It would strike Americans
that way, too, if most of us knew what went on behind the formaldehyde curtain.
Well, here's a little peek for you. The following extract is from my book, co -written with Lisa Carlson,
Final Rights: Reclaiming the American Way of Death. --Josh Slocum
Are you afraid of bugs? Goes the thought of burial in the dank, dark earth leave you cold? Well,
maybe a mausoleum is for you. Or maybe not.
Crypt space above ground has long been marketed as a "clean and dry" alternative to earth burial.
Mausoleum operators aren't shy about exploiting your squeamishness to sell you a slot. But from an
engineering perspective, shelving whole human bodies behind an inch of wall space and inviting
mourners to corne "visit" them was never a good idea. mead people decompose, and unless the
mausoleum is properly engineered, they do it in a particularly nasty way.
A well -engineered mausoleum promotes air flow to dehydrate the bodies, with crypt slots angled
backward to drain fluids that can breach the casket and run out the front. Yet many of these
posthumous high-rises are shoddily constructed, and using the wrong kind of casket can lead to
disaster. So-called sealer (or "protective") caskets have a rubber gasket that seals the space between
the lid and the bottom. That is exactly what you don't want: Trapping moisture and gases causes the
body to rapidly putrefy into a festering soup. People from around the country have filed suit against
funeral homes, casket companies, and mausoleums for duping them into believing these "protective,
caskets and above -ground crypts would keep mom clean and dry. Horrified families have sent us
photographs showing liquefied remains inside the casket and gushing out onto the sidewalk.
Many in the industry know the truth, but conceal it in order to keep selling to the unwary public. There
are at least four brands of Tyvek-type bags peddled in the mortuary trade journals that envelop the
casket to "protect it," as the ads coyly claim. But they're not protecting the casket, they're protecting
the mausoleum from the casket:
http:(huww,butter9liesaidwhe ds.org/2011/no[-so-clearNnot-so-dry/ 1/7
1!1712017 Not So Cimn, Not So Dry - Butterflies anti Wheels
Let Mature Take Its Course
We know what happens after the crypt is sealed. Your clients do not know, or do not want to know. Provide
comforting visits over decades with Ensure -A -Seal's new and improved Casket Protector. Durable and
strong, the cover is designed for both metal and wood caskets. The ONE-WAY check valve allows gases to
escape. The NEW seamless, chemically hardened fiberboard tray contains liquids. Don't let natural
processes destroy your facility's reputation,
Carlson's Funeral Ethics Organization newsletter unearthed a 1994 study on mausoleums by the
Monument Builders of forth America that examined how caskets held up over time in above -ground
crypts:
MBNA found that the Catholic Cemetery Association was documenting an 86% failure rate for problems with
wood and cloth -covered caskets, 62% for nonsealing metal, and 46% for 'protective" or `sealer' caskets.
Even with the somewhat better results, the report states in bold print, `it is highly unlikely that such protective
sealer metal caskets employ sufficient mechanisms to contain body fluids or gases.'
Betty Greiman learned the truth about mausoleums the hard way.
"`the crypt was open to put his casket in and when we looked in, we saw that my mother's casket was
propped open with what looked like 2x4s. And I was hysterical," she said to a reporter for WKRC in
Cincinnati.
Greiman filed suit against Forest Lawn Cemetery in Erlanger, Ohio, after discovering the owners were
propping open all the caskets to ventilate them. Ventilation is, of course, exactly what a sensible
mausoleum operator wants, but propping open the coffins without telling the families?
We've long wondered why mausoleums would even accept sealer caskets, let alone require them, as
some do. And why would funeral directors—the supposed professionals ---even sell a sealer casket to
a family choosing mausoleum burial? Perhaps it's because many of them are genuinely (if
inexcusably) confused. Many mausoleums require embalming on the grounds that it will prevent
odors, but that won't help for more than a few weeks or months. Apparently some undertakers
actually believe this is an acceptable long-term solution.
So do some mausoleum managers. Slocum had a bizarre conversation with the manager of a Florida
mausoleum in 2003. A woman from Michigan who wanted to bury her husband in a crypt they owned
in Florida sent FCA copy of a letter from a "Planning Specialist" at Forest Hills Memorial Park and
Funeral Home in Palm City, owned by Stewart Enterprises. In the letter, saleswoman Deanna Mitchell
told the customer her husband would "need to be embalmed, and in at least an 18 -gauge steel casket
for placement into the mausoleum crypt." The woman didn't want to embalm her husband and saw no
need to waste money on a heavy 18 -gauge casket.
Slocum asked the saleswoman why the mausoleum required embalming, "For preservation," she said.
He then asked Stewart's regional sales manager why Forest Hills required an 18 -gauge casket. Bill
Baggett tried to claim "bylaws from the state of Florida" required an 18 -gauge; it took some pressing
for him to admit these were merely the cemetery's own bylaws (rules) that had been filed with the
state regulatory office. So, why the 18 -gauge? "Well, our 18 -gauge caskets seal," he said. Given the
problems associated with sealer caskets in warm climates, Slocum asked why the cemetery would
even want a sealer in its crypt.
http://www.butterfliesandwliWs.org/2019/not-so-ciearrnot-so-dryl 2/7
1/17/2017 Not So Clean, Not So Dry - Bufterflies and Wheels
"Over the years we've transferred many of our patients to different spaces and we've never had that
problem," Baggett replied.
Mr. Baggett must not read his trade journals. The weekly Funeral Service Insider published an article
on "exploding casket syndrome" in 2003. FSI offered its readers "four approaches to consider: do
nothing, cut chunks out of the rubber seal, leave off some of the casket hardware so air can get it, or
just unseal the box completely. Cutting pieces from the casket seal (you know, the rubber gasket you
paid hundreds more for because it would "protect' your loved one) was an 'idea from Curt Rostad, a
well-known funeral director and industry commentator.
If you feel you must have mausoleum burial, take these precautions:
~ Tour the buildings, and note any odors and any stains onthe front of crypts or the floor orsidewalk
beneath them.
- Do not purchase a sealer casket. If the mausoleum tells you these are required, you know all you
need toknow tocross the mausoleum off your list.
- It's probably worth a few hundred dollars to buy an enclosure bag to zip up around the casket
Josh Slocum is Executive Director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance. Lisa Carlson inExecutive
1/15!2017 Everythirq You Want To Know About Ernbalming...And Even the Things You Don't
Everything You Want To Know About
Embalming .. And Even the
Things You Don't
Updated: SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 — 10:53 AM EDT
Embalming is the treatment of a deceased individual to twiRararLly preserve
(httDs:/ wikiDedia.org/wiki/Erb ming') and forestall decomposition. In 7.867 chemist August
Wilhelm von Hofmann discovered formaldehyde, replacing the use of arsenic in the 20th century, and
became the foundation for modern methods of embalming. Modern embalming cocktails contain, a
mixture of formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, ethanol, humectants and other wetting agents.
• • I
1 What happy s
i Can fou have
What when the bort'' S
Iub is Y� oLaj
em almW9—?? embalmed? (lo 'une�nl�gim d�h�i ?
Steps}
Tha lBowlon doe
?uroSe of --s, Is an unembalme.,.ri
htip:/Maww.philiycan!pFully!Mogs7imsa,rytohear)2o96M26 ISTN_Everythin�LYou Want Tr Know About_Embalmina_And Even the Things_You_Don . 1113
1118/2017 Everylbing You Warn To Kram+ AbOUt Embalming—And Even the Things You Doii t
There are three common uses (httras:l gmm. K e 'a org/ml-jarubAl nino for embalming: temporary
preservation of the body, restoration or presentation, and "sanitation".
8100 &102 NORTH IT {i
r
ft'o'-M'—fo .x — 6
+.mfE,ao {u s CM4ww V m xcn�. xu
P'r'.kd.fa.aana� Pz� ,E,rz&;+i<•; �a:.
The Civil War Era heralded in the modern day embalming service we have today.
Embalming began in the late 1800's (httDs;//en,w.i..Iciloedia.org/Wiki/Ernbalming), during the Victorian
era, as a means to preserve human remains for scientific study. It grew steadily in the 19th century in
the funeral industry as demand increased by those who wished to be buried in remote locations and
display the body of the deceased. In the United States, embalming became popular during; the Civil
War when returning deceased servicemen and officials home for local burials.
The US and Canada are the only countries where the practice of embalming is so widespread that it is
considered routine and ordinary (Final Rights (httg- amzn:to j1VHs4a1) and FUnerals.org
htt :.WWW.fune als.orgZfrequently-asked-cuestionsJ48-what-amu-should-know-abgltt-
enat�.�1
http:Hwww.philly.canlphilly/blogs/imwrytohear/2Ol&A26 ISTii_Everythltiq You Want To_Krow Abou EmbalmirK _,Ar _Even the Tfvngs You Da 2113
1/INOII7 EvarythirQ You Want To Know About Embalming... And Even the Things YOU DOrYt
Embalming for funeral purposes can last from a day to a week or so, depending on the chemicals,
strength and methods used and the temperature and humidity of where they are being stored (Final
yH_s4_aIJ).The length of preservation depends greatly on the rate of decomposition
Bodies embalmed for inedicaiLd-mig
Xionpj(htt wwickKM
wmsohear.com blo -donatlQn-
_�_ —
Qrvthin -you-nom know -about -Boody -don ion!) use a much stronger solution of chemicals
than mortuary -embalming in order to preserve the bodies from 6 months to 2 years, resulting in a
leather -like texture, undesirable for cosmetic -purposes such as a funeral.
I It
Embalming is an
invasive procedure that involves the injection of chemical solutions into the arteries, tissues and
sometimes organs and draining of the deceased's fluids to slow decomposition and restore the
physical appearance of the deceased for cosmetic purposes. Mortuary embalming is a complex
process and involves these common 10 or �'Iki �Em m dial -
hftp.,Ilwww.philly.com/phillyib[oWimsorrytohearl2016D42(ISTH—Everything Yap Want To Know About Embalmirg_,,,Anc Even the Things_Yo( Uon_. 3/13
QW2017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming, _Ard Even the Things You Don't
To begin, the deceased is undressed and placed on their back, with private areas covered, on a
mortuary table with the head elevated by a bead block.
The next step, possibly the most important,, involves checking vital signs to prevent premature burial.
Embalmers check for clouded corneas, lividity, rigor mortis, and a pulse in the carotid or radial
artery.
The death of the cadaver confirmed, embalmers then wash the deceased with disinfectant and
germicidal solutions while bending, flexing, and massaging arms and legs to relieve rigor mortis.
Feature setting tools, Ruth Bonneville/ Winnipeg Free Press
Before any incision is made, embalmers will set the features of the deceased, often times using a
photo provided by the -family or friends to set the eyes and mouth. The eyes are posed using an eye -
cap, which keeps the eyes shut and in a "natural" expression. The mouth is then set by wiring the jaw
shut, suturing the lips and gums and then adhesive is used to make the expression look as relaxed and
natural as possible.
http://Www.pNI I y.=n/phiI ly/blogsfirn s -or rytoheat,120160426—ISTH—EverythI rqYoLt-WonLTq_KnoA�_About_Embalm i ng__Ano.,C-verLtheLTHii,,gs_YouLD on__. 4113
1/18/2017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming... And Every the Things You Dont
Once the expression is set, arterial embalming begins. Arterial embalming is the process of
Figure 6-1® Substances that may be found in the majority of embalming fluids.
draining the blood vessels while simultaneously injecting embalming chemicals into arteries. This is
done using a centrifugal pump, which mimics the beating of a heart, while massaging the body to
break up blood clots and ensure thorough distribution of embalming fluid. The blood, which is
expelled as the fluid is injected, is then sent down the drain and into the sewer.
a. I� • -t''.il
Following arterial embalming is cavity embalming. Cavity embalming involves removing any built up
gas and fluids in the organs with an aspirator and filling them with concentrated embalming
chemicals using a trocar (a large-bore hollow needle). Other orifices are plugged with cotton or a
special .A/V tool to prevent undesired leakage as the body decomposes.
:Hypodermic embalming is a supplemental method of embalming in which fluid is injected into the
tissue using a hypodermic needle and syringe to treat areas where arterial fluids did not reach.
Hypodermic embalming is used on a case-by-case basis.
hftplANww.philly.mm/philly/blogsfimsorrytdiwr]2016042.6 ISTH_Everything,You Want To Know About Einbaiminq And Even the Things_Ycw Dom_ . 5/13
1118/2017 Everything You Wart To Know About Embalinlng..And Even the Things You Don't
Surface embalming utilizes embalming chemicals to restore surface damage clue to decomposition,
cancer or other epidermal injury and is applied directly to the shin. This is an `as needed' step which
is either followed or replaced by re -washing and drying the deceased.
•.O
�,,..makeup,
Mortuary makeup
A moisturizing cream or lotion is applied to the deceased and makeup is applied to the face, neck and
hands to mimic a natural complexion. flair gel or baby oil may be applied to the hair and styled while
baby powder is applied to the body to eliminate odors.
Sometimes wax, plaster of Paris, and other cosmetic techniques are used to reconstruct features.
The deceased is dressed for visitation or funeral service and placed in the coffin or casket of choice,
Shannon Jackson, is a licensed funeral director and embalmer with Mosaic Funeral Home, Ruth
Bonneville / Winnipeg Free Press
http,.INiww.philly.comlphillylblogsArnsorrytoheari2Ol6O426-ISTH-Everythit,q_YoLLWant _Tq_jKnow _About Embalmirx�_AncLEveil_the LThings _You LDon L_....6113
1118!2017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming... And Even the Things You Don't
Atypical embalming takes 45 minutes to an hour to complete. Cosmetology, dressing, and "casketing"
of the body may prolong the process to several hours.
a
Er — from $
Prices �shtlp_af fcas Q_c d_or_9/_e_m_b_a_I_r_ntng f_ac_t_sjAi_nl.� for m o r tuari y emb almi ng vary and range fro 4
to $1290 and nuay include additional charges for dressing, casketing (placing the body in the casket),
and cosmetology work. Embalmers are typically paid by the hour and fees take into consideration the
high-risk nature of the work.
R
envirE:•nment?
Embalmers are required to wear full-body covering and a respirator while embalming due to the high
toxicity of formaldehyde. Embalmers and their methods are not strictly regulated, however, and the
blood and other fluid waste are disposed of in the sewer system or septic tank. Although the blood
waste is mixed with powerful disinfecting chemicals and is not a direct threat to public health, it does
have an adverse effect on the environment, ApproximatelyJ2_ruL—ULo_n_gja
/artielts_Zgreeii-burial-yAtLtAll
�its-DnI -nr fluid is used each year in the U.S. and
- -
the r,.ontgntaf h—tt
_pL;46ffljyjki
range from 5-35% formaldehyde and 9-56%
ethanol.
Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, is on the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency's list of top 10%
most hazardous and damaging chemicals,
When an embalmed body decays, the fluid can seep into the ground and affect surrounding soil and
water ecosystems, and if cremated,, the formaldehyde enters and remains in the atmosphere for up to
250 days. Formaldehyde, a,.knom7 �ajvjnoge i humans a
IIL - Iji _UiDid &
hap:fivmw.philly.com/p illy/blogsfimsorrytahear/20160426 ISTH Evorythlnq_you,,Want To, Kvk_AbcuEnb Embalming_ And -Even jh� _Th1ngs_YoLLDorL
. 7/13
1/18/2017 Everything You Went To Know About Embalming_ Ancl Even the Things You II
(httDs://cfiDub epa.vov/neea/irisaLc.hemicalLaiiding,cfz ?substance-nn-ihr=419�, is water soluble
and when found in the
atmosphere, combines with condensation and rains down onto plants, animals and water supplies
(Chia.ppelli, Jeremiah; Chiappelli, Ted (2008). "Drinking Grandma: The Problem of Embalming".
Journal of Environmental Health). Various National Cancer Institute studies reported an increased
risk of death due to lymphoma, leukemia and some brain cancers
(htty)://www.cdc,a`ov/-orions/0id/funeral-direciprs,html) in those exposed to formaldehyde in their
professions and the chemical is featured on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys list of top
10% most hazardous and damaging chemicals to the environment.
Ca' an you have a public viewing of an unembalmed
body?
Private or home viewing by family members and close friends can occur
U.S. states. There are
at require embalming k'or
�b g may be required by the
t"O'
s em mn'
0 y
7e 'MiV_�VmMd ped across state lines or for
t -e
ne h
embalming, although this varies
s
t- u-1 u i n fl ral 0 e
Ub ' held 'n a
g I c i hi
al h instances
n dictate
c
s t I ma d ct te the use
state aw y a e e 0 em
u r horns.
Ong distance
dry
ice
n e e container
and d and 9 al do n may be used.
According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control embalming provides no public health benefit and may
contribute significantly to the spread of infggliLous_p!sea e (littn://www.cdc.cov/-orions/cid/f neyI-
-g—
s1jrectors,kqnilj and increased risks(htt-o-//wvv-tv.cdc ov�iQ,sh/docs/hazardcontrol/hc26.htm of
cancer amongst funeral care practitioner. So, no, unembalmed, natural bodies are not dangerous!
Alternatives to embalming revolve around the necessity to keep the body cool and dry to temporarily
inhibit decomposition and preserve the body. This includes the use of dry ice, gel packs, freezer
packs, or refrigeration as an effective, cost-conscious and eco -friendly substitute to embalming. By
eliminating this service you could save hundreds of dollars. Not all funeral homes have refrigeration
facilities so call and check ahead.
hdp:ltwww.philly.com/phillylbloWimsorrytd*arl2Ol6O42CLI1,3TH—E-verythirlq_YoLLWanU�__KrKwv_WtLEmbalming_Anq-Ever�_ri _TNngs_YW._Don-...,8/13
1/18/2017 Everything You Want To Know About Embalming,—And Even the Things You Don't
Refrigeration is the easiest, most economical method of body: preservation.
For instances when embalming is the desired option, consider embalming with enigma
ll ttra: theeh; im i arc aznpan .00tti(product-et t 1. enigmae_cga ruin , a more eco -friendly
alternative to formaldehyde.
Otherwise, burial or cremation within 48 hours of death, known as a "immediate burial" and "direct
cremation" eliminate the need for embalming and out costs significantly. Both services are required
to be offered by every funeral home in the USS.
For more funeral. planning tools and resources, visit the i'srA,y to Hear
nsor oIjtaL=u& article Iibrg ttttj�•�fty v inasorrytohear.r-�o�, download
a Funeral Pl,anuinwr Checklist ffittts; yrmw ,,irztsorr ty ohear.com/resourees/funeral-y�lanning-
okl..ist�, review the Casket Guilefisi to://www.im wrrvtQhear. —m jr,^son os casket- ui i see
your State by State Guide on lend ofLife issues (httti);46 rwminnsorrvtohear.cam/resources/stato
state -end -of -life -g i.des), get information on How to Pay for a Funeral
.(h tD/,[a-fun.enall view .i uneral Planning Tips
hnp:/Iwww.philly.com/philly/biogsiimsorrytohe<ar/20160426 ISTH_Everythine,_You_Want 'fo Kiww_Aboui_Embalming__And Even thz_Things_You_Don_, 9/13
1/182017 EverythAng You Want To Know About Em bal ming. ..And Even the Things You Don't
(httD://www.imsorrvtg-heLar o/resources/ti
ju ps), and access Funeral Consumer Advoog
--c _
flittR://www.imsorryt-Qhear.cQ.m4resources./consumer7adyo=yl links all from. our Bg �qr g�
kLijtx�. msor � jou , u �QuLc
,�A�JgLi �.� -eO area.
The post EyLi_-8-jh�ffi Y_o_Lt_Warn jTL) Know Ab _en the Thig,Y - Don't
_gvj Embalming -And Ey -Q v.
appeared first on
kb!W-.//w—iA5m.-imsorrytohear.com
JbIo
g
Published. September 14, 2016 — 10:53 AM EDT
C r)vricjht (httD://www.oh[Itysom/obillyZabout/`CggydghtZI2017 Philadelphia Media Network (Digital), LLC TgrmSof
U5g—&-Pxiv
-DLY2—olicv-fbLU2::/w., y
w phillvxorn il S of '.<Ah
hUp;#www.pMI ly.comiphillylblogsAmsorrytohear/20160426-1,WH-Everything_YokLWanLToLKrok-About-Embalmirig--AncLEver�_the-Things_YoLL_Dotl_... 10/13
From: 1209 Wilim
To: Ara Mihi ni; S
no Kan
Subject: FW: GREEN HILLS CUP
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:19:50 AM
Attachments: GHCUPParaLang.docx
-----Original Message -----
From: Hon.Rudy Svorinich Jr. [m it .r. r a)sv r°ini ll. om]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:13 AM
To: Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>
Subject: GREEN HILLS CUP
DW -
Hope all is well! Here is amended language that we would like to ask the City Council to consider rather than the
language that Dave Alshire inserted into the draft CUP language. Just wanted to run it up the flagpole with you
first ... LOL... you thoughts? Please advise asap ... via email or cell (310) 600-5567 ... thanks much!
RS
1_
32. Fees and Costs
The amt property owner shall be responsible for paying all application fees and, if
applicable, appeal fees associated with the approval or modification of, or construction of
improvements pursuant to, the Master Plan, Revised Master Plan, and of this Conditional
Use Permit, as established in the City's Fee Schedule GUR. Should any claim, action or
proceeding be brought against the City in connection with the approval of this Conditional
Use Permit or improvements constructed pursuant to the Master Plan or this Conditional
Use Permit, the applicant shall meet with the City to discuss the execution of an
Indemnification and Joint Defense Agreement, which shall include language establishing
the terms by which the applicant shall contribute funds towards such joint defense
From: Debbie Landes [mailto:dlbodesi@fastmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:55 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: EXHIBITA TO BE ADDED TO "COMMENTS/CONCERNS RE: GREEN HILLS CUP REVIEW ON 1.3.2017" FOR DEBBIE
LANDES)
Hi So, I am going to send you each picture separately as I can't figure out how to do it all in one email. I'm sorry, do
the best you can.
Thanks so much, Debbie Landes
EXHIBIT A 9.5.2015
From: Debbie Landes [mailto:dlbodesi@fastmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:57 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Exhibit B- for Debbie Landes' presentation re -GH CUP Review 1/31/2017
Exhibit B - 4.3.2016
ViAF
Law rAm
A/
-14
NNN11 j ryNov
g• 4,r
�r
n r
t
From: Debbie Landes [mailto:dlbodesi@fastmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:08 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Exhibit D - Debbie Landes' Pictures for GH CUP Review 1.31.17
Exhibit D - 10.28.13
a
From: Debbie Landes [mailto:dlbodesi@fastmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:14 AM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Exhibit F -Debbie Landes' GH CUP 1.31.17
Exhibit F - 1.9.2015
I
From: John Anderson <John@theandersonco.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:03 PM
To: CC
Subject: RE: Green Hills Memorial Park
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council:
My name is John Anderson and I am the owner of The Anderson Company CPA, Inc. based in Torrance. I have been
part of the South Bay community for the past 33 years.
I'm reaching out today to let you know that as a business owner and local resident, I support Green Hills and
appreciate the strong, welcoming partnership they have brought to our community. In all my business and personal
dealings with Green Hills, I've always been impressed by their culture of making the community better and making
sure that the beautiful Green Hills property is enjoyed and appreciated by all. From public events to private
ceremonies that I have been a part of at the Park, it is clear to me that the Green Hills staff and leadership have always
gone out of their way to understand and respond to the concerns of their neighbors and the community.
As a result of Green Hill's steadfast and ongoing commitment to both their neighbors and our community, I urge the
Council to continue this partnership and to support Green Hills by continuing to support their Master Plan as
approved.
Thanks for your consideration.
John W. Anderson, CPA
John W. Anderson, CPA, MBT
The Anderson Company CPA, Inc.
23001 I:lawthorne Boulevard, Suite 202
Tonance. CA 90505
Ph: 424247-1920
Fax: 424-247-1921
i ohnntheandersonco.com
www.theandersonco.com
Click here to send me a file
From: Louis P Verde <verdes2@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 2:51 PM
To: CC
Subject: Green Hills
Dear City Council
Over the years, Green Hills has made great investments in their property and has created a gorgeous place for the families it
serves. I fully support the work Green Hills has done over the decades, and I think it is essential the we continue to support
them in the future. Green Hills has proven time and again that they are a great community partner - they take seriously the
concerns of those in the community and especially over the past year they have gone above and beyond to address many
issues, including noise and privacy. I am confident that they will continue to be a good community partner in the future, and that
is why I urge you to support Green Hills and their Master Plan as approved.
Sorry I can't support the above in person on Tuesday, January 31 st. I will be taking an active part at The Rolling Hills Country
Club annual meeting. I am sure you are aware that a completely new golf course and club house are currently under
construction. With forty years of membership, I am anxiously awaiting its completion.
All the best,
Louis P. Verde
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nclsonRangPaol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM�rpvca. oy>
Subject: From Nelson: Green Hills Staff Rpt: 1/31/17: Initial Thoughts
Ara,
1. 1 have completed first reading through pg. B-28 and Alshire's letter but could have more concluding comments.
2. This is a very professional staff report, presenting revised Conditions of Approval applicable to the operation of
Green Hills Memorial Park at 27501 Western Ave. I believe it represents what our Planning Commission kinda thought would
be forthcoming at some point over the past 3 years and Im delighted to see is now on the table!
3. Comments:
Typos: (I sure you'll find a couple in this email but fyi) Spotted these reading it aloud:
1. pg. A6: 'Setbacks' -'Hrs of Oper': 7th sentence: 'increased' s/b'increase'
2. pg. A6: 'Hours of Operation' -'Concern': 'needs' s/b 'need'
3. pg. B10: 'Add'I Grading': 4th sentence: 'Interments' s/b'interments' (not capital 1)
Maybe Questions you could get:
1. pg. B10: 'Add'I Grading': 'prepared by Bolton Engr' ? could be when?
2. pg. B10: 'Add'I Grading': 'accepted ... by the City on April 12, 2016 ? by what city body: director, CC etc?
3. pg. B10:'Add'I Grading': last sentence: need to add something here to provide Area 6 RPVers certainty the fill dirt will not
remain - as now it couldl yield a 20' pile of dirt with a 30' mausoleum on top only 40' from their backyards. That will be a lawsuit -
even if 30 years from now - which I don't think is correct.
In my opinion the graveyard's density (available space vs demand (1500 burials per year I have read as GH pace) will dictate
these mausoleums within the next 5, not 30 years. Staff should be alert for these mausoleum filings with County Recorder within
that time frame. And we should clearly state in the revised conditions these will be built on original surfaces, with no fill dirt (or at
least give our RPVers somesuch guaranty somewhere).
CUP erroneous citing:
1. pg. B-12: Cond 1 is 3rd sentence: 'this Conditional Use Permit' s/b'Master Plan Revision.'
This section is called 'Conditions of Approval for ... Master Plan' (pg. B10) It does not meet the standard for form, fit, function of a
RPV'Conditional Use Permit (17.60 + cited there'pages for a conditional use permit,' pages which are not part of the staff report
- anywhere).
2. pg. B14: Cond 2b: 1st sentence: City Council Review... 'the Conditional Use Permit' s/b'Master Plan Revision' for reasons in
'CUP: 1. pg. B-12' as above.
Thought:
Again, I'm not through reading but these revisions to both Green Hills Master Plan and Conditions of Approval present a much
needed document, at last providing substantial and supportive changes to Green Hills. There is no formal CUP #155 in this
submission, as I think is required by the condition the city atty cites as being removed from our Commission. (Nor has there
been a formal CUP $#155 in recent Commission GH items.)
Probable Consequences of Approval:
1. Unfortunately it clearly puts your department and City Council in the business of micro -managing a cemetery. If you
don't believe me, read out loud almost any page of the revised Conditions!
2. I'm sure our Council has no idea what these revisions will do to their Agendas. And Green Hills has no idea of how
these now -imposed Council agenda schedule delays will impact their accomplishing what have been almost routine
business ops! (They have cited 2007 Master Plan and go forward.)
3. Inspiration Slope Appeal and 'final sign off will be their first'new' experience. As you know, Green Hills sales staff has
commenced selling Inspiration Slope Mausoleum vaults / niches (believe it or not, I have heard the recording of the
rooftop vault pitch).
My bet it will be at least early/mid-summer before Council hears appeal from Commission's Feb. 28th decision and Green Hills
gets final sign off and can proceed.
If you buy an Inspiration Slope Mausoleum vault and die before Council approval - Green Hills will simply tell your family their
City Council's decisions have prevented you from being buried where you bought! Guaranteed. The reason I voted'no'
on Pacific Terrace's moratorium - the only no vote. ,
So you can guess impact to our Council, you might go through and draw up a list of those routine / other business
operations now requiring Council approval. And remember - these could have gone quickly to our Commission (we have
fairly empty agendas)!
Now for the silly stuff - but which you may hear:
1. Try finding anything in CUP format that is the current CUP #155 (Green Hills). Go to 'documents' and enter'Conditional Use
Permit 155 'then try'CUP155,' then try'CUP #155,' then try'CUP 155' and you get not only the 1990, 1991 Green Hills stuff but
RPV'S 1997 Capital Projects, 2009 Plumbing, 2014 Marymount, CUP 215 (Terranea), 4/24/2007 PC Minutes rev Master Plan
but not CUP (titled 'Rev to CUP 155' but revs are only to 'Conditions of Approval.'
2. So expect a question asking for the latest version of Green Hills actual CUP 155 - which I could not find but which our
Commission has been assured all along existed and which we'll get and, in the old Condition was specifically called out as
the document the PC would annually review! My bet is Council will not pick up on that. And I did get a hearty laugh today from
someone expected to read the 900 pages of correspondence - I admit my concern - since most of those our Commission has
read!
Again, a very professional approach and document - long needed - congrats.
Bob Nelson
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:34 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: ken.delong@verizon.net; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; John Cruickshank
<jcruikshank@jmc-2.com> <jcruikshank@jmc-2.com>; bssi.campbell@gmail.com
Subject: Nelson: 2nd Comments: GH Conditions 1/31/17
Ara, those copied
I will be there, Monday, 1/31/17.
Nit picks:
As promised. Second part of my informal look at the 'Conditions of Approval' for Green
Hills, scheduled for hearing Monday, 1/31/17. As always, these can be tweaked to make
sense and I have given my best effort to be sure what I read made sense.
I will immediately state that Sandie and I have a paid for a plot and headstone in the
'Churchyard.' And that we have conducted a private business in Rolling Hills Estates
(closed some 25 years ago). That is, we recognize the wonderful ability here in America to
pursue dreams (and flush toilets) without flying into a lot of flack.
I fear what RPV has created here is the role of a landlord out of control. But that is only my
opinion based on experience. It appears micro -management of a cemetery is your future!
You really don't want to go there. But approval will put you there! And, as with BNB issue, I
doubt we can enforce anything re Green Hills. It's at least 20 minutes from City Hall and
enforcement doesn't work weekends, etc.
Bob N
Organized as follows:
Staff report page, Condition #, any sub -para: current; problem or proposed
B30: 13.a: bottom sentence: remove comma: s/b 'seating) and' not 'seating), and'
B31: 14.: 2nd sentence: remove delete line through L: s/b 'Live ...' ; not `Five ...'
B32: 2nd sentence: underline new. (period): s/b 'activities.' not 'activities'
B32: 17: ? add Vista Verde HOA to list making up Neighborhood Advisory? Why not?
B32: 18: Signage: somewhere state size of sign — otherwise will be too small to read
quickly.
B32: 19: Construction Sites: we have 2 Building Officials, not'Building Official'; might want
to add 'responsible' so reads 'City's responsible Building Official'. Eliminates any future
who was responsible problem.
B32: 19: Construction Sites: ? Green Hills placement of construction potties is the
responsibility of our building official? Come on guys! He'll charge OT to do this ...
B33: c: Storage etc: 'the maintenance yard': ? where? Probably want to specify where so
not every construction site can be declared a 'the maintenance yard.'
B33: e: Employee etc: 5th sentence: `this CUP.' This document is not a CUP, it is
`Conditions of Approval.' Change CUP to Conditions of Approval.
B34: b: Hours: Probably want to be sure these hours are correctly reflected throughout doc.
B34: e: Non Construction: need a dash: s/b 'e. Non -Construction' not `e. Non Construction'
B35: 21: Landscaping: 7th sentence: need period: s/b `setback areas.' not 'setback areas
1
B35: 22: Mitigation Monitoring: 3rd sentence: 'the proposed' s/b 'a proposed'. There will be
and has been more than one project — but `the' singles out a unique project while `a'
applies to multiple.
B35: 22: Mitigation Monitoring: OMG — do we have to continue asinine paragraph
numbering, ie, A-1 then AQ -1 then GS -1 then HW -1 then N-1? Absolutely will lead to
continued para confusion. Change these Mitigation Monitoring paras to some sort of
easily understandable numbering, maybe even common sense, ie, renumber `MM -1
through MM -23' (yes, we've come up with 23 different, separate mitigation requirements
per project!!!). Should define `project' and understand these raise the ?'can RPV enforce
7
B36: AQ -1 con't from B35: 1 st para: ?'consistency with the Master Plan'? which Master
Plan? We have at least 3: 2007, 2013 and 2015. You know GH will jump on 2007 for its
RPV approval citation as that gives them max flexibility. But throughout, where call out
`Master Plan,' we should specify the applicable Master Plan — hopefully what city atty
would call `this 2017 Master Plan' as herein. Have 3: 2007, 2013 & 2015.
B36: Condition AQ -2 and AQ -6: They cover the same territory, ie, duplicate. Suggest delete
AQ -6 as AQ -2 is stronger.
B36: Condition AQ -2 through AQ -7: ? which Master Plan? Professionally should specify
which one.
B37: AQ -12: ? 1. Signs size? Readable? 2. Phone numbers: make sure they ones always
answered so don't get `leave msg.' 3. What fencing?
B37: AQ -13: line 2: `the Master Plan': ? which Master Plan?' should specify.
B37: AQ -14: line 4: again, `the Master Plan': ? which Master Plan?' should specify. Also, I
assume someone can explain what improvements are Director approval and which go to
Council? Not defined here. Creates ambiguity.
B38: HW -1: `the property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b 'property owners'.
B38: N-3: ? Does the Council's Annual Review validly constitute a `Mitigation Measure'?
Seems covered better in Condition 2A.
Also: line 4: `property owner's' is singular when I believe the record will show multiple
owners. s/b `property owners'.
Also: line 5: 'the Master Plan': ? which Master Plan?' should specify.
B38: 23: line 4: 'the mausoleum building.' ? singular. Reads one time only> s/b plural and
suggest'... buildings.'
B39: 24, 25 & 26: multiple cites: `the property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b `property
owners'.
B 39: 27: Standard verbiage but here raises enforcement ability question. So we get a
complaint — what are the odds we can anything timely?
B39: 28: / are our 'Cemetery development standards' legally correct? Need independent
review and comment to Council, probably in closed session as Council needs to know risks
in current `standards' or necessary revisions. Need firm experienced in cemetery law
because we are dealing with experts recognized nation-wide for legal expertise.
B39 & 40: 29: line 1: `property owner' is singular when I believe the record will show
multiple owners. s/b `property owners'.
B40: 29: line 6. ? assumes all these Conditions of Approval are legal and therefore can be
enforced. Need independent confirmation. Arena I'd pick for battle!
B40: 30: Assume completed since had 2015 date. Suggested revisions no problem —just
align completed history verbiage to document.
B40: 31: Kinda believe RPV Community et al should have copies of every recorded
document, including mechanic liens, tax liens etc. But only the future is asked for here.
B40: 32: line 2: ? which Master Plan? Professionally should specify which one.
B40: 32: line 3: `this Conditional Use Permit.' This document is not a CUP, it is
`Conditions of Approval.' Change CUP to Conditions of Approval.
B40: 32: line 3 on: (EXCUSE ME — POTENTIAL HIGHWAY ROBBERY HERE!!) I Assume
all other RPV commercial Conditions of Approval have this language re `fees and costs.'
If not, the legal door opens! Here having GH pay for city instigated action re the city
atty, consultants, et al, is a flat out invitation for embarrassing front page excess on our
city's part! Can you see it now ... 'Had a noise complaint on Saturday - get out there and
measure their noise levels and send them the bill.' No, no, no. Removing those sentences
is a good idea in my mind.
B41: 33: a: lines 6, 7 and 9: 'the CUP' This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of
Approval.' Change CUP to `these Conditions of Approval.'
B41: 33: a: line 6: 'property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b 'property owners'. If not —
find me the 'owner' and I'll shut up! I know a corporation is a body, a person, so I think the
owner will be found to be 'Green Hills Memorial Park' but somewhere we probably want to
state who we think the owner is or that there are 'owners' (un -named).
B41: 33: b: lines 1, 7: ? which Master Plan? Professionally should specify which one. I'll
quickly admit referencing the General Plan is largely referencing to a 1975 ghost but we
have at least 3 Master Plans, none of which has been declared the valid, current one.
B41: 33: b: lines 6, 7: 'this CUP' This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of
Approval.' Change CUP to `these Conditions of Approval.'
B41: 33: c: lines 1, 6, 7, 10 'property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b 'property owners'.
My understanding is this is legally challengable stuff. But I'm not an atty.
41: 33: d: 'by Vista Verde homeowners': shouldn't it be more open, like 'by all suits by
Homeowner or individuals' against RPV re Green Hills matters? As is: only three cases
and most feel more are coming.
B42: 33: e: lines 1, 7, 8, 10, 12: 'the property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b 'the
property owners'.
B42: 33: e: line 8: 'the CUP': This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of
Approval.' Change CUP to `these Conditions of Approval.' Good luck on enforcing this
para!
B42: 33: f: line 2: 'CUP': This document is not a CUP, it is `Conditions of Approval.'
Change CUP to `Conditions of Approval.'
B42: 34: line 1: 'the property owner': ? there are 'owners' so s/b 'the property owners'. Final
thought: this gives Green Hills 30 days to accept these Conditions of Approval or render
them 'null and void.' And, kinda assuming they won't, then what? Asking you, would you
accept doing business under this micro -management? Or would you sell out to a major
cemetery firm who would give RPV the middle finger and put us in court until 2100? Would
be any attorney's dream!
Appears Green Hills choice!
Attached Resolution:
No comment because I strongly feel it will not be decided on 1/31/17. But many of my
above comments would apply.
Again, my opinion, having spent 3 years listening, figuring out who was right and wrong,
this staff report is very professional. Does need tweaks, I believe. And I'm still going to stay
up nights trying to figure how RPV, if it doesn't settle, will ever have it's 43,000 citizens
afford the legal outcomes (plural). And it is an election year and all the joy that brings to
our Council and their actions re electorate considering what will obviously be an issue.
Bob Nelson
From: teddymine@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:12 AM
To: cc
Subject: Green Hills Memorial Park
Good Morning! I urge you to support Green Hills and the beautiful memorial park
that they have created in our community I am unable to attend the meeting around
this issue on Tuesday evening but I am hopeful this message will be read and 'heard'.
My father is interned at Green Hills and every time I visit his final resting place, I am in
awe of the beauty that surrounds me. (It will also be my final resting place.) Thanks to
Green Hills, the property is top notch and the other visitors are quiet and respectful so I
always feel safe and welcome. Green Hills has always been a tremendous community
partner and I know that they will continue to do whatever they can to have a strong
relationship with the Community - because they truly care about us. I ask that you
continue to support the Green Hills Master Plan as is - so that we all have a beautiful
and peaceful place to visit and remember our loved ones for year to come.
Thanks for reading this message and hopefully caring about what I think and feel.
Sincerely,
Colleen Lafave
San Pedro, Ca.
From: Howard Mayeda <howardmayeda@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:45 PM
To: CC
Subject: Green Hills
I am submitting this request to the City Council meeting, Tuesday, January 31 at 6:30 p.m, at Hesse Park — 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90275.
Councilmembers,
Green Hills has been a part of our community for many decades, and in that time, they've emerged as a true community partner. Green Hills is a
beautiful place where families, neighbors and friends can feel welcome and find support, even in their most difJicult times. I've been involved with
Green Hills Easter Sunrise Service every year, and I've seen firsthand what a difference it has made in the community. It's always a beautiful,
spiritual day that brings people from all walks of life closer together. The Easter Sunrise Service is just one way in which Green Hills has shown how
deeply they care about the well-being of the entire community. I urge you to support Green Hills and their Master Plan as approved, so that we can
return the support and graciousness Green Hills has shown its and help ensure that it remains a beautiful, welcoming place for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Pastor Howard Mayeda
Bethany Christian Fellowship
792 W. 10th Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
/I
From: Claudia Grzywacz <cstormbird@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:07 PM
To: CC
Subject: Support of Green Hills Master Plan
Dear City Council,
I am proud to support Green Hills and the fantastic work that they do. Green Hills has done a wonderful job investing in and
developing their Memorial Park over the years, they have created a beautiful and well thought out space for loved ones,
friends, families and visitors alike. They have been able to create all of this thanks to the Master Plan that is currently in place,
and that is why 1 ask the City Council to continue to support the Master Plan as approved. The Green Hills property is warm and
welcoming, which is exactly what my family has needed through the deaths in the family we've dealt with over the years. Green
Hills has been good to my family and to the surrounding community; let's continue to support their efforts.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Claudia Grzywacz
4 Storm Hill Lane
Rolling Hills, CA. 90274
From: David Turner <davewturn@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:43 PM
To: CC; Ara Mihranian; PC
Cc: miminotchew@gmail.com; vreher@cox.net
Subject: Dave Turner: Powerpoint presentation summarizing infractions by Green Hills; Part 1
Attachments: GreenHillsInfractionsAlbumPartl.pptx
Honorable City Council and Planning Commission:
We are David and Irene Turner. We live at 1860 Peninsula Verde Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes. We originally
compiled a photo album documenting some of the infractions by Green Hills and problems we are facing here. This
was shown to Ari and Mayor Dyda during a meeting with Green Hills planning staff in May of 2016. It is not
convenient to submit the album to you for review, so we have created a PowerPoint briefing which summarizes the
contents of the photo album. The briefing is attached. Due to size limitations, I am sending it in 2 parts.
We know the timeline is very short since we have been out of town and unable to complete the
briefing. Nevertheless, we would like you to have it available for your Green Hills CUP review to show you pictures
of what can occur at Green Hills.
Thank you
David Turner
Pictures Showing How Green
Hills Is Being Used
Pictures are of the following type:
1. Pictures of type of gathering that occurs
2. Alcohol consumption
3. Mariachi band at the chain link fence property line
4. Dog on cemetery
Green Hills Rules
Artificial flowers are permitted in the Mausoleums
only. Artificial flowers left on interment sites will
be removed.
Flowers and decorations are removed each
Thursday and Friday, except for special seasons
as described in this brochure.
FLOWERS are a lovely gift and will be left on the
site or outside the mausoleum on the lawn up to
two days after a funeral service. The greenery is
attractive not only to people, but also to squirrels
and other wildlife that like to eat flowers left
behind. If you are planning to retrieve any floral
arrangements after a funeral, we suggest you
do so at the conclusion of the service.
We ask that you respect the property of others.
Theft of decorations is unethical and unlawful.
Violators will be prosecuted.
?EVERENCE AND SAFETY
While visiting, we ask for quiet and reverence.
Loud and abusive conduct is not allowed,
and alcohol is never permitted.
Children under 16 must be accompanied by
an adult at all times, especially by the lake,
and must never be left alone in vehicles.
Please lock your vehicle while visiting a site.
Green Hills Memorial Park is not responsible
for lost or stolen goods.
Dogs and outer pets are not allowed in the Park,
with the exception of trained guide dogs or
when kept in a ventilated vehicle.
Please drive slowly throughout the Park. We
ask that visitors refrain from using skateboards,
bicycles, roller blades, and roller skates as
they are not allowed.
The Lake is a popular feature of our Park.
The water is several feet deep and children
must be accompanied at all times by an adult
when atthe lake. While the feeding of the ducks
is permitted, please do not throw trash or other
debris in the water. Help us preserve the beauty
and natural habitat of our wildlife and fish.
GH "mourners" on any given
sunny weekend in summer
Park -like Usage
These gatherings are not monitored
Park -like Usage
Alcohol is often present; Usage not Monitored
Enjoying a Bud Light with a few
friends
Cemetery Setback
Setback of 8 feet is met, but look how close this is.
How close is too close?
Park -like Usage
Picnic -like atmosphere is common
An afternoon picnic with the
family dog
The dog is better behaved than
the children
Ole,
1
,.r- •fin 3 ,�
f� 1 • ti
-
T �. L
-
C
Park -like Usage
Family Party with 3 piece mariachi band
Coffee table on patio seen
through chainlink fence; white
planter is in our yard
Mariachis against fence. Noise
both inside & outside our home
was extremely loud.
I called GH to advise of a loud
party with no funeral; GH said it
would be a birthday or
anniversary for the person
buried there. "Usually lasts an
hour."
From: David Turner <davewturn@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:48 PM
To: CC; Ara Mihranian; PC
Cc: miminotchew@gmail.com; vreher@cox.net
Subject: Dave & Irene Turner PowerPoint presentation; Part 2
Attachments: GreenHillsInfractionsAlbumPart2.pptx
Honorable City Council and Planning Commission:
This email contains the second part of the photo album we are sending you containing photos of the operations at
Green Hills.
Dave Turner
Construction Rules Not Obeyed
GH moving vaults early on a
SATURDAY morning
Construction Rules Not Obeyed
Moving vaults another Saturday
morning at 0810 16April. Called
So Kim. It stopped after 1000
8 -Foot Setback Is Not Spacious
Brings strangers and unwanted gatherings into your home area
Measurements from chain link
fence to the marker. Requirement
met, but WOULD YOU LIKE A LOT OF
STRANGERS THIS CLOSE TO YOUR
PROPERTY?
Vehicle Ran Over Standpipe
Not always complaints. Mourner
drove car over GH water pipe. I
called to advise security.
Advised GH of incident
E
v
0 0
c�
s E
0 >�
o
+1 u
c�
Q) 0-
Q)
o v
z '>
L,
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum
Cropped View from Guest Bedroom
View
Longview Obstruction
Drive
CAP2015-102, item23:`'
23. Inspiration Slope. The mausoleum on Inspiration Slope shall be located as
shown on the Master Plan Revision so as not to impair views from the Peninsula
Verde neighborhood. The Director of Community Development shall approve the l
exact location and *ht of this mausoleum building. The Director of Community 3
Development may review and approve a retaining wall that contains niches for t ' —
cremated remains extending from the mausoleum building not exceeding an
average of 84" 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 exoeed the
Night of the adjacent road level (other than a small curb suf%lont in height to;
control the water and direct water down the roadway). „
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum
View from Guest Bedroom Before Construction
NOTE: Before construction we
could see the entire shoulder of
Longview Drive up to the Cloisters.
From: Jim Matsuo <jim@jmldesign.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:53 PM
To: cc
Subject: GREEN HILLS
January 29, 2017
To the City Council:
Regard Green Hills Master Plan
Green Hills has been an important part of my family over the years. Giving excellent
thoughtful service at a time when we need it most. There continued service to the
community is vital to complete the cycles of our lives. 1 personally appreciate their
importance in the community.
I fully support Green Hills and their approved Master Plan. They actively communicate
with nearby residents and participate with the with community events during the year.
Their Master Plan has allowed them to invest in their property and create an
extraordinarily beautiful property for all of us.
Signed,
Jim Matsuo and Family
(818) 352-4779
le
From:
Vince Reher
To:
Ara Mihr ni n
Cc:
So Kim
Subject:
Additional concern identified
Date:
Monday, January 30, 2017 7:12:31 AM
Ara and So,
Our HOA Board met yesterday afternoon and we discussed the proposed changes to the Conditions of Approval.
By and large, the Board is happy with what you are proposing but one member raised a potential concern pertaining
to Inspiration Slope rooftop interments.
The concern is that there is no precise identification of a line that demarcates where permitted traditional ground
interments end and unpermitted rooftop interments begins. The line is not as obvious as it should be, as evidenced
by a big misunderstanding that took place last November: Basically, a Green Hills salesperson was claiming that
burial plots "on top of the roof' were available for sale. Later, Tom Frew swore that this was a mistake and the
salesperson must have been referring to plots behind the rooftop area.
To avoid misunderstandings in the future, this line should be defined precisely. Maybe the potential Inspiration
Slope rooftop interment area could be defined as that region where the existing grade elevation exceeds what
existed before construction of the building. Or utilize the maps recorded by Green Hills to identify which
numbered plots are considered to be on top of the roof.
Thanks,
Vince
BCC to Peninsula Verde Board of Directors
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
To Whom it May Concern,
Vince Giuliano <vince@gaetanosonline.com>
Monday, January 30, 2017 10:44 AM
CC
Green Hills Letter
Green Hills.docx
Attached is my letter of support for the Green Hills Memorial Park.
Thanks,
Vince Giuliano
a-wetano / s Xestaurant
Lunch, 13inner, 13rink.s, Take-Out, Catering, Event Planning
January 26, 2017
Dear City Council Members,
In 1988 my Great Grandfather was buried in a newly build mausoleum on the highest point
of the Memorial overlooking the harbor. The name "Giuliano" is engraved at the top of the
mausoleum and holds my Great Grandfather, Great Grandmother and Grandfather. The
peacefulness that eludes that area is a perfect complement to such a tragic time. Directly
adjacent to this side of the mausoleum reads the name "Pisano". As it turned out, I married
Giordana Pisano, granddaughter of Giorgio Pisano, whom now neighbors my Grandparents
side of the mausoleum. When Giordana and I visit this sacred ground, it brings back fond
memories of our families.
Green Hills has served as an eternal resting place to those that have been a large part of
our community and a memorial to the loved ones they've left behind. The owners and
operators strive to make it a safe and respectful place where people can enjoy.
I have gotten to know the Frew family through the Torrance Chamber of Commerce. They
are consistently trying to make the community a better place through volunteering, hosting
family activities and making donations to nonprofits.
The complaints of the neighbors have been taken very seriously as the operators have done
everything in their power such as hire more security, build bigger walls and soften the
tones of any on site charity events. I support the Green Hills partners in this endeavor and
only wish the community can come to a peaceful compromise. With your assistance, this
can be a win — win for everyone.
Thanks very kindly,
Vince Giuliano
RPV Resident
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Dear RPV City Council -
John M. Moody <johnm@arroyoins.com>
Monday, January 30, 2017 11:44 AM
CC
Green Hills Memorial Park
High
I am writing to convey that I am a proud supporter of Green Hills Memorial Park. I have been associated with
Green Hills as a family customer for over 25 years, as well as being acquainted with some members of their
staff.
It's my experience that they treat their customers and the surrounding community like family. They listen to
the concerns of the community, address issues directly and proactively and make people feel invited and safe
when visiting the property. In my observation, Green Hills has invested wisely to create a beautiful park that
makes me, as a visitor, proud to have a loved one residing there. I believe they have also developed an amazing
atmosphere for residents to live nearby and attend community events.
It is my understanding that there have been some issues in the past, but with the new management in place
and the incredible progress that has already been made over the past year, I know that Green Hills will be a
wonderful community partner.
I am asking that the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, join with the community and continue to support the
Master Plan, as approved, so that Green Hills Memorial Park can continue to do their great work and be a place
that makes the community proud.
Feel to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
John M. Moody, CFP, CLU, ChFC
Arroyo Insurance Services • Benefits, Commercial Insurance
3510 Torrance Boulevard I Suite 305 j Torrance, CA 90503
T (310) 791-3232 ( M (310) 729-7449 ( johnm@arroyoins.com
www.arrovoins.com I CA Insurance License #0639042
please consider the environment prior to printing this e-mail,
From: Sharon Lee Kander Cook [mailto:slcook100@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 12:44 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Petition In Support Of Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan
January 30, 2017
Dear City Council Members,
Rancho Palos Verdes has a valuable reservoir of management talent, expertise and capital in Green Hills
Memorial Park. Directors understand that in order to facilitate a healthy climate in which to function in the
future, the business must take action now that will ensure long-term viability. For this reason they created
a Master Plan. They believe in pro -action rather than reaction. Anticipating, planning and initiating is more
practical and less costly than simply reacting to business and social problems once they have surfaced. In
this context, I wish to address the steadfast commitment of Green Hills Memorial Park to community
outreach.
The Directors' generosity in making the park available to our community is not without personal expense
to administrators and organization staff. They spend long after -business hours on community projects
year-round, investing their leisure time for the pleasure and good of our citizenry. They ensure that staff,
contractors, public, technical and professional advisors are consulted and subsequently follow strict
protocol in every community event such that no one in the community feels slighted by decisions made by
the Board of Directors.
We appreciate the invaluable business expertise and personal communication skills through which the
Directors and staff have brought pivotal contacts into our community network for mutual benefit. Corporate
social responsibility activities help Green Hills Memorial Park strengthen its reputation by demonstrating
that it can meet the competing needs of its stakeholders while operating profitably. In fact, research shows
that in the long run, businesses with more corporate social responsibility practices significantly outperform
their counterparts. The charitable contributions of Green Hills Memorial Park to community causes has
helped create and preserve the high quality of life which sustains the sophisticated residents of our
city. Thus, Green Hills Memorial Park and Rancho Palos Verdes are interdependent; our growth and
continued success inextricably linked.
I respectfully petition you to support Green Hills Memorial Park and their Master Plan as approved.
Sincerely,
Sharon L. Cook
(310) 544-6702
"e, / (310) 997-5045
From: Dave Albert <dave@rdsindustriesinc.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:18 PM
To: CC
Subject: FW: Green Hills Master Plan
Hello honorable City Council and Mayor. My name is Dave Albert, former City Council Member and Mayor from the City of
Lomita. I am writing you today asking for your support for the Master Plan that Green Hills Memorial Park as submitted for
your approval. Green Hills has always been a supportive member of the South Bay and to the neighboring cities that border it.
They have always went out of their way to help with civic events in the City of Lomita for many years and continue to do so
today. Over decades of being involved in Veterans issues in communities throughout Southern California I have always had the
full support and backing from Green Hills Memorial Park. From the POW/MIA Flag Battle in Washington to the reinstatement
of the National Defense Service Medal for our Armed Forces and many other veterans concerns. Last and certainly not least,
their commitment to honor thousands of veterans, men and women whom are buried at Green Hills. The staff and the Board
at Green Hills have and will continue to do what's right for the surrounding communities for many years to come. I ask as a
council, you support this Master Plan and continue to show your support of Green Hills Memorial Park. Thank you for all of
your help, Dave Albert.
I / *
From: lisa cassillo <litlredscout@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 2:29 PM
To: cc
Subject: support email
To The City Council:
I am writing you to show my support for Green Hills and the Fantastic work they do to serve our
community. Both my parents are buried in Reflections Terrace and I know a lot more people buried there,
so I have been to Green Hills countless times over the years and I am proud of the way that Green Hills
staff have always treated the property and visitors. Because of the security measures Green Hills has put
in place, I feel that it is a safe place for me to visit. Further, I often attend community events hosted by
Green Hills, which are always fun and well- attended. Green Hills has always been a good partner to the
community, and we should be a good partner to them return. I urge you to continue to support Green Hills
and the beautiful work that they have been doing for decades by continuing to support their Master Plan as
approved.
Thank You, Lisa Chieppa
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear RPV City Council,
Bob Shafer <bobshafer@verizon.net>
Monday, January 30, 2017 2:48 PM
CC
Green Hills Memorial Park
I'm writing to support Green Hills Master Plan that comes before you tomorrow night. As the recently retired Executive
Director of the Torrance South Bay YMCA, I think I have a good perspective on the good works of organizations and businesses
that positively impact their local communities. Green Hills is in the top tier of organizations that involve themselves in the
community. Not only do their employees serve as key volunteer leaders in not for profit organizations, they have supported
the Torrance South Bay YMCA and San Pedro Peninsula YMCA for over three decades.
Two notable programs that Green Hills has championed for the Torrance South Bay are a Senior Nutrition and Socialization
program and a Military Family Support Program that serves deployed and other locally active soldiers.
If you count what I have briefly mentioned and multiply it by other good works that Green Hills does for the community it is
easy see what a valuable community resource they are.
I urge you to support Green Hill's Master plan.
Bob Shafer