Laserfiche WebLink
Prin: <br />Subject: <br />From: <br />To: <br />Date: <br />here it is <br />Nad Gv (nvgeorg(§ <br />sharon.loveys @ yahoo. com; <br />Tuesday, September 11, 2018 4:22 PM <br />�\�` ' v, ► 9/17/18, 9:26 AM <br />AGENDA ITEM: PU5%%r- C®,m,M1,c-+ <br />RECEIVED FROM: <br />LADIPC <br />AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD AT THE <br />COUNCIL MEETING OF: <br />OFFIG9 9F THI1= 0Il`Y QLL1RK <br />I'm sending this to So Kim, I believe this part is what you probably won't be able to present tonight <br />Dear commissioners, <br />As I'm traveling and cannot be present at the tonight's meeting, I would like to express my concerns about <br />GH in the late correspondence. <br />We need clarity on what are going to be developed and intensity and density in the undeveloped areas of GH <br />memorial park. <br />It would be really helpful to avoid future problems if the City Planning Commission creates an agenda item <br />for its next meeting on the need for the Commission to request an "Interpretation Review" of the Planning <br />Department on this question of how "density and intensity" of use can be measured when there is no baseline <br />to determine what is adequate or permissible, and when the Green Hills Master Plan is merely advisory. <br />How can this be when other specified conditions require that the Planning Department determine whether a <br />proposed "development" is in substantial compliance with the Master Plan. <br />I want to point out that what is happening with Area 4 development is reflective again of a "pattern and <br />practice" by Green Hills and the City to ignore the imposition of any meaningful limits on the Cemetery's <br />future development. Green Hills wants to develop as it pleases with minimal input from the surrounding <br />community. The City's zoning and development code is supposed to fairly reconcile the conflicting interests <br />of all sides. What the City is doing is favoring Green Hills over the adjacent property owners. <br />The situation with Area 4 is an example of Green Hills' strategy of "Do First, Ask For Forgiveness Later. <br />There is a clear pattern and practice being exhibited by Green Hills where they seem to record Interment <br />Plots they do not have the right to sell because the City has never issued a (conditional use) "permit" allowing <br />for the existence or use of these Interment Plots. The reason is obvious. We cannot have people buying <br />undeveloped property, subdividing the property (that would include subdividing the air space for condos... <br />when one buys a condo, one is purchasing subdivided air space, together with a "joint" interest in the <br />common areas), and then selling each subdivision unilaterally without proper government controls as to <br />whether the property, so subdivided, is lawfully subject to sale. <br />If Green Hills can develop the Alta Vista open space with just a grading permit, then Green Hills can argue <br />that it can develop any area of the cemetery with just a grading permit. This is absurd. The whole purpose of <br />a the Master Plan is to control future development and give adjoining property owners the ability to know, <br />understand, and rely on future development patterns of the cemetery. This objective cannot be achieved when <br />the City authorizes new development simply by issuing grading permits alone when there has been no formal <br />amendment to the existing conditional use permit. In short, the adjoining RPV property owners are being <br />completely conned. <br />about blank Page 1 of 2 <br />