 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Phase 1, Village Walk |
Tarzana Elementary School Bridge |
Tarzana Community and Cultural Center |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phase 1, Village Walk |
Tarzana Elementary School Bridge |
Tarzana Community and Cultural Center |
|
Join TPOA Board Meeting Minutes
About Us About Tarzana Current Issues
Community Input
Links to Other Tarzana Organizations: Tarzana Neighborhood Council (TNC) Tarzana Community & Cultural Center (TCCC) Tarzana Residents Against Poor Property Development (TRAPPD) Woodland Hills/Tarzana Chamber of Commerce Federation of Hillside & Canyons Associations Los Angeles City Agencies: Building and Safety Code Enforcement ZIMAS (Zoning Information and Map Access) Miscellaneous Links: West Valley Occupational Center Archives Tarzana photo gallery Tarzana History Artifacts |
Recent TPOA Position Papers A list of all recent formal positions taken by the TPOA Board Mansionization position letter Update to Proposed Reduced Parking Ordinance Misguided Revisions to Parking Requirements 17634 W. Weddington Street, Encino
VENTURA/CAHUENGA SPECIFIC PLAN COALITION April 30, 2008 Councilmember Wendy Greuel Councilmember Jack Weiss Dear Council Members: For several months community leaders from the area of the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan (Plan) have been meeting to discuss the state of the Plan and have formed a coalition to address specific plan issues. It has come to our attention that Clear Channel intends to replace an existing billboard in on Ventura Blvd. in Encino with one that incorporates LED devices which are capable of rapidly changing the message on the billboard. The coalition is strongly opposed to the placement of such billboards within the Plan boundaries. Experience with similar billboards indicates that they have serious flaws, including distracting drivers and flooding neighboring homes with intense, rapidly changing light pollution. In addition, granting Clear Channel the right to replace the current billboard with an LED device will set a precedence for all billboards in the Plan corridor. We believe the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan already specifically precludes such billboards from the Plan area. Section 8, A 9 of the plan specifically states that “Signs having flashing, mechanical, strobe or blinking lights or moving parts” are prohibited. In addition, the Sign Manual of the Department of Building and Safety (Reference Number LABC Chapter 62; Document Number P/BC 2002-078; Revised 11/20/06) clearly calls out a number of illumination, safety, and modification provisions that would be violated. The Appendix to this letter contains pertinent material from the Sign manual. We call upon you, as councilpersons whose districts include portions of the Plan area, to adamantly oppose the proposed drastic change in the Clear Channel billboard in Encino. If our interpretation of the existing regulations precluding the proposed billboard is not correct, we ask you to introduce specific legislation prohibiting such billboards in the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan area. Very truly yours, David R. Garfinkle,
Priya Mehandale June 2, 2008 Subject: Response to Notice of Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration The Tarzana Property Owners strongly disagrees with the conclusions of the Initial Study and Checklist (the Checklist) for this project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is simply insufficient; a full Environmental Impact Report is required. The situation: The project is governed by both the Encino-Tarzana Community Plan and the Ventura-Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan. The project has a variety of zones on various parts of the property, including C2-1, (T)(Q)R3-1, R1-1, and R3-1. All have the height limit 1. As such, the property has maximum limits on various project parameters, such as FAR, height, lot coverage, and setbacks. Note that various portions of the property may have more restrictive requirements, consistent with the current zoning of those portions of the property. The applicant is requesting a number of zone changes and relief from the various parameters. The table summarizes the current restrictions and the applicant’s requested variances on several critical parameters.
Note that the “Max. Density/Intensity Allowed by Plan Designation” on page 6 of the Checklist is incorrect. The maximum current FAR for “mixed-use” within the Ventura-Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan (the Specific Plan) is 1.5. However, the project does not qualify as a mixed use as the definition (page 6 of the Specific Plan) requires at least 33% of the floor area to be commercial. The current proposed development is approximately 18-20% commercial. In summary, the applicant is requesting almost a doubling of the permitted FAR and a 60% increase in the maximum height. Specific pertinent areas of disagreement with the Initial Study and Checklist:
Summary: We have identified seven areas where the project has a potentially significant impact. In addition, the Initial Study and Checklist notes that an additional six areas that have a potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. Page 7 of the Checklist indicates: Thank you, David R. Garfinkle
Councilman Ed Reyes Subject: Sober Living Facilities The Tarzana Property Owners Association passed a motion at our May 11th meeting to strongly support efforts to regulate Sober Living Facilities. There are several in the community of Tarzana, including one at 6145 Melvin Avenue. Other facilities have proliferated throughout the City and have become a problem nationwide. Typically, the facilities house up to 20 young men in a single family house, with inadequate supervision. Judging by the facility on Melvin Avenue, there are frequent fights between the residents, excessive noise at all hours of the night, profanity easily overheard by neighboring children, public drinking and drunkedness, and litter. At the Melvin Avenue residence the cloud of smoke from cigarettes is often so thick that neighbors are unable to use their yards. It is our understanding that facilities of this sort (daycare, assisted living homes, Alzheimer’s care homes, etc.) are limited to six residents and that any accessory living quarters may only be occupied for limited periods. In addition, facilities that offer drug rehabilitation must operate under State license. Sober Living College, the parent organization of many of these facilities in the West Valley, advertises “Drug Rehab for Young Adults” at the Melvin Avenue facility on their website. Their accessory building has been continually occupied since the facility opened. We strongly urge PLUM to:
Thank you, David R. Garfinkle President, Tarzana Property Owners Association
December 30, 2007 Councilman Ed Reye Subject: Urgent Request for PLUM Action on the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance Councilman Reyes, as you clearly indicated at the December 18th PLUM meeting, it is time to stop introducing peripheral issues and move the proposed Baseline Mansionization Ordinance on to the full City Council for consideration and action on the issue. The proposed ordinance is a very necessary measure to limit the invasion of established neighborhoods by oversize houses that destroy the look and feel of the neighborhood and invade the privacy of neighbors. It evolved over the past 18 months as a result of unprecedented interaction between the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, the City Attorney’s office, homeowners groups, and architect and developer organizations. At your December 18th PLUM meeting (the third hearing on the issue) Betsy Weisman, the Principal City Planner involved with the project, gave an excellent summary of things to date, including an analysis that indicated only about 15% of the permits for new homes issued in 2005 (last year available) would not be buildable under the proposed ordinance. Almost 50 people spoke, and almost all of them expressed frustration with the delay. The two common themes were "this may not be perfect, but it provides a baseline which can be modified, if desired, for our specific community" and "we need some protection now". Many prior critics (both those who thought the proposed ordinance was too restrictive and those who thought it wasn't restrictive enough) joined the chorus of "we need something now!" However, the PLUM took no action. PLUM members simply:
We take your indication that you were closing public comment on the issue but would ask for a best effort initial financial impact estimate at the next PLUM meeting on January 8 as the only positive action to come out of the hearing. Your question about how soon it could go on the full Council calendar after that meeting certainly seems to indicate your willingness to send it forward. It’s time for the full PLUM Committee to adopt that stance and finally move the proposed ordinance forward. Very truly yours,
David R. Garfinkle Editor’s Note: The City Council Passed the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance on May 6; it went into effect on June 29th. See the details under Important Current Issues
Proposed City Ordinance to Implement SB1818 In 2004 California passed SB1818, a law to provide a bonus to developers who provide affordable housing units in their developments. Each jurisdiction within the state must provide an ordinance to implement the state law. The City Planning Department has proposed an implementing ordinance for the City of Los Angeles. That proposed ordinance was approved by the City Planning Commission and is currently making its way through the City Council approval process. The City’s proposed ordinance, however, goes far beyond what is mandated by SB1818. For example, a new condominium development under SB1818 would give a bonus of only 5% in the number of units permitted by local zoning regulations if and only if 10% of the total units are set aside for moderate income housing. But the City’s ordinance proposes a 20% bonus, four times that required for compliance with SB1818. In addition, the proposed ordinance does not even require that new projects provide the same number of affordable units that existed in a building demolished to make way for the new multiple housing project. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, current case-by-case implementation of SB1818 is likely to lead to ludicrous results under the City’s proposed ordinance.: For example the Times reported that an existing 31 unit rent controlled apartment building was demolished to make way for a 59 unit building which provided only 5 low income units. The end result: 31 existing affordable housing units were replaced by only 5 affordable units-- a net loss of 26 affordable housing units while yielding the developer a bonus of 16 market level units above the 43 units permitted by-right. Decreasing the number of affordable units from 31 to 5, while providing the developer a density bonus, just does not make sense let alone create good public housing policy. Under the guise of providing more affordable housing, Los Angeles will lose low income unit and relax existing zoning standards such as allowing reduced set backs and parking requirements. The loss of affordable housing will be particularly egregious in older established neighborhoods by demolishing affordable housing buildings and replacing them with denser development with far fewer affordable units while adding significantly to already serious traffic congestion and parking problems. While the City’s proposed ordinance does restrict the resale price of affordable housing units for 30 years with a recorded deed of trust, the bottom line is the City’s current version would significantly reduce the number of affordable housing units. In addition, this provision would require monitoring and enforcement, adding to the enforcement burden of City Departments. In addition to allowing higher density projects, the City is proposing height exceptions, increased Floor Area Ratios in multiple family residential zones, and bonus incentives to be applied in high fire hazard and flood zones as well as in Historic Preservation areas. The challenge before the City is to provide an intelligent ordinance for to encourage more affordable housing in compliance with SB1818. A number of modifications to the proposed ordinance have been made by Supervisor Zev Yaroslovsky and others. Among the changes proposed in order for a project to qualify for a by-right density bonus are:
The bottom line is that the City of Los Angeles should implement SB1818 in a reasonable manner. Other jurisdictions within California have done so; so should we. On December 10th The TPOA Board voted to support the proposed revisions to the City’s implementation of SB1818. Editor’s Note: The City passed the Density Bonus Ordinance (Ordinance 179681) implementing SB1818 despite vigorous opposition from many homeowners groups and similar organizations. TPOA has joined one of two suits to challenge the ordinance.
Update to Proposed Reduced Parking Ordinance What is the Proposal? For the last several months a proposal by the City Planning Department has been in the works to emasculate current parking requirements for new projects. The department and its apologists have taken the position that a carrot and stick approach is the only way to solve the current traffic gridlock in much of the city. The problem is that the carrots only go to developers while the general public gets the stick. Basically, the Department wants to extend a specific set of requirements for large Commercial and Industrial uses to all projects in all zones, including multiple residential housing. This ordinance would remove the maximum allowable parking reduction that can be requested (currently 40%) and would grant the reductions when “parking management alternatives” were provided. The “parking management alternatives” include such unworkable plans as bicycles for the residents/tenants and setting up van pool plans for the project. Metro transit riders would also be able to use the reduced project parking if the project was within 750 feet of a rail station. What are the serious flaws? The misguided Planning Department proposal is based on the false premise that public transportation provides a reasonable alternative to automobiles. While a number of transit-oriented multiple-family residential and commercial/industrial projects have recently been proposed, it is essential to keep in mind that Public transit must service both the trip origin and the trip destination. The existing public transit network in The proposed ordinance has several serious flaws and misleading assumptions including: · Granting reduced parking for a specific project would certainly result in the additional need for on street parking in the immediate area; additional on-street parking is simply not available in most parts of the city · Who is going to ensure that the outside person who parks in the project is going to take public transit; opening up on-site parking provided by a specific building to any casual user would certainly reduce the available on-site space reserved for the tenants of that building. What happens to buildings with security systems operating the parking entrances? · Allowing alternative uses such as providing car pool vehicles and bicycles on-site would be impossible to monitor and enforce, even if they were adequate alternatives to personal automotive transport. · As recently reported in Los Angeles Times and LA Weekly, residents of current transit oriented projects own cars, need to park them on-site, and rarely if ever use the public transportation.
The proposed amendment will greatly increase the parking congestion on already overcrowded streets, particularly in older established neighborhoods. As one presenter at a recent Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) hearing remarked, there are already areas of the city where people park on the sidewalks due to the lack of parking. So where are we now? On December 3rd the proposal was presented at the City Council Transportation Committee hearing. The public response was again heavily against the proposed ordinance. In fact, the ordinance was only one of several items on the agenda; the public response for each of the items was overwhelmingly against any plan that reduced parking. As an aside, an aide to one of the City Council people was heard to ask another “so, who’s for this anyway?” No action was taken on the proposed ordinance. So what do we need to do? Let your Council person know that your organization is against the proposed ordinance. Be prepared to oppose the ordinance when it comes before the full City Council.
December 28, 2007 Mr. Michael LoGrande, Chief Zoning Administrator Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: 18869 Pasadero Drive Building Permit 07020-20000-0265 Dear Mr. LoGrande, As we testified at the December 21st hearing, DIR 2007-5027(BSA), before Zoning Administrator Mr. Landini, the Tarzana Property Owners Association believes that the Department of Building and Safety erred in issuing a building permit for the lower deck in the referenced Building permit. The deck extends 20 feet into the rear setback, to within five feet of the rear property line. At that point the deck is well over six feet above the natural grade of the lot. According to Zoning Code Section 12.22C20(e), such porches can project or extend no more than six feet into the rear setback and can be no more than six feet above the natural grade of the lot. This deck clearly violates both of those provisions. A number of questions were raised at the hearing, including interpretation of Information Bulletins P/ZC 2001-0004 and P/ZC 2002-004. Each clearly states in Note A that such decks cannot extend more than five feet into the rear setback and cannot exceed six feet above the ground. A further question was raised as to the provisions for a tennis court, as those could be thought to apply in this case. The tennis court provisions are even more stringent. While they allow extension into the rear setback, they cannot be more than three feet above grade. Building and Safety clearly erred in issuing the permit. While not explicitly addressed at the hearing, the enormous, massive structure of the columns supporting the deck is more appropriate for a freeway overpass than for a deck in the rural RA zone. The Tarzana Property Owners Association supports Doctor and Mrs. Levine, in their appeal of this erroneous decision and asks that their appeal be granted and the permit for the deck revoked. Very truly yours, David R. Garfinkle Editor’s Note: TPOA joined the appeal to the City Planning Commission which overturned the issuance of the building permit.
Subject: Misguided Revisions to Parking Requirements We’ve all heard the mantra “build it and they will come”. Well, the Planning Department is working on another mantra “eliminate parking and people will junk their cars and take the bus”. Subdivision 17 of Subsection X of Section 12.24 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines the current City Of Los Angeles comprehensive, workable plan for parking requirements for projects. The Planning Department has proposed a misguided revision, based on a number of false premises and unrealistic expectations. Editor’s Note: Thankfully, this proposed ordinance seems to have dropped off the City’s roadmap. Public Transportation in Los Angeles is Inadequate The first false premise is that public transportation provides a reasonable alternative to automobiles. While a number of transit-oriented multiple-family residential and commercial/industrial projects have recently been proposed, it must be kept in mind that public transit must service both the trip origin and the trip destination. The public transit network in Los Angeles is simply not capable of fulfilling that requirement and is quite unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future. Extrapolation of Provisions for Large Commercial/Industrial Zones Makes Little Sense The proposed ordinance extends a specific set of requirements for large Commercial and Industrial uses to all projects in all zones. It has several other serious flaws including:
People Are Unlikely to Abandon Their Cars The proposed ordinance also ignores the fact, recently reported in Los Angeles Times and LA Weekly articles indicating that residents of current transit oriented projects own cars, need to park them on-site, and rarely if ever use the public transportation. The proposed amendment will greatly increase the parking congestion on already overcrowded streets, particularly in older established neighborhoods. As one presenter at the recent PLUM hearing remarked, there are already areas of the city where people park on the sidewalks due to the lack of parking. Reducing Parking Requirements Will Not Increase Affordable Housing The point was made at the PLUM hearing that reducing the parking requirement would reduce the cost of the building and thus increase affordable housing. How many people really think the costs savings would be passed on to tenants or buyers, rather than just adding to the developer’s bottom line! If this is a serious concern, the City should include a binding provision that the $40,000 or $25,000 cost of providing a parking space (both estimates have been recently cited) be subtracted from the purchase price of any buyer attesting that they do not need one and agreeing to have that provision recorded on their deed. Similarly, provide a reduction in rent of $250-$300 a month to a tenant who similarly attests. Of course, such provisions would need to be enforced, greatly increasing the burden on City Enforcement. Summary We strongly urge the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance. The public input at the PLUM hearing was quite clear: unanimously against the proposed ordinance. It will not alleviate parking problems, it will exacerbate them. It will not result in more affordable housing. In fact, in most of the City buyers and renters would turn down a residence where they do not have assured parking. Los Angeles is not New York City. Until adequate public transit exists, linking trip origins and trip destinations, such an ordinance is entirely counter to the public welfare. Thank you for your consideration. David R. Garfinkle
17634 W. Weddington Street, Encino: September 24, 2007 City Planning Department The Tarzana Property Owners opposes the request by Athena Novak for a zone change from RA-1 to RD1.5-1 on the subject property and passed a motion to that effect at our September 11th board meeting. The property is a very well kept single family home (Figure 1) on a large RA lot, surrounded on both sides and across the street by similar well kept single family homes on similar lots (Figure 2). Although the Encino-Tarzana Community Plan indicates that a Restricted Density Multiple Dwelling zone may be allowed on the parcel, we believe this application is a misinterpretation of the intent of the Plan for several reasons: All current multiple family residential development in the immediate area fronts on White Oak Avenue. This parcel is an interior parcel, separated from White Oak by an intervening parcel (Figure 3). It is reasonable to assume that the purpose of the Plan is to allow continuity of multiple family residential development on White Oak, designated a major highway on the Community Plan, rather than on Weddington, designated a local street. Granting the change would be against the Community Plan policy. Policy 1-1.3 states: “Protect existing single-family and low density residential neighborhoods from encroachment by higher density residential and other incompatible uses.” The single family residences on Weddington and a large area to the east of the subject property are well established, well maintained, low density single family neighborhoods. Granting the change for the subject property would have a very detrimental effect on adjacent and near-by properties by introducing a multiple family development in the middle of a stable, primarily single story, single family residential area. We are concerned that granting the zone change would establish a very detrimental precedent, not only in Encino, but in the entire Encino-Tarzana Community area. Since the Community Plan was adopted (and last modified in 1998), there have been substantial changes in the community and in the entire city of Los Angeles. In recognition of those changes, the Planning Department is in the process of reviewing all community plans. We suggest that rezoning of the subject property be denied until the Encino-Tarzana Community Plan is reviewed and revised to reflect current conditions. Thank you for your consideration. David R. GarfinklePresident, Tarzana Property Owners Association Editor’s Note: The zoning Administrator ruled against the requested rezoning.
July 28, 2007 Jane Ellison Usher, President Subject: Support for the Village Walk Project in Tarzana The Tarzana Property Owners Association desires to go on record in support of the Village Walk project, at the corner of Mr. Gordon and his associates gave a detailed presentation of the project in April to our The developer has shown exceptional willingness to tailor the project to mitigate construction activities such as the haul route specifics, and to accommodate traffic flow, provide adequate parking, provide a smooth transition between the project and its neighbors, and to emphasize the aesthetics as well as the practicality of the design. We believe the commercial portion of the property will help initiate a significant upgrade of the entire two mile portion of Very truly yours, David R. Garfinkle cc. Dennis P. Zine, Councilman 3rd District Editor’s Note: Phase 2 of the Village Walk project is currently under construction.
July 28, 2007 Planning and Land Use Management Committee Los Angeles, California Subject: 07-2991 CPC-2007-2216 CA The Tarzana Property Owners Association desires to go on record in strong opposition to the proposed revision of Subdivision 17 of Subsection X of Section 12.24 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code concerned with a reduction in parking requirements. The City Of Los Angeles currently has a comprehensive, workable plan for parking requirements for projects. The proposed revision is based on the false premise that public transportation provides a reasonable alternative to automobiles. While a number of transit-oriented multiple-family residential and commercial/industrial projects have recently been proposed, it must be kept in mind that public transit must service both the trip origin and the trip destination. The public transit network in Los Angeles is simply not capable of fulfilling that requirement and is quite unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future. The proposed ordinance extends a specific set of requirements for large Commercial and Industrial uses to all projects in zones. It has several other serious flaws including:
We further draw your attention to the recent Los Angeles Times and LA Weekly articles indicating that residents of current transit oriented projects own cars, need to park them on-site, and rarely if ever use the public transportation. Very truly yours, David R. Garfinkle Cc. Dennis P. Zine, Councilman 3rd District Editor’s Note: Thankfully, this proposed ordinance seems to have dropped off the City’s roadmap. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
