CC SR 20190319 01 - Green Hills Annual ReviewPUBLIC HEARING
Date: March 19, 2019
Subject: Consideration and possible action to conduct the 2018 Annual Review of Green Hills’
compliance with the Conditions of Approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 55.
Recommendation: Receive and file this report, and make an express finding, for each and all of
the reasons set forth in the staff report and based upon the oral communications received during
consideration of this item that Green Hills Memorial Park is in compliance with the Conditions of
Approval of its Conditional Use Permit.
Subject Property/Location: 27501 S. Western Avenue
1.Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Colborn
2.Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic
3.Request for Staff Report: Mayor Duhovic
4.Staff Report & Recommendation: So Kim, Deputy Director of Community Development
5.Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
6.Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7.Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Duhovic
8.Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9.Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
Cover Page
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 03/19/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Conduct the 2018 Annual Review of Green Hills’ compliance with the Conditions of
Approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 55.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file this report, and make an express finding, for each and all of the
reasons set forth in the staff report and based upon the oral communications
received during consideration of this item that Green Hills Memorial Park is in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of its Conditional Use Permit.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: So Kim, AICP, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2018-07 (page A-1)
B. Landscape Plan (page B-1)
C. 2018 Summary of Public Concerns (page C-1)
D. Permits from Outside Agencies (page D-1)
E. Public Comments (page E-1)
F. Letter from Ms. Loveys (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On February 19, 1991, the City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approved Conditional Use Permit No. 55 for the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan,
which called for development of the cemetery site over the next 100 -years.
On April 24, 2007, the Planning Commission certified a Mitigated Negative Declarati on
and approved a Revision to the Conditional Use Permit No. 55, revising the Green Hills
Cemetery Master Plan for the development of the cemetery site over the next 30 to 50
years, including additional grading and construction of mausoleum buildings
1
The Planning Commission’s 2007 approval (P.C. Resolution No. 2007-33) allows
certain improvements to the Green Hills Memorial Park over the next 30 to 50 years,
including grading to accommodate future interments. As part of this approval, Condition
No. 5(A-1) of Resolution No. 2007-33 requires the project (i.e. Conditional Use Permit)
to be reviewed by the Planning Commission annually to assess the Applicant’s
compliance with the Commission-adopted Conditions of Approval.
In 2014, the Planning Commission held its first annual review of the project, which was
appealed, and subsequently heard and decided upon by the City Council. Pursuant to
Section 17.78.040 of the Municipal Code, compliance reviews are to be conducted by
the same body which took the final action. Accordingly, the City Council conducted the
subsequent annual compliance reviews, finding that Green Hills is operating in
compliance with the Conditions of Approval and approving the following salient revisions
to the Conditions of Approval for the project.
November 17, 2015 – Allowed the mausoleum in Area 11 (i.e., Pacific
Terrace/Memorial Terrace) to remain in accordance with its 2007 approvals and
permits.
January 31, 2017 – Reorganized the conditions by topic and development area,
as well as further clarified or enumerated the conditions.
February 6, 2018 – Clarified existing conditions, permitted a fence/wall to be
constructed along the north and south property lines, improved dust control
measures in Area 6, and amended the hours of operations.
Annual Compliance Review of the Existing Conditions of Approval
Conducting an annual review provides an opportunity for the City Council to assess the
effectiveness of the existing conditions, based on current operations; and the ability to
add, delete, and modify conditions, based on changed circumstances or unforeseen
impacts that may not have been addressed as part of the previous approval. Over the
past year, the City has been monitoring Green Hills’ compliance with the Conditions of
Approval adopted by the City Council in 2018 . The City’s review of the Applicant’s
compliance is discussed in the following order:
1. Compliance with action items; and,
2. Compliance with operational conditions.
1. Compliance with Action Items
Below are salient Conditions of Approval that require specific actions to occur by a
certain time period. Conditions that have already been met and addressed in the
previous years’ annual reviews are not included below.
Condition No. 2 – This Condition outlines the review process for improvement
requests allowed pursuant to the Conditions of Approval , including the proper
decision making body for certain applications, the public noticing process, and
2
the appeal process. All improvement requests (see below) over the past year
have been properly processed in accordance with this Condition and Green Hills
is in compliance with this Condition. Specifically, Green Hills submitted the
following applications in 2018:
Grading Permit (ZON2017-00324): A request to conduct 41,200yd³ of
balanced grading (20,600yd³ of cut and 20,600yd³ of fill) to accommodate
the installation of vaults in the unimproved portions of Area 5 (Arroyo
Vista); construct 3’ tall walls adjacent to family estate areas, walkways,
and water features consisting of shallow ponds and channels
approximately 1’ in depth. This application was first approved by the
Director, then appealed to the Planning Commission, and then appealed
to the City Council. Both bodies denied the appeal and upheld the
Director’s decision (P.C. Resolution No. 2017-44 and Resolution No.
2018-03).
Grading Permit (PLGR2018-0008): A request to conduct 424yd³ of
balanced grading to accommodate the installation of vaults associated
with earth interments, 3’ tall walls, and benches in the unimproved
portions of Alta Vista Gardens (Area 2). This application was first
approved by the Director, then appealed to the Planning Commission, and
then appealed to the City Council. Both bodies denied the appeal and
upheld the Director’s decision (P.C. Resolution No. 2018-21 and
Resolution No. 2018-55).
Condition No. 8d – This condition requires an 8’-tall freestanding solid fence or
wall be installed along the north property line by June 1, 2018.
By June 1, 2018, Green Hills completed the installation of an 8’ tall vinyl fence
along the north property line abutting the rear yards of the residential properties
on Peninsula Verde Drive. The design and material of the wall were mutually
agreed to by the neighboring Peninsula Verde Homeowners’ Association and
Green Hills Memorial Park. Therefore, Green Hills is in compliance with this
Condition.
Condition No. 8e – This condition requires the submittal of a landscape plan for
review and the installation of landscaping within 90-days of installing the
perimeter fence along the northern property line (refer to Condition No. 8d).
After the completion of the wall as described in Condition No. 8d above, Green
Hills submitted a landscape plan (Attachment B) and installed trees in the areas
absent of landscaping along the new perimeter wall. City Staff conducted a site
visit and verified the completion of the landscaping and the adjacent HOA
relayed their satisfaction at the Neighborhood Advisory Committee meetings.
3
Condition No. 9f – This condition requires installation of landscaping along the
south perimeter wall prior to the completion of the future roadway.
Landscaping along the south perimeter wall is required to be installed any time
before the completion of the future roadway in Areas 5 and 6. While there are
currently no plans to extend the existing roadway into Areas 5 and 6, Green Hills
decided to move forward with the landscaping to address the visibility concerns
raised by the Avenida Feliciano residents over the past few years. In order to
improve the screening of the cemetery from the properties along the south
property line (Avenida Feliciano), Green Hills constructed a new uniform
perimeter wall which was completed in October 2018. The design, material, and
height (8’ max.) of the perimeter wall was approved by the neighboring property
owners. In order to accommodate the new wall, existing foliage was removed
along the south property line and will be replaced within the next few months to
further screen views of the cemetery, particularly of the existing storage/stockpile
area in Area 6. Because the associated improvements are occurring well in
advance of a new future road, Green Hills is in compliance with this condition.
Condition No. 17 – This condition requires Green Hills to establish a
Neighborhood Advisory Committee to meet on a quarterly basis and provide
reports to the City Council.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee was established in 2017 and meets
quarterly at City Hall. The minutes of the meetings are provided to the City
Council through the Weekly Administrative Report and are available on the City’s
Green Hills webpage at the following link: http://www.rpvca.gov/376/Green-Hills-
Memorial-Park-Master-Plan. Therefore, Green Hills is in compliance with this
condition.
Condition Nos. 24 and 25 – These conditions requires Green Hills to submit
copies of permits from South Coast Air Quality Management District and Los
Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau for storage of fuel; permits from 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 South Coast Air Quality Management
District for the crematory; and copies of current and valid permits and/or licenses
from the State Cemetery and Funeral Board.
On January 17, 2019, Green Hills submitted all the required permits (Attachment
D), and, therefore, Green Hills is in compliance with Condition Nos. 24 and 25.
Condition No. 30 –This condition requires Green Hills to submit any map to the
Director to be recorded at least 30 days prior and 30 days after recording of said
maps with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office.
4
Over the past year, Green Hills submitted the following maps in accordance with
this Condition:
o Emerald Gardens
o Inspiration Slope – lawn crypts
o Inspiration Slope – niches
o St. Peter’s Church Yard
Upon receiving the maps from Green Hills, Staff updated the Council and the public by
reporting each filing in the Weekly Administrative Report and posting information on the
City’s website and issuing a listserv message. Therefore, Green Hills is in compliance
with this Condition.
Based on the above, Staff has determined that Green Hills is in compliance with the
action items related to its Conditions of Approval.
2. Compliance with Operational Conditions
The Conditions of Approval regulate operations at Green Hills Memorial Pa rk to
minimize impacts to neighboring properties. The salient operational Conditions include,
but are not limited to, the following:
Condition No. 14 (Noise)
Condition No. 16 (Security)
Condition No. 19 (Construction)
Condition No. 20 (Hours of Operation)
Over the past year, Staff has been tracking public concerns related to the operation of
the cemetery, and the applicability and enforcement of the Conditions of Approval.
Below is a summary and the frequency of public concerns (Attachment C) raised since
the last compliance review on February 6, 2018.
Visitations after park hours – 3 times
Maintenance outside of permitted hours on the top of Pacific Terrace/Memorial
Mausoleum – 2 times
Alcohol consumption in the park – 2 times
Loud music – 2 times
Maintenance of the Pacific Terrace/Memorial wall facing Vista Verde
Condominiums – 1 time
In general, the operational complaints submitted to City Staff have substantially reduced
over the past couple years. The representatives of the abutting Peninsula Verde HOA
(north) and Rolling Hills Riviera HOA (south) who have made complaints in the past
have indicated that the operational impacts have drastically improved over the past
year, and that Green Hills has not only been responsive, but proactive in addressing
operational concerns. Staff believes that the number of complaints reported to the City
5
continue to decline because Green Hills has been preemptive in identifying and
addressing potential impacts before they become a problem, including informing the
residents of upcoming large visitations and events. Therefore, Staff believes that Green
Hills is in compliance with its operational conditions for the past year.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Public Notice
On January 17, 2019, a 15-day public notice inviting public comments was provided to
all property owners within a 500’ radius of the site, affected homeowners associations,
listserv subscribers, members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, posted on the
City’s website, and published in the Peninsula News. Staff received three comments
(Attachment E) in response to the public notice, which are attached and addressed in
this Staff Report.
Public Concerns
Over the past year, certain Vista Verde Condominium residents have raised concerns at
various Planning Commission and City Council Meetings, as well as in public
correspondence, related to the operations at Green Hills. In response to the February 5,
2019 City Council Staff Report (which was rescheduled for tonight because the
February 5th meeting was canceled), Staff received written comments from Ms. Sharon
Loveys on the analysis and conclusions included in the February 5th Staff Report and
from legal counsel for Green Hills (Attachment E). It should be noted that the comments
from Ms. Loveys, as prepared by her legal counsel Mr. Weiss, reflect the same
concerns raised by the other Vista Verde Condominium residents. In light of Ms.
Lovey’s written comments, the City Attorney has provided an independent analysis and
response to each of these communications, as provided below.
City Attorney Analysis and Response to Comments
Staff requested that the Office of the City Attorney review and provide the City Council
with comments on the submissions from legal counsel for Ms. Loveys and Green Hills.
What follows is the considered opinion of counsel.
The comments from Sharon Loveys, as prepared by her legal counsel Noel Weiss,
reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of City and state regulation of cemeteries, of
the Master Plan itself, and of its history. The response to those comments, submitted by
Ellen Berkowitz, legal counsel for Green Hills, is largely consistent with our analysis.
1) There Are No Designated Open Space Areas in the Master Plan
Ms. Loveys’ comments contain references to “open space” and “open space
undeveloped areas.” In fact, the Master Plan site map does not show any areas
designated as “open space.” Nearly every area on the map is marked with the
name of an area to be developed. In addition, area numbers appear on the
6
Master Plan map, but the Master Plan states these numbers do not denote a
hierarchy or priority of development.
The fact that portions of Area 4 were not give n specific names on the Master
Plan map does not mean they were never intended to be developed or that some
approval or permit in addition to the Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) for the
cemetery as a whole was or is required. The CUP provides that any undeveloped
area in the cemetery may be used for earth interments without further approval
from the City, unless Green Hills is proposing a mausoleum or other
improvements rather than earth interments.
In fact, Condition No. 1.f., with respect to Area 4, provides that “Only ground
burials are allowed between the north perimeter road and the 8’-0” setback from
the north property line.” In other words, the CUP already specifically permits the
use of the area identified in Ms. Lovey’s comments for earth interments.
The Conditions of Approval contained in the Green Hills CUP do provide for
setbacks at the perimeter of the property. Ms. Loveys may have confused these
setbacks with open space. Her comments make reference on page 7 to one
area in which Green Hills, several years ago, erroneously placed interments in a
setback area. Nothing about the theoretical possibility a similar error could occur
in the future warrants requiring any new land use entitlements beyond the
already required grading permit.
In Green Hills’ response letter to Ms. Loveys’ comments (Attachment F), this
issue is addressed under the heading “Claim 1” with an analysis that largely
parallels ours, including a reference to setback areas and reflecting recognition
such areas are not to be used for burials.
2) Green Hills Is Not Required to Seek an Amendment to the Master Plan for Earth
Interments in Area 4
The City has exercised its land use oversight authority to regulate development
of the cemetery through grading permits and, where appropriate, building
permits, rather than by requiring a specific permit of some other type, or by way
of an amendment to the Master Plan, each time Green Hills desires to begin
using some portion of its property for interments. This approach is within the
discretion granted the City by Health & Safety Code section 8115.1
1 Health & Safety Code section 8115 reads as follows: “The governing body of any city or county, in the exercise of
its police power, may by ordinance prescribe such standards governing burial, inurnment, and entombment and
such standards of maintenance for cemeteries, including mausoleums and columbariums, as it shall determine to
be reasonably necessary to protect the public health or safety, assure decent and respectful treatment of human
remains, or prevent offensive deterioration of cemetery grounds, structures, and places of interment. Such
standards may be made applicable to every public and private cemetery within the city or county. [¶] Nothing in
this section supersedes any provision of this division or Division 7 (commencing with Section 7000) or authorizes
the adoption of local standards in conflict with such provisions, except that city or county ordinances adopted
7
Ms. Loveys’ comments reflect a complete lack of understanding of the City’s
approach in this regard. She repeatedly states no burials should be allowed until
they have been “officially and specifically permitted by the City,” but there is no
such requirement in the Master Plan, the CUP or elsewhere in law or regulation.
In the same vein, on page 7 of Ms. Loveys’ letter, she comments: “Selling earth
interment plots to the general public when the City has not formally approved
their use is deceit and fraud on the public. The City needs to formally approve
and ‘permit’ said use.” Such a comment is unsupported by citation of any
statutory, regulatory, or case law authority because no such authority exists.
Moreover, as noted above, earth interments in the part of Area 4 at issue are
authorized by Condition No 1.f., subject only to a grading permit as provided in
Condition No. 3.
Ms. Loveys’ comments further refer to the “subterfuge of applying for and
procuring grading permits as a substitute” for amending the Master Plan. As
noted above, grading permits are not a substitute for some other permit or
Master Plan amendments; they are the regulatory mechanism the City has
adopted for this cemetery use.
If the City were to adopt Ms. Loveys’ position that every change in the operation
of the cemetery required an amendment to the CUP, on the subject of what
areas within the cemetery Green Hills is using for earth interments, the City
would have to engage in a nonsensical process of amending the Master Plan to
permit what the Master Plan already allows.
There is nothing in state statutory law or regulation, nothing in the City’s
Municipal Code, nothing in the Master Plan, and nothing in the CUP for the
cemetery that obligates Green Hills to obtain a discretionary land use entitlement
to use a portion of the cemetery for earth interment plots beyond issuance of a
grading permit, and Ms. Loveys doesn’t cite any authority in support for this
proposition.
Green Hills’ response letter to Ms. Loveys’ comments (Attachment F), under the
heading “Claim 2,” address the question whether an amendment to the CUP is
required for earth interments in areas not previously used by referring to
Condition No. 1.e. to the CUP, “Earth interments are permitted throughout the
cemetery.” Moreover, as noted above, earth interments in the part of Area 4 at
issue are authorized by Condition No. 1.f., subject to a grading permit as
provided in Condition No. 3.
3) There is No “Cap” on the Number of Earth Interments or on All Interments
pursuant to this section shall prevail over the rules and regulations of any private or public cemetery to the extent
of any conflict.”
8
Ms. Loveys’ comments presume that there is something in state or City
regulations that caps the overall number of interments allowed in a cemetery, or
that requires such a cap be established. The City’s cemetery ordinance, Chapter
17.28 of the Municipal Code, contains no such provision. The state regulations
do not require or even mention such a cap. In fact, the definition of “modification”
in the state regulations that appears on page 9 of the comments (that
“modification” means the addition, deletion or reconfiguration of interment spaces
within an existing cemetery section, mausoleum, and/or columbarium) by its
express terms makes clear there is no such “cap” in law.
While the amended Master Plan of 2007 refers to numbers of earth interment
sites and to numbers of crypts and niches in mausoleums, it is noteworthy that:
(1) as to some of the mausoleums the number of niches is identified as “to be
determined,” and (2) the Master Plan states it “provides ample ability to retrofit
most mausoleum buildings and garden areas with additional niche and niche
vault inventory.” The language in the Master Plan regarding the number of
interments anticipated in Area 4 referenced on page 6 of Ms. Loveys’ comments
was never made a condition of the CUP. Further, the Master Plan states the
objective is to prioritize mausoleum interments over earth interments.
The condition of approval quoted on page 6 of Ms. Loveys’ comments was once
part of the Conditions of Approval for the CUP as Condition No. 1.c., but it was
deleted in 2015, by the adoption of Resolution 2015 -102, which contains all of
the conditions in effect following the 2015 annual review.2 Staff recommended,
and the Council agreed, to delete that condition because it only limited earth
interments and did not serve as a limit on total interments. There is also no limit
on the number of annual interments at the cemetery.
In addition to providing legal analysis similar to ours under the heading “Claim 3”
(with which we concur), Green Hills’ response letter to Ms. Loveys’ comments
(Attachment F), taking practical matters into account, states that, in light of the
challenges involved in establishing new cemeteries, a cap on interments is
counter-productive and the ability to increase density is essential to continuing to
fill society’s need for places to dispose of human remains. As attorneys, this is
outside the scope of our experience, but Green Hills’ position makes good
common sense.
4) No Findings Regarding Similarity of Use or Intensity of Use Are Required
Because the Specific Use is Identified in the Municipal Code as a Use Permitted
Subject to a Conditional Use Permit
2 Though it is not relevant because this condition is no longer part of the CUP, note also that the condition referred
to “additional” earth interments. Thus, Ms. Loveys’ treatment of the number of earth interment referenced in the
condition as the maximum allowed in the entire cemetery would be wrong even if this condition were still in
effect.
9
On pages 1 and 10-11 of her comments, Ms. Loveys refers to Municipal Code
Section 17.28.030(H) and completely misconstrues that provision.3 Section
17.28.030 lists the uses permitted in the cemetery zone, which include “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,” and
other specific uses.
Subdivision H. is a catch-all provision allowing other uses: “Such other uses as
the director [of community development] deems to be similar and no more
intensive.” All of Green Hills’ uses fall within the scope of subdivisions A (Burial
park for earth interments, mausoleums for vault or crypt interments and/or
columbarium for cinerary interments), B (Mortuary), and C (Associated sales and
office uses directly related to the operation of the cemetery, in cluding flower
sales), and therefore subdivision H. is completely irrelevant. No finding that the
uses specified in subdivisions A., B., and C. are “similar to and no more
intensive” than the uses specifically permitted by Section 17.28.030 (Uses and
development permitted by Conditional Use Permit) is required, because they are
the uses specified in Section 17.28.030.
5) The City is Not Ignoring the Master Plan
Ms. Loveys has not expressly stated in her comments that the City is ignoring the
Master Plan, but Green Hills encapsulates all of her comments in this way under
the heading of “Claim 4” in its response letter to Ms. Lovey’s comments.
The City Attorney’s office concurs with Green Hills’ response that the City
adheres to the Master Plan and the conditions of the CUP, as we have noted
above in greater detail. Green Hills also points to the annual review process as
one of the methods by which the City enforces the Master Plan and the CUP.
Although not expressed in the comments submitted by Ms. Loveys fo r purposes
of the 2018 annual review, Ms. Loveys has contended in other contexts that the
annual review process is not the proper vehicle for revising the conditions of the
CUP for the cemetery. In fact, the annual review is very much the proper vehicle,
as specified in the City’s Municipal Code and the CUP itself.
Municipal Code Section 17.60.050.D. provides that the Planning Commission or
City Council may include conditions in a CUP requiring compliance review or
updating of maintenance, development plans and activities. Items AQ-14 and N-3
within Condition No. 5 of the Green Hills CUP provide for an annual compliance
review by the City Council, at which conditions of approval may be added,
deleted or modified.
3 This issue is not addressed by Green Hills.
10
Item N-3 requires that notice of the annual review hearing be published and be
given to owners of property within a 500’ radius of the cemetery, to persons who
request notice, to all affected homeowners associations and to Green Hills. This
notice required provides the public with at least as much notice as that provided
in connection with an amendment to a CUP. Accordingly, the compliance review
is the appropriate and legitimate forum for consideration of amendments to the
Conditions of Approval.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify areas of concern regarding the property owner’s compliance with
the Council-adopted Conditions of Approval and direct Staff to address
these concerns at a future meeting.
2. Direct Staff to further revise the language and/or conditions based upon
City Council discussion and public comment, and continue this matter to a
future meeting.
3. Determine that Green Hills is not in compliance with the City Council-
adopted Conditions of Approval, and provide Staff and Green Hills with
further direction.
4. Take such other action as the City Council deems appropriate consistent
with the requirements of law.
11
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
15" SDR35S = 2% Min.S = 2% Min.Connect to ex
ist
C.B.Fnd Sp
ike
S = 2% Min.Fnd Sp
ike
1002
X 14'ȭȭ14'28'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXGATE8" EASEMENTCONC SWALE5.09'STA. 1+00.00STA. 1+40.40STA. 1+72.51
STA. 11+28.242.18'5.17'GATEGATEXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5.09'2.18'5.17'STA. 1+00.00
STA. 1+40.40
STA. 1+72.51STATION 1+00.00 TO STATION 1+72.51XXXXXXXXXXTYP. NORTH PROPERTY LINE PLANTINGOVER ALL LANDSCAPING PLANSCALE: 1"=8'NTSSCALE: 1"=40'1CLIENT:Jan. 23, 2019Scale: AS SHOWNTITLE:Checked: RNBDrawn: Job No. Sheet98246 COf SheetsDate: Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581FYWSECTIONNTSQTY: 282 DECIDUOUS TREE4.0'8.0'AAVICINITY MAP: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARKNTSHATCHED AREA INDICATE THE LANDSCAPED AREA4.0'4.0'4.0'B-1
C-1
C-2
From:Lane Mayhew
To:So Kim
Cc:Noel Weiss; Sharon Loveys; Debbie Landes; Lori Brown
Subject:Re: FW: Black splotches
Date:Tuesday, March 05, 2019 8:01:34 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Dear Ms. Kim,
I am happy to hear from you regarding Green Hills response by Nick Resich. I am glad they
are taking steps to rectify the situation and even included a timeframe.
Sincerely,
Lane Mayhew
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 4:49 PM So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
Please see Green Hills’ response to your inquiry below.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Nick Resich [mailto:nresich@ghmp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 2:47 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Thomas W. Frew <TFrew@ghmp.com>; Steven A. Espolt <SEspolt@ghmp.com>
Subject: RE: Black splotches
Dear So
C-3
Thank you for forwarding the below email to me. Yes, we are aware of this issue,
and are in the process of fixing the creeping vine. Because of the moisture caused
by the recent rains, the vine has pulled away from the wall and needs to be
reattached. We expect to have the work completed by the end of the week at the
latest.
Nick
Nick Resich
Director of Buildings and Park Maintenance
Direct Line (310) 521-4301 | Fax Line (310) 519-8573
Main Line (310) 831-0311 | www.greenhillsmemorial.com
From: Lane Mayhew [mailto:lanemayhew@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 5:48 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>; Debbie
Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>; Lori Brown <lbis1roadrunner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Black splotches
Dear Ms. Kim,
Thank you for forwarding my concerns to Green Hills so promptly.
I look forward to hearing from them. When I do I will pass the information on to our
attorney, Noel Weiss, and interested parties at Vista Verde.
C-4
Respectfully,
Lane Mayhew
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 5:05 PM So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Ms. Mayhew,
Thank you for your email. I will forward your concerns to Green Hills for a response.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: Lane Mayhew [mailto:lanemayhew@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:38 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; Sharon Loveys <sharon.loveys@yahoo.com>; Debbie
Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com>; Lori Brown <lbis1roadrunner@gmail.com>
Subject: Black splotches
Dear Ms. So Kim,
My name is Lane Mayhew and I reside in Unit #109 at Vista Verde. My unit has been
very impacted by the Green Hills Pacific Terraces Mausoleum as I am on the first floor
facing the Southside where the ramp is.
C-5
This morning as I looked out my living room and sun room I saw these black splotches on
the mausoleum. The first submitted picture is of what I saw and still see.
In discussion with our VVOA President and one of our very compassionate tenants, I was
shown another area by our pool that is similar. The rest of the pictures of that area depict
what has happened. You will see, that presumably due to the rain, vines have come off
the building leaving a black dirty residue. It actually is the entire area where the vines
were along the Southern side of the mausoleum.
These vines were grown as a screen on the mausoleum's Northern rear wall as an
enhancement to a building with a roof top that replaces our ocean views.
I ask that Green Hills be notified of this unsightly new development and that something be
done about it per GH CUP Rules. In a separate email, for your convenience, I have
forwarded page (A-21) concerning Area 11, letter "e."
Thank you for your attention to this matter, Ms. Kim.
Sincerely,
L. Mayhew
C-6
From:Thomas W. Frew
To:David Turner
Cc:So Kim; vreher@cox.net
Subject:RE: Music on 12/26/2018
Date:Wednesday, December 26, 2018 4:39:35 PM
Attachments:70Years_59dffadb-7ca4-4444-9a0f-3a68866f7514.png
Mr. Turner,
I have looked in to the matter and have some details to share. The first report of music that came in
was passed along to staff to resolve. It was misinterpreted by that staff member that the music
complaint was coming from Inspiration Slope Mausoleum, which has music played during business
hours inside the building. When staff reported over our internal radio system, security overheard
that the music issue was resolved and that it was allowed to play. Security was not aware staff was
referring to the building and took the response as the music at Emerald was permitted. Emerald is
across the street from Inspiration. Needless to say both staff and security crossed wires.
After your email to me, security was called on once again to Emerald. This time a male person was
playing music from his car with the door open. The music could not be heard by security from
inside his vehicle. Once he stepped out he could hear it, informed the person it was not allowed
and stayed on point until the individual left.
I hope this is helpful.
Tom
Thomas W. Frew
CFO – General Manager
Direct Line (310) 521-4412 | Fax Line (310) 519-8236
Main Line (310) 831-0311 | www.greenhillsmemorial.com
From: David Turner [mailto:davewturn@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 3:47 PM
To: Thomas W. Frew <TFrew@ghmp.com>
Cc: sok@rpvca.gov; vreher@cox.net
Subject: Music on 12/26/2018
Hi Tom,
C-7
My wife heard music at Emerald Gardens today around 2:45 PM today. She called security.
They talked to the people, and the people said they had permission to play music. Security
checked with the front office, which confirmed that the people had permission. The music
was still on when I returned home around 3:15 PM. I called security again, and they repeated
what my wife had told me and said the people would soon be leaving. I think the music
probably continued another 10 minutes after that as far as I can tell. The music was not of a
religious or Christmas nature.
I was wondering if you were aware of the situation? If so, what was the nature of their request
that they were granted permission to play music?
I am still hearing music at 3:45 PM, so I will be calling security again.
Thank you.
Dave Turner
C-8
From:Ara Mihranian
To:Irene Turner
Cc:So Kim; tfrew@ghmp.com
Subject:Re: 4 car loads still here at 7.30pm
Date:Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:13:37 PM
Thank you for the information, Irene.
Ara
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Irene Turner <imtathome@aol.com> wrote:
Hello So Kim, Ari and Tom Frew,
Just documenting that at 7.30 pm there are still 4 car loads of visitors in
the cemetery. We called Security and they said they are trying to get
them out. 3 car loads have gone so far.
The visitors look pretty mean. One car load left in a BMW with no licence
plates.
Thank you.
Irene Turner
C-9
Dear commissioners,
I’m turning to you to bring one more time to your attention some of the violations
of the CUP GH is doing. I don’t know who enforces that GH is following the CUP
so I’m taking it here, hoping that something will be done. If there is no control,
seems like GH are not wiling to care about their neighboors
1. Maintenance of the fence. It looks ugly and stays that way already for
months.
2. Maintenance which happened BEFORE 10 AM. (I believe the time was
around 9:30 AM) These are pictures from today, November 13, 2018.. First,
I checked the pool area, the pool was covered with dust (I guess blown our
way from the top of the mausoleum). Second, I saw a worker on the ramp,
C-10
using a blower removing the dust from it towards our property. See the
pictures below.
3.
4.
C-11
He moved to the top of the mausoleum, I went towards him to take picture, he
saw me and fast turned back and went down the ramp, obviously knowing he was
not supposed to be there at that time!
I wonder … if the ramp was used as part of the mausoleum structure when GH
needed it to be that way why the CUP are allowing the maintenance on the ramp
to be performed outside of the roof top CUP hours?
After having the building permit for the mausoleum in 2007 the ramp was started
in 2009 to be considered part of the mausoleum structure and to conform with
the three year limit for building permit (and beginning of the construction…) I
wonder why now the ramp is not considered part of that structure! It is the same
proximity to our building, same height at the upper part, the noise and dirt are
carried the very same way as if at the roof top…
Thank you for your time! I really appreciate it!
Nadia (Vista Verde owner)
C-12
Dear commissioners,
As I’m traveling and cannot be present at the tonight’s meeting, I would like to express
my concerns about GH in the late correspondence.
We need clarity on what are going to be developed and intensity and density in the
undeveloped areas of GH memorial park.
It would be really helpful to avoid future problems if the City Planning Commission
creates an agenda item for its next meeting on the need for the Commission to request
an "Interpretation Review" of the Planning Department on this question of how "density
and intensity" of use can be measured when there is no baseline to determine what is
adequate or permissible, and when the Green Hills Master Plan is merely advisory. How
can this be when other specified conditions require that the Planning Department
determine whether a proposed "development" is in substantial compliance with the
Master Plan.
I want to point out that what is happening with Area 4 development is reflective again of
a "pattern and practice" by Green Hills and the City to ignore the imposition of any
meaningful limits on the Cemetery's future development. Green Hills wants to develop
as it pleases with minimal input from the surrounding community. The City's zoning and
development code is supposed to fairly reconcile the conflicting interests of all sides.
What the City is doing is favoring Green Hills over the adjacent property owners.
The situation with Area 4 is an example of Green Hills' strategy of "Do First, Ask For
Forgiveness Later. There is a clear pattern and practice being exhibited by Green Hills
where they seem to record Interment Plots they do not have the right to sell because
the City has never issued a (conditional use) "permit" allowing for the existence or use
of these Interment Plots. The reason is obvious. We cannot have people buying
undeveloped property, subdividing the property (that would include subdividing the air
space for condos. . . when one buys a condo, one is purchasing subdivided air space,
together with a "joint" interest in the common areas), and then selling each subdivision
unilaterally without proper government controls as to whether the property, so
subdivided, is lawfully subject to sale.
If Green Hills can develop the Alta Vista open space with just a grading permit, then
Green Hills can argue that it can develop any area of the cemetery with just a grading
permit. This is absurd. The whole purpose of a the Master Plan is to control future
development and give adjoining property owners the ability to know, understand, and
rely on future development patterns of the cemetery. This objective cannot be achieved
when the City authorizes new development simply by issuing grading permits alone
when there has been no formal amendment to the existing conditional use permit. In
short, the adjoining RPV property owners are being completely conned.
C-13
The bottom line is that the Green Hills' right to "use" its property as an interment venue
is not absolute. It is conditional. Which is why the zoning code requires a conditional
"use" permit where the "use" rights are "conditioned" based on public safety and
convenience criteria (impact on neighboring properties; noise issue; etc.). They are not
"by right" or "absolute". Grading is the means employed to effectuate the permitted
"use". . . . . A right to "grade" is not the same as the right to "use". That is why separate
findings are required to support the issuance of a grading permit.
Keep in mind that both under the state Cemetery Code and regulations, and the City's
Zoning (Development) code, earth interments are considered "development"
Under the City's own zoning code, any grading, which impacts or affects the intensity or
density of use is considered "development. So, by definition, any grading (i.e.
development) must also involve an analysis of current use versus proposed use versus
authorized (permitted) use.
The more clarity the better for the entire RPV neighborhood and of course the city and
we count on you for that.
Thank you,
Nadia, Vista Verde owner
C-14
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, California 90067-2121 Tel: 310.586.7700 Fax 310.586.7800
LA 133632328v1
ALBANY
AMSTERDAM
ATLANTA
AUSTIN
BERLIN¬
BOCA RATON
BOSTON
CHICAGO
DALLAS
DELAWARE
DENVER
FORT LAUDERDALE
HOUSTON
LAS VEGAS
LONDON*
LOS ANGELES
MEXICO CITY+
MIAMI
MILAN**
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTHERN VIRGINIA
ORANGE COUNTY
ORLANDO
PHILADELPHIA
PHOENIX
ROME**
SACRAMENTO
SAN FRANCISCO
SEOUL∞
SHANGHAI
SILICON VALLEY
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
TEL AVIV^
TOKYO¤
WARSAW~
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
WEST PALM BEACH
¬ OPERATES AS
GREENBERG TRAURIG GERMANY, LLP
* OPERATES AS A
SEPARATE UK REGISTERED LEGAL ENTITY
+ OPERATES AS
GREENBERG TRAURIG, S.C.
* * STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
∞ OPERATES AS
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
FOREIGN LEGAL CONSULTANT OFFICE
^ A BRANCH OF
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.,
FLORIDA, USA
¤ OPERATES AS
GT TOKYO HORITSU JIMUSHO
~ OPERATES AS
GREENBERG TRAURIG GRZESIAK SP.K.
Ellen Berkowitz
Tel 310.586.7763
Fax 310.586.7800
berkowitze@gtlaw.com
May 1, 2018
VIA EMAIL
Mayor Susan Brooks and Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Susan.Brooks@rpvca.gov
cc@rpvca.gov
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park
Dear Mayor Brooks and Honorable Councilmembers:
Certain residents of the Vista Verde condominiums make a habit of venting their
frustrations with Green Hills during the City Council’s public comment period. To the
extent the statements represent the opinions of these Vista Verde residents, we have no
comment; after all, everyone is entitled to their personal opinions.1
When the residents claim to present facts to the City Council, and those facts are clearly in
error, however, we feel compelled to set the record straight. Accordingly, below are
Green Hills’ responses to some alleged “facts” presented at recent City Council meetings.
Claim: A resident claimed that Green Hills had not made its initial “indemnification”
payment to the City.
Fact: This is not true. Green Hills timely paid the first installment, and the City
has acknowledged receipt of the payment.
Claim: Several residents claimed that Green Hills “backed out” of its obligation to
mediate with Vista Verde relative to the litigation.
Fact: This is not true. Mediation is required by the court; thus, Green Hills is not
at liberty to “back out” even if it were so inclined. As a reminder, Green Hills
sought to participate in the mediation between Vista Verde and the City that
occurred a couple of years ago, which was originally contemplated as a three-party
1 Nevertheless, we do find a certain irony to some statements, such as the accusation that Green Hills is
“bullying” the Vista Verde residents. As a reminder, Vista Verde has now filed four lawsuits against Green
Hills, containing a myriad of accusations, which lawsuits Green Hills is endeavoring to defend. To
describe Green Hills as a bully given the circumstance recalls the adage of the pot calling the kettle black.
C-15
Mayor Brooks and
Honorable Councilmembers
May 1, 2018
Page 2
LA 133632328v1
Greenberg Traurig, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM
(not two-party) mediation. Vista Verde, however, refused to allow Green Hills to
participate. After rejecting Green Hills’ overtures, Vista Verde has now decided it is
anxious for the mediation to occur. The mediation will be rescheduled for a date within
the next several months.
Claim: A resident claimed that six (6) funerals occurred on the roof of the Pacific Terrace
Mausoleum from the beginning of March to April 18, 2018.
Fact: This is not true. It also provides the misleading impression that, over a period of
six weeks, the number of interments on the Mausoleum roof averaged one per week. In
fact, a total of six (6) interments took place on the roof of the Mausoleum between
January 1 and May 1, 2018, or a period of 4 months – meaning the average so far this
year has been fewer than two services per month. Of course, Green Hills does not control
death. Some months may see more services, some months fewer. In 2017, for example,
there were a total of six (6) services during the entire year. In 2016, there were nine (9)
services during the entire year.
Thank you for your attention to these issues. We do not wish to further burden the City
Council’s hearings by appearing to respond to every spurious comment presented, nor do we
wish to engage in a “tit-for-tat” with our neighbors; our goal is simply to correct the record
relative to allegedly factual statements that are, in reality, inaccurate.
Sincerely,
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
EB:rk
C-16
From:Thomas W. Frew
To:"Vince Reher (vreher@cox.net)"
Cc:"Bernadette Sabath (miminotchew@gmail.com)"; So Kim; Nick Resich
Subject:RE: New issue in Area 4
Date:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:27:35 PM
Vince,
My apologies in not responding timely to your email. I wanted to assure you Green Hills took immediate action and
continue to monitor the area where this occurred. We make every effort to ensure compliance to our rules.
Thank you for making us aware of the situation.
Sincerely,
Tom
Thomas W. Frew
CFO – General Manager
Direct Line (310) 521-4412 | Fax Line (310) 519-8236
Main Line(310) 831-0311| www.greenhillsmemorial.com
C-17
From:Peninsula Verde HOA
To:Tom Frew; Nick Resich
Cc:So Kim; Ara Mihranian; Bernadette Sabath
Subject:New issue in Area 4
Date:Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:04:43 PM
Attachments:20180328_141958_resized.jpg
20180328_141939_resized.jpg
Tom & Nick,
Sorry to bring bad news but there's another issue that has cropped up in the NE corner.
In this case, it looks like the impact is from litter versus noise but in any case involves a violation of park rules
against alcohol consumption. I'm told that this has been occurring on a daily basis this week. Please ask your
security people to investigate.
Thanks,
Vince
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: RE: Update on Green Hills border development
Date: Wednesday 28 March 2018, 3:35:57 pm
From: Norbert Stephenson <norbertrs69@gmail.com>
To: Peninsula Verde HOA <peninsulaverde@cox.net>
CC: Bernadette Sabath <miminotchew@gmail.com>
Hi Vincent,
Can you please forward these pictures of the swale behind my house that I had to clean today after the "mourners"
were finished "mourning" this past weekend. Northeast corner slope. Can't wait for the new wall!
Thank you,
Norbert Stephenson
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Peninsula Verde HOA <peninsulaverde@cox.net> </div>
<div>Date:03/19/2018 7:52 AM (GMT-08:00) </div><div>To: Peninsula Verde HOA <peninsulaverde@cox.net>
</div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Update on Green Hills border development </div><div>
</div>Green Hills has notified us that they are now actively moving forward with the construction of the border
fence and planting of adjacent screening vegetation. Please see attached document "North wall timeline.pdf" for
details.
Green Hills has also provided us with a courtesy notification of their intent to develop a portion of Inspiration slope,
described in the message below and depicted in the attached document "Alta Vista Family Plot Area.png".
Please note that the proposed development is similar to that which already exists in the adjacent Har Shalom II area.
It is also representative of the type of development that they will be doing in the future along their northern property
line.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Fence / Trees Timeline - Alta Vista
Date: Thursday 15 March 2018, 8:24:02 am
From: "Thomas W. Frew"
I have attached an estimated timeline for the north boundary fence line. If any delays should be encountered we will
communicate such. At this time we are pleased to share the trees and fence material has been ordered.
C-18
On a different subject, we plan to file for a permit to install 44 lawn crypts in Alta Vista then build 3' walls for
Private Gardens and Family Estates. We wanted to let you know of this action so proper notification can be shared
with those residents along the boundary line. Alta Vista is located across the street from the boundary line and just
west of Inspiration Slope Mausoleum. The installation will be at the highest point of this area. Once the permit is
issued we anticipate approx. 10 days to install lawn crypts and another two weeks to build the walls. There should
be minimal, if any, disruption along the boundary line.
-------------------------------------------------------
C-19
C-20
C-21
South Coast .
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 9.1765-4178
(909) 396-2000 • wwiN.aqmd.gov
EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT: 27501 S WESTERN AVE
· LEGAL OWNER CO. ID:
OR OPERATOR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-1012
915
GREEN HILLS MEM PARK
27501 S WESTERN AVE ATTN:CHUCK BOCHE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA,90275-1012
PERMIT/APPLICATION RENEWAL
PERMIT/ EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
APPL NBR
BILLING YEAR: 2017
D7001'7 CREMATORY
N9275 SERV STAT STORAGE & DISPENSING GASOLINE
I h, ,-,
DATE: 02/19/201() .
NEXT RENEWAL
DATE
03/01/2019
03/01/2019
D-1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY
ADMINISTERED BY LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
ANNUAL UNIFIED PROGRAM FACILITY PERMIT
ISSUED TO:
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
July 1, 2018 -June 30, 2019
GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
27501 S WESTERN AVE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
LA Co. CUPA NO. AR: AR0029489
FACILITY OWNER: GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK
FACILITY SITE ADDRESS: 27501 S WESTERN AVE# 1, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
.. ,-, -;--,
THIS PERMIT MUST BE CONSPICUOUSLY DISPLAYED
AT THE FACILITY AT ALL TIMES.
ISSUED BY: Daryl L. Osby
/
County of Los Angeles Fire Chief
ISSUED ON: Sep 25, 2018
EXPIRES ON: October 31, 2019
This permit is valid only for the above location and Is subject to ALL REQUIREMENTS of State and local laws and regulations.
This permit is non-transferrable and is void upon change in ownership or location.
If you are in operation on or after July 1, 2019, your business will be responsible for payment of permit fees for the next annual billing
cycle. You must contact this Department prior to this date and arrange for an inspection to verify non-operational status to cancel
permit fees for the next annual billing cycle. You may continue to operate under this permit until the payment for the next billing cycle
is made to this Department by the established invoice due date. Invoice due date for permit fees may vary from year to year.
8000.rpt ver.j IN0287135 D-2
LA 134200637v1
ALBANY
AMSTERDAM
ATLANTA
AUSTIN
BERLIN¬
BOCA RATON
BOSTON
CHICAGO
DALLAS
DELAWARE
DENVER
FORT LAUDERDALE
HOUSTON
LAS VEGAS
LONDON*
LOS ANGELES
MEXICO CITY+
MIAMI
MILAN**
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTHERN VIRGINIA
ORANGE COUNTY
ORLANDO
PHILADELPHIA
PHOENIX
ROME**
SACRAMENTO
SAN FRANCISCO
SEOUL∞
SHANGHAI
SILICON VALLEY
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
TEL AVIV^
TOKYO¤
WARSAW~
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
WEST PALM BEACH
¬ OPERATES AS GREENBERG TRAURIG GERMANY, LLP
* OPERATES AS A SEPARATE UK REGISTERED LEGAL ENTITY
+ OPERATES AS GREENBERG TRAURIG, S.C.
* * STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
∞ OPERATES AS GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP FOREIGN LEGAL CONSULTANT OFFICE
^ A BRANCH OF GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A., FLORIDA, USA
¤ OPERATES AS GT TOKYO HORITSU JIMUSHO
~ OPERATES AS GREENBERG TRAURIG GRZESIAK SP.K.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, California 90067-2121 Tel: 310.586.7700 Fax 310.586.7800
Ellen Berkowitz
Tel 310.586.7763
Fax 310.586.7800
berkowitze@gtlaw.com
February 4, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Mayor Jerry Duhovic and Honorable City Council Members
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
cc@rpvca.gov
Re: Green Hills Memorial Park
Dear Mayor Duhovic and Honorable Council Members
Once again, Green Hills Memorial Park (Green Hills) must dispel the myriad of untruths and
false claims made by the residents of Vista Verde (Residents) at multiple recent Planning
Commission and City Council hearings, as well as in the undated “statement” (Statement) of
Sharon Loveys (clearly ghost-written by attorney Noel Weiss) submitted in connection with
the upcoming Annual Review hearing. The Residents appear to have latched onto several
new mantras in their ongoing attack of the City and Green Hills, each of which is discussed
further below.
Claim 1: Green Hills is “developing open space” or “space that was designated as open
space in the Master Plan.”1 By “developing open space,” the Residents explain that Green
Hills is “allowing earth interments” in areas the Residents claim were set aside in the Master
Plan as open area unpermitted for ground burials. In other words, they believe that when
Green Hills – a cemetery – inters individuals in the ground in heretofore undeveloped areas
within the cemetery, Green Hills is violating the Master Plan.
Fact: Aside from portions of the Park called out for setbacks, there is no such thing
as “designated open space” in the Master Plan nor are there areas expressly set aside
as unpermitted for ground burials. “Open space” is not a concept referenced or
discussed in any manner in the Master Plan, and for good reason: cemeteries are not
required to maintain “open space” or space in which ground burials are not permitted.
Quite the contrary is true. Under State law, once a property has been dedicated as a
cemetery, the property may be “held, occupied, and used exclusively for a cemetery
1 The Residents previously made this claim with respect to Areas 2 and 5; the Statement now makes the claim
with respect to Area 4. Various Residents have made this claim regularly at nearly every City meeting over
the past several months.
E-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
February 4, 2019
Page 2
LA 134200637v1
Greenberg Traurig, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM
and for cemetery purposes.”2 “Cemetery purposes” means “any and all business . . .
necessary for [among other things]. . . interring human remains.”3 In other words, once a
cemetery has received a “Declaration of Dedication,” the entire cemetery may be used for
ground burials. There is no provision in the law requiring certain portions of the cemetery
to be maintained as “open space” or kept “off-limits.”
Green Hills was dedicated as a cemetery in 1948. Its entire property is used, or will be
used in the future as new space is needed to accommodate interments, “for cemetery
purposes.”4 No portion of the Park (other than setback areas) have been designated “open
space” in which earth interments are prohibited.
Claim 2: A new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or an amendment to the existing CUP, is required
to permit any new “development of open space.”
Fact: The City issued a CUP to Green Hills decades ago, which allows the Park to be used
as, among other things, a “[b]urial park for earth interments.”5 The CUP covers the entire
cemetery – all of Green Hills – and permits earth interments throughout the Park.
Consistent with the approval of the CUP, Condition of Approval 1.e. provides that: “Earth
interments are permitted throughout the cemetery….” There is no requirement for Green
Hills to obtain a new CUP, or an amendment to its CUP, when it seeks to conduct earth
interments; the existing CUP already allows for such activities.
Claim 3: The Master Plan authorized a specific number of interments; therefore, the City must
keep a running tally of the number of interments conducted within the Park.
Fact: The Master Plan did no such thing.
In support of this specious claim, the Statement first points to “Condition 1.c.,” contained
in the 2007 Conditions of Approval, which “clarified” the “additional” number of ground
burials that were expected to occur from the reconfiguration of the cemetery as per the
2007 Master Plan revisions. The Statement claims that this amount represents the total
number of earth interments allowed in the entire cemetery, and that this Condition “has
never been formally revised or removed from the Conditions….”
The Statement is wrong. This Condition was expressly stricken at the City Council’s
Annual Review hearing in November, 2015, when the City found that the Condition “did
2 Cal. Health & Safety Code; §8553.
3 Id., §7020. Similarly, a “cemetery” is property that is “used and dedicated for cemetery purposes ..[including] a
burial park, for earth interments.” Id., §7003.
4 Perhaps the Residents are confused by signs posted at Green Hills, noting that certain areas are “undeveloped
cemetery property.” Such signage is required by Section 2333 of Division 23 of Title 16 of the California Code or
Regulations, which contain the Cemetery Maintenance Standards adopted by the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau. These
signs are required to provide notice to the public that certain areas are not yet available for burial and that plots will
not be sold in these areas. When the cemetery records the appropriate maps with the County Recorder, plots may be
sold and the areas developed with earth interments.
5 Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code §17.28.030(a).
E-2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
February 4, 2019
Page 3
LA 134200637v1
Greenberg Traurig, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM
not serve as a limit on total burials” and “did not serve to regulate annual usage of the
cemetery.’ Accordingly, the City Council removed the condition, concluding that there was
no “need to regulate specific interments . . . as implied by this condition.”
The City has reiterated several times over the years, notably at the Annual Review hearings
held in 2017 and 2018, that there are no density limitations set forth by either the Master
Plan or the Conditions of Approval. Nor is there any law – City, State or otherwise – that
regulates the number of burials in a cemetery. Indeed, any such limitations would
contravene State law, which permits dedicated cemetery property to be used “for cemetery
purposes.” As discussed above, Green Hills has been a dedicated cemetery for more than
70 years. As a dedicated cemetery, and as further expressed in both the City Code and the
CUP, Green Hills is permitted to conduct earth interments throughout the cemetery without
numerical limits. Further, the 1991 Master Plan was intended to guide development of
Green Hills for 100 years; the 2007 Master Plan had a slightly less ambitious goal of
providing for development over the next 30-50 years. We are now only 12 years into that
Master Plan revision, and are nowhere close to thinking about what the Park’s development
needs may be when 50 years have passed.
In any event, as a general rule, cemeteries seek to maximize the number of burials or
cremations that can be accommodated within cemetery property, not limit the number.
“Since land is a sizable expense for the cemetery, maximizing grave sites is an important
consideration.” Assessment of Cemeteries, Assessor’s Handbook Section 515, State Board
of Equalization, p. 10 (January 1983; reprinted January 2015). Cemeteries are not designed
for planned obsolescence; their goal is not to turn people away because they’re “full.”
Cemeteries are designed to continue to service communities for as long as feasible. As
noted by the State: “Cemetery operators are continually devising new and original
interment practices. Some of these innovations are designed to extend the remaining
economic life of the cemetery. An extension [of a cemetery’s life] could be accomplished
by increasing the use density [i.e., allowing more interments per acre].” Id., at 20.
Thus, cemeteries seek to find ways to extend their useful life, not shorten it. A similar
concept was articulated in the Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 64, p. 2 (Fall
2006), which discussed the need for cemeteries to plan for adequate cemetery space well
into the future, and noted that “[s]ometimes creative planning can help expand the capacity
of an existing cemetery.” This article observes that the need to expand the capacity of
existing cemeteries is particularly acute in urban areas, where cemeteries cannot physically
expand given their proximity to developed neighborhoods, and the possibility of converting
large swaths of land into new cemetery space is slim, given the high cost of land and the
likely community opposition to new cemeteries. As a result, existing cemeteries seek new
ways to inter more individuals (something helped by the rise in cremations), not fewer.
Claim 4: The City is ignoring the Master Plan because it is not enforcing Claims 1-3, above.
Fact: As discussed above, Claims 1-3 are false. The Master Plan does not set aside
undevelopable “open space.” The CUP already allows earth interments throughout the
E-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
February 4, 2019
Page 4
LA 134200637v1
Greenberg Traurig, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM
Park, and does not need to be amended for this purpose. The Master Plan does not limit
density.
Moreover, the Master Plan, and particularly its accompanying Conditions of Approval, are
very much in effect, as evidenced by the Annual Reviews the City regularly conducts. The
multiple Conditions of Approval, impacting a myriad of topics ranging from grading,
security, hours of operations, hours of visitation, alcohol consumption, music, landscaping,
dust control measures, and procedures for approval of improvements, among many, many
other issues, are regularly consulted and followed. They are evaluated each year and
updated as necessary. The City requires strict adherence thereto, and conducts inspections
to further ensure compliance. Neighbors consult the Conditions and advise both the City
Green Hills if they detect anything related to them is amiss. Quite simply, the Master Plan
and the Conditions of Approval are the governing documents for Green Hills’ operations.
They are not ignored.
* * * * *
As always, the Green Hills team we will attend the upcoming Annual Review and be available to
address any questions the Council may have.
Sincerely,
Ellen Berkowitz
Shareholder
EMB:rsk
E-4
From:Matt Martin
To:So Kim
Subject:Green Hills CUP
Date:Monday, January 28, 2019 11:01:21 AM
(So - i meant to send this letter from this email not the previous one. Please use the following
for public record instead.)
Commission:
Green Hills, as usual, isn’t in compliance with the CUP.
They have buildings in the maintenance yard that clearly violate the existing setbacks for
above ground structures.
Im also concerned about the lack of specificity with regard to density and intensity of use for
the property.
Operating daily excavation under the guise of a grading permit is also a concern for me.
This is pattern and practice for Green Hills to push the limits of the law. The City of RPV
should start standing on principle instead of pandering to big business interests in the city.
Im embarrassed by the City of RPV and how they have handled Green Hills. Its time to put
your big boy pants on and stand up for what’s right
Matthew Martin
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
E-5
From:sharon loveys
To:Debbie Landes; Nad Gv; So Kim
Subject:Re: GH activities Items not on Agenda_Jan 15, 2019
Date:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:56:36 PM
Attachments:10-P1310750.JPG
11-P1310751.JPG
12-P1310752.JPG
Too lazy to walk up and get out of their cars,,
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 4:54 PM, Debbie Landes <dlbodesi@fastmail.com> wrote:
Very nice Nadia, thank you! The pictures and complaints about
hours of operation and so forth are good things to bring up at
their annual CUP review in February as well! Love the pictures,
is that "dusk" - half their problem is that no security staff actually
come up to the top to assure visitors have left!!
Debbie
--
Debbie Landes
dlbodesi@fastmail.com
E-6
From:Nad Gv
To:So Kim
Cc:Sharon Loveys; Debbie Landes
Subject:GH activities Items not on Agenda_Jan 15, 2019
Date:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:36:34 PM
Dear city commissioners
I would like to express (again) my frustration and show what we have to endure during the GH
operating hours and sometimes even outside these hours. We have seen visitors late at night! I
have no idea how they were still in the park, but obviously, there is no good control over that.
Pictures taken in December, 1st, 2018, around 5:30PM.
E-7
With all that said, I want to turn to you to ask you to do the right thing about GH. You should not allow GH to do
what they want, where they want and when they want.
The City cannot control the density and intensity of development of the Cemetery
without a Master Plan. Either there exists a Master Plan on development, or there
E-8
does not. The City Council needs to clarify what the situation is. . . and until that is
done, there needs to be a moratorium on all earth interments in the Inspiration View
sub-area of Area 4.
Before any further development of the cemetery is permitted to occur, Green Hills
must formally ask that the Master Plan's density and intensity limits be clarified. . .
and that a formal baseline of development be established. If the Council wishes to
allow development on a "site-by-site" basis, without any base-line limitations, then
the Council needs to officially say so in the context of a formal amendment
application to the Master Plan. The Council has not done this, and because of it,
Green Hills is acting unlawfully.
There exists another 1000 (or so) buried vaults on the roof of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum. Green Hills has acknowledged in writing it has no vested right to inter
human remains in those buried vaults. A firm count of the number of those vaults
must be made. Green Hills must also be told that the recordation of plots for sale on
the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum is not authorized by the City.
So Green Hills is telling the public by recording the plots with the County Recorder it
has the right to sell those plots to the public! This is a another deceit by Green Hills
and I wonder why the City counsel allows it!
The City has informally and improperly allowed Green Hills to ignore the Master
Plan's density and intensity limitations. . . . . . The City has refused to enforce the
conditional use permit's limitations by issuing grading permits in lieu of or as a
substitute for formal development permits for earth interments. . . . . .
It is time this Council cease patronizing and pandering to Green Hills and require it to
follow the mandates of the City's cemetery zoning law and its general zoning laws.
Your people count on you and trusted you to do the right thing!
Nadejda Georgieva (Vista Verde owner)
E-9
STATEMENT OF SHARON LOVEYS SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION THAT GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL
PARK IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE 2007 MASTER PLAN
(AS AMENDED).
DATE OF GREEN HILLS COMPLIANCE REVIEW HEARING: FEBRUARY 5, 2019
Sharon Loveys submits her statement in Opposition to a “Finding” that Green Hills is in
compliance with the 2007 Master Plan (as amended). For the reasons set out below, Ms. Loveys
contends Green Hills is not in compliance with the 2007 Master Plan (as amended):
1. Green Hills has “developed” the Morning Light Valley sub-area and the Inspiration View sub-
area of (Master) Area 4 of the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan (as amended) with earth interments in
violation of the City’s Cemetery Zoning Code (Chapter 17.28) (specifically Section 17.28.030(H)) in
that earth interments have been “permitted” to occur in these sub-areas without (i) the City’s ever having
issued a use permit specifically allowing earth interments in these sub-areas, (ii) the City’s ever having
formally amended the Master Plan permitting the “development” of the Morning Light Valley or
Inspiration View sub-areas of Area 4, or (iii) the City’s ever having made the requisite factual “findings”
in support of the development of these two sub-areas that the proposed intensity and density of the use
of these sub-areas (designated under the Master Plan as “open space”) is “similar and no more intensive”
than the other uses permitted under the 2007 Master Plan (as amended);
2. It is impossible for the City to make a “finding” that Green Hills is compliance with the 2007
Master Plan (as amended) in the absence of a baseline calculation consisting of the number of earth
interments actually “permitted” or approved under the 2007 Master Plan, as amended. The City has
never made any such determination. This goes directly to the “intensity” and “density” of the use to be
permitted or allowed. Until Green Hills presents to the City the number of actual earth interments which
have been approved as compared to the actual number of earth interments developed and used, the City
and the City Council cannot make a “Finding” that Green Hills is in compliance with the 2007 Green
Hills Master Plan, as amended;
3. Development of the Morning Light Valley sub-area and the Inspiration View sub-area of
(Master) Area 4 of the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan (as amended) with earth interments is prohibited
under the Master Plan because those sub-areas constitute “open space” undeveloped areas and cannot be
developed with earth interments unless and until the Master Plan has been formally amended to “permit”
such use. Because the Master Plan has never been amended to permit the use of the Morning Light
Valley sub-area and the Inspiration View sub-area for earth interments, the use of those sub-areas for
earth interments is unauthorized. This means that Green Hills is not in compliance with the 2007 Master
Plan (as amended).
F-1
The Morning Light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas of the Cemetery are identified on Exhibit “1”
below.
Exhibit “1” – Map of Green Hills Memorial Park – circa June, 2017. The “Morning Light Valley” sub-area is noted
by the Cyan arrow . The “Inspiration View” sub-area is identified by the Red arrow . The earth interments
which exist in both of these sub-areas are non-compliant with the Green Hills Master Plan because no use
permits have ever been issued by the City permitting the use of these sub-areas for earth interments. Each
represents a separate “development” of the Cemetery as “development” is defined by Section 2302 of Title 16
of the California Code of Regulations (reproduced below).
F-2
Exhibit “2” below is taken from the City’s website. It is the Green Hills Master Plan Map. This
map identifies the Morning light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas of Master Area 4 as undeveloped
open space.
Exhibit “2” – Screen-shot of Green Hills 2007 Master Plan Map taken from City’s Website – January 28, 2019.
The “Morning Light Valley” sub-area is noted by the Cyan arrow and the Inspiration View sub-area is
identified by the Red arrow . Neither of these arrows appear on the Master Plan Map. They have been
inserted in this submittal so that the Morning Light Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas are more easily
identified.
F-3
Exhibit “3” – Arial photo of Green Hills Memorial Park taken from the City’s Website – January, 2019. The
“Morning Light Valley” sub-area is noted by the Cyan arrow . The “Inspiration View” sub-area is identified by
the Red arrow .
F-4
Exhibit “4” is a Google aerial map of the Green Hills Cemetery. Note the proximity of nearby homes just to the
north of the Cemetery as well as the undeveloped areas.
Exhibit “5” (set out below) is the portion of the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan submittal
(approved by the City – see Exhibit “6”) which sets out the scope of the proposed “development” of
Area 4 (denoted “North Terrace Garden”). The total intensity and density of development contemplated
and approved is 5,842 earth interments (2921 “lawn crypts” (i.e. earth interments) times 2 (for double-
depth); plus between 1600/3200 and 2400/4800 earth interments in sub-areas designated as “Family
Estates”, for a total of between 9,042 earth interments and 10,642 earth interments (if all are double-
depth) or 7,442 earth interments and 8,242 earth interments (if all the Family Estate interments are
single depth). The development of Master Area 4 alone, therefore, represents between 23.6% and
27.86% of the total number of earth interments authorized under the Master Plan.
F-5
Exhibit “5” – Page iv of 2007 Green Hills Master Plan Amendment where the density and intensity of the
“development” of Area 4 (denominated “North Terrace Garden”) is noted as 2921 double depth “lawn crypts”
(i.e. 5842 earth interments) and between 1600-2400 additional earth interments to be located in designated
“Family Estates”. Because the City has neglected to undertake an audit or calculation of the number of actual
earth interments in Area 4, it is not possible to determine whether Green Hills is in compliance with this baseline
requirement.
Reproduced below as Exhibit “6” is Condition 1(c) of the Conditions of Approval of the 2007
Green Hills Master Plan. The Conditions of Approval are not “advisory”. They are mandatory.
Condition 1(c) states that the number of earth interments (which are called “ground burials” (same thing
as “earth interments”)) total 38,192, calculated as follows: (i) 14,000 double-depth earth interments =
28,000 earth interments; (ii) 400 single depth burials (i.e. earth interments) = 400 earth interments; (iii)
408 Family Estates (9,792 interments)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exhibit “6” – Condition 1(c) of the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan (as Amended) wherein it is specifically noted
that the total number of earth interments (aka “ground burial sites) for the entire cemetery is 38,192 earth
interment plots. This condition has never been formally revised or removed from the Conditions of Approval. No
determination of whether Green Hills is in compliance with the Master Plan can be made until it confirmed that
the number of earth interments actually developed by Green Hills is consistent with the number of earth
interment contemplated under the 2007 Master Plan as amended. To be noted is that the Arroyo Vista sub-area
F-6
development alone contemplates 14,078 earth interment plots (or 36.86% of the total). Then there is the
potential for earth interments on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (another 1,000 roof-top
interments (assuming it is even lawful to inter human remains on the roof of a free-standing mausoleum); and
another potential 5,804 earth interments in Area 2. It is simply not possible for the City to be able to state that
Green Hills is in compliance with the density and intensity limitations and requirements set out in the 2007
Master Plan unless Green Hills is able to confirm the actual number of earth interments which are in place or
have been sold. Selling earth interment plots to the general public when the City has not formally approved their
use is deceit and fraud on the public. The City needs to formally approve and “permit” said use. It has not.
The City Council cannot selectively decide which conditions it is going to honor and which
conditions it is going to ignore as part of the compliance review protocol. If Green Hills wants to
increase the allowed density and intensity of its use of the cemetery, Green Hills should be required to
amend the Master Plan. Green Hills knows this; and the City knows this. Green Hills has previously
tried the exact same tactic of ignoring the Master Plan when (earlier in this decade) it interred human
remains in 13 (thirteen) interment plots in an undeveloped open space sub-area just to the west of the
Vista Verde Condominium Complex. After the Vista Verde property owners formally had objected to
this practice, Green Hills acknowledged its mistake and promised to cease undertaking (no pun
intended) any further earth interments in this area.
No demand was ever made to disinter the human remains of those already interred. The same
situation should obtain with regard to the Morning Valley and Inspiration View sub-areas of Master Area
4. Those human remains already interred should be permitted to remain. However, going forward, there
should be no further earth interments allowed or permitted in the Morning Valley and Inspiration View
sub-areas of Master Area 4 until the same has been officially and specifically permitted by the City. The
only way this can occur is by Green Hills applying for and procuring an amendment to the Master Plan.
The same circumstance exists with respect to the use of the roof-top of the Inspiration Slope
Mausoleum (Master Area 2). Green Hills had originally applied for permission to use the roof-top of the
Inspiration Slope Mausoleum to inter human remains. This permission was denied in January, 2016. In
June, 2016, Green Hills formally acknowledged in writing that it lacked formal City authorization to
inter human remains on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum; and that no human remains are to
be interred on the roof of the Inspiration Slope Mausoleum (even assuming it was legal to do so (which
Sharon Loveys disputes)) until Green Hills formally applies and procures a use permit (i.e. an
amendment to the Master Plan) to do so.
No amendment to the Master Plan can logically be considered or granted in the absence of an
evaluation and comparison between the number of earth interments authorized and the number of earth
interments actually developed and put into use.
Therefore, it is Sharon Loveys’ contention that until the City has completed such an evaluation,
the City cannot make a “Finding” that Green Hills is in compliance with the 2007 Master Plan (as
amended).
Sharon Loveys therefore requests (1) that the City continue the hearing on Green Hills
compliance review; (2) that Green Hills be directed to submit to the City a complete list of (i) the
number of earth interments it has developed, (ii) the number of earth interments sold to the public, (iii)
F-7
the number of earth interments which have yet to be used or developed, and (iv) the number of earth
interments Green Hills plans to develop, create, or utilize going forward. These numbers can then be
compared to the number of earth interments authorized by the 2007 Master Plan to determine if,
whether, and to what extent Green Hills is in compliance with the “intensity and density” components of
the 2007 Master Plan, as amended.
Reproduced below is a copy of Section 2302 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations.
This section defines “development” as it is used under the Cemetery Act (Chapter 12 of the Business &
Professions Code (Sections 7600, et. seq.), as further elucidated in Division 7 of the Health & Safety
Code (Sections 7000, et. seq.).
F-8
F-9
Judge Chalfant noted at the most recent hearing where Green Hills unsuccessfully
challenged Sharon Lovey’s right and legal standing to contest whether Green Hills has complied
with the Master Plan that there is a difference between a grading permit and the Master Plan or
Conditional Use Permit. The City lacks the power, right, or authority to ignore its own Cemetery
Zoning laws; and any act by the City in contravention of its zoning laws, including the City’s
Cemetery Zoning Law (Chapter 17.28 of the City’s Municipal Code) is ultra vires.
Under the authority of Summit Media, LLC. vs. City of Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal. App.
4th 921, any action by the City which is ultra vires is null and void, and of no legal force or effect
(City’s approval of a settlement agreement where the City gave up its power to police
commercial billboards and allowed the billboard companies to operate outside the limitations of
the City’s zoning laws was null and void; such that all commercial billboard permits previously
granted were ordered to be set aside).
The same circumstance obtains here. Green Hills cannot pick and choose which zoning
law provisions it will honor and which it will ignore. The 2007 Master Plan, by its own terms,
“clarified” that a maximum of 38,192 earth interments were to be permitted; with that number
broken down by identified Master “areas”. Since 2007, Green Hills has tried to “game the
system” by using the subterfuge of applying for and procuring grading permits as a substitute for
the need for a formal Master Plan Amendment. In this way, it is hoped that the City will simply
ignore any limitations on density or intensity of use as set out in the 2007 Master Plan (as
amended), and specifically Condition 1(c) (never formally modified or eliminated). In this way,
Green Hills hopes to ignore any density/intensity use limitations such that over time, the
development of the number of earth interments can accumulate at Green Hills’ discretion without
any meaningful oversight by the City.
This prejudices Sharon Loveys, other Vista Verde condo owners, as well as the owners of
all properties which are adjacent to the cemetery. The stated purposes of the Master Plan when it
was created in 1991 and amended in 2007 still obtain and thus should be made to apply.
The City’s cemetery zoning law clearly states that Green Hills’ right to use the cemetery
property is not absolute (i.e. “by right”), it is “conditional” and is to be allowed only under the
auspices of a conditional use permit.
One of the conditions of the Master Plan incorporates a use limitation on the number of
earth interments to be permitted. Therefore, any evaluation of whether Green Hills has complied
with the conditions of the Master Plan requires a determination of the extent to which Green
Hills has limited the development of sub-areas identified as developable for earth interments to
the density and intensity levels contemplated under the Master Plan. If Green Hills wants to
modify any such caps on the density and intensity levels as they pertain to the number of earth
interments to be permitted, then Green Hills needs to formally apply to amend the Master Plan to
eliminate any caps or limits. To ignore the density and intensity limits is simply not right. It also
complicates things needlessly because in the absence of any caps or limits on the density or
intensity of the use of a given sub-area, any development of a particular sub-area would require a
site-specific work-up, including a CEQA component, and include a factual “Finding” mandated
F-10
by Section 17.28.030(H) of the City’s Cemetery Zoning Code that the proposed sub-area
development was “no more intensive” (i.e. no more dense or intense) that the existing permitted
(earth interment) use.
The whole purpose of the Master Plan was to provide Green Hills, the City, and the
adjacent property owners predictability and certainty with respect to the cemetery’s future use
and development, including the intensity and density of the intended uses (i.e. earth interments,
vault interments inside a mausoleum; or cinerary interments).
Consistent with that objective, before the City can declare Green Hills in compliance with
the Master Plan (as lawfully amended), the City needs to satisfy itself that the intensity and
density of development as to earth interments and as to vault interments inside each Mausoleum
(permitted) are in accord with the intensity and density limits of that which has already been
permitted.
Because the City has not done so; and because Green Hills refuses to provide the City
with the number of earth interments authorized, or the number of earth interments planned, or the
number of earth interments already developed (and in use), the City cannot and should not
“Find” that Green Hills is in compliance with the 2007 Green Hills Master Plan (as amended).
F-11