Zoning Information

 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
>
> Proposed Amendment       All Council Districts
> Los Angeles Municipal Code
> City Plan Case Number 2000-4247 CA
>
> The City Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing regarding a
> proposed ordinance that amends Subsection U of Section 12.24 of the
> Municipal Code regulating retail establishments in excess of 100,000
square
> feet in size and devote more than 10% of sales floor area to the sale of
> non-taxable merchandise  known as Superstores within each Economic
> Assistance Areas of the City and within a one-mile buffer of each Economic
> Assistance Area.
>
>  Date and Time: Thursday, June 24, 2004 after 10:00 a.m.
>  Location:  Constituent Service Center
>     6262 Van Nuys, Boulevard, 1st Floor
>     Van Nuys, CA 91401
>
> The City Planning Commission invites your testimony or written comments.
> Written communications should be received in the City Planning Commission
> Office as soon as possible. In order that all viewpoints may be presented,
> speakers at the hearing may be limited in the length of their
presentations.
> Because of time constraints and to minimize repetition, the Commission
> encourages presentations by representatives of organized groups in lieu of
> many individual speakers. Since this is one of several matters to be
> considered, the exact time depends on the Commission's schedule.
>
> If you challenge this matter in court, you may be limited to those issues
> you or someone else raised at the public hearing described here, or in
> written correspondence on the matter delivered to this agency at or prior
to
> the public hearing.
> The complete file is available for public inspection in the City Planning
> Commission Office, Room 532, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA.
> Copies of the staff report are available on the Internet at
> http://www.lacity.org/PLN/ordinancesnrpts.htm and upon request: Code
Studies
> Unit, Department of City Planning, Room 763, 7th Floor, 200 North Spring
> Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601. Telephone: (213) 978-1310.
>
> Written communications may be mailed to:
>
> Los Angeles City Planning Commission, Room 532, 200 N. Spring Street, Los
> Angeles, CA 90012-2601. While all written communications are given to the
> Commission, the initial packets are sent the week prior to the
Commission's
> meeting date. However, all communications received before, and at the
> meeting, will be considered by the Commission.
>
> As a covered entity under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act,
> the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability,
> and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal
> access to its programs, services and activities. The meeting facility and
> its parking are wheelchair accessible. Sign language interpreters,
assistive
> listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or other services may be
> provided upon request. To ensure availability of services, please make
your
> request not later than three working days (72 hours) prior to the meeting
by
> calling the staff person referenced in this notice.
>
> For additional information, please contact: Code Studies Unit, Department
of
> City Planning, (213) 978-1310.
>
> ********
>
> Los Angeles Daily News - May 24, 2004
>
> Officials ponder zoning for reduce home prices
>
> By Ryan Oliver
> Staff Writer
>
> With the average price of a single-family home near a half-million dollars
> in the San Fernando Valley, four City Council members told a group of
> Realtors on Monday they are committed to expanding home ownership
> opportunities.
>
> The meeting with the Southland Regional Association of Realtors in Van
Nuys
> came as the group expressed concern about a proposed zoning ordinance
being
> debated by the Los Angeles City Council.
>
> The proposed law would require developers to allocate a certain number of
> units in each project for sale to low-income buyers.
>
> "I will be honest and upfront. I will say that I have been consistently
> supporting some type of inclusionary zoning," said City Council President
> Alex Padilla. "In concept I, for one, do believe it can work."
>
> Padilla said some answers are needed, including the minimum size of the
> development to which the law would apply and the number or percentage of
> units to be set aside. He said there also would have to be a definition of
> "low-income" under the law.
>
> The Realtors group opposes such zoning, stating that it would stop many
> developers from building in Los Angeles altogether and further increase
home
> costs for most buyers.
>
> The group also argues that the requirement would increase population
> density -- more homes on limited land -- and bring more multiple-unit
> buildings into single-family neighborhoods.
>
> Councilman Tony Cardenas said allowing for higher-density developments
gives
> builders incentive to favor zoning for affordable housing.
>
> Councilman Dennis Zine said he has not yet taken a position on the matter.
> "My focus is to maintain quality of life in a community," he said.
>
> Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said she remains committed to reducing the
housing
> shortage while minimizing the impact on communities.
>
> Ryan Oliver, (818) 713-3669 ryan.oliver@dailynews.com
>
> Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Daily News
>
> ********
>
> Los Angeles Daily News - May 26, 2004
>
> Overcrowding, not housing
> Re "Officials ponder zoning to reduce home prices" (May 25):
>
> Home prices are high, but changing the zoning and requiring developers to
> produce a percentage of "low-income" housing for each project is not going
> to help. Focus on the real problem: overcrowding.
>
> Increasing population density at a time when we barely move on the
freeways
> is, well, dense. If a nightclub or restaurant is full you don't look for
> ways to jam more people into the same space. It's unsafe and diminishes
the
> quality of the experience. So too with housing. Alex Padilla and Tony
> Cardenas should start thinking about the future of this city instead of
> their political futures.
>
> Michael McNamara
> Sylmar
>
> Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Daily News
>
> ********
>
> [RESPONSES TO #21 PLANNING ISSUES DEBATE]
>
> Friday, May 14, 2004 3:27 PM
>
> May 14, 2004
>
> Director of Planning Con Howe
> City of Los Angeles
>
> This is a request for information pursuant to the State of California
Public
> Records Act
> Re inclusionary zoning/density bonuses.
>
> Density bonuses have been part of the LA zoning scheme for some time. For
> example, more than 15 years ago, a large apartment project was approved
for
> Valley Village with a density bonus requirement for low and moderate
income.
> That project triggered off the process that lead to a Specific Plan.  It's
> never been confirmed that the building today provides set asides for
density
> bonus affordable housing.
>
> Please also provide information on how the City of Los Angels enforces and
> monitors the granting of density bonuses to insure the units remain
> affordable housing.  Does the City maintain a log of building locations,
no.
> of units, income level criteria and an audit trail to confirm such lower
> income bonus units are in fact rented as affordable housing?  This request
> for information is to examine such records.  Please advise where they are
> maintained and how I may access them.
>
> Thank you,
> Tom Paterson
> Land Use Committee
> NC Valley Village
> tpaters@aol.com or
> hwpoa@aol.com
>
> CC: Network
>
> ******
>
> Friday, May 14, 2004 5:05 PM
>
> Mr. Silver of Encino,
>
> I do not believe we have met. I appreciated receiving your words on
> inclusionary zoning. As this is such an important and timely issue in City
> council right now, I did some homework. This is what I gathered from those
> with years of experience in response to your letter.
>
> In hopes we meet face to face at the neighborhood congress, or some other
> gathering,
>
> TM
>
> ____
>
> In response to the points you made in your letter May10, 2004
>
> 1. Of the 5 FOR-PROFIT developers who spoke on Inclusionary Zoning on
> October 22, 2003 at a City Hall hearing, FOUR supported this. All 5
> noted that the primary result of Inclusionary Zoning is that it will
reduce
> land values - not profits. Even the fifth of these developers noted that
> in Pasadena, land values have declined since their ordinance took
> effect. IZ does not, as asserted, "raise the cost of development".
>
> 2. In the more than 100 cities and counties nationwide where Inclusionary
> Zoning is in effect currently, not one has shown a decline in development.
> Not one. (If those who make economic arguments wish to point out where
this
> *ISN'T* working - that would be concrete evidence, rather than scare
tactics
> or ad hominem debate. I think we all agree here)
>
> 3. Inclusionary Zoning is NOT low income housing. This will do very little
> to help the poor. It's expected that the income range of persons who will
> benefit from IZ will be 50-80% of the Area Median Income: in effect,
single
> persons earning between $19-30,000/year; families of 4 earning between
> $27-44,000/year. (WHERE WILL YOUR CHILDREN LIVE?)
>
> 4. The notion that "adding low income housing will cause more population"
> shows the overall flawed reasoning of the person arguing. The population
of
> the county is growing by 830+ people every day. More than 70% of that
> increase is births from people already here. Where do you homeowners of
> Encino who oppose this suggest that these people - some of them their very
> own children - live?
>
> THIS WORKS ELSEWHERE - MANY PLACES - AND HAS NOT BEEN
> SHOWN TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT.
>
> THIS IS NOT A PROGRAM FOR THE POOR. IT'S FOR MIDDLE CLASS
> KIDS WHO GO TO UCLA AND THEN WANT TO FIND A PLACE TO
> LIVE AFTER (or even during) COLLEGE.WHERE DO OPPONENTS OF INCLUSIONARY
> ZONING SUGGEST THAT THOSE WHO GRADUATE
> WITH $28,000/YEAR JOBS GO TO LIVE?
>
> These are the responses I received to my inquiry regarding the 'warning'
on
> Inclusionary zoning you sent out. I invite more dialogue as I am most
> interested in a wise, civil, working plan surround housing needs in our
> city.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> TM
>
> ********
>
> Saturday, May 15, 2004 12:03 AM
>
> Gerald:
>
> We just wrote a letter to Councilman Tom LaBonge in opposition to the
> inclusionary zoning ordinance. There is much we don't like about it but
the
> most glaring is the reduction in parking! When will the City Council give
up
> the ghost of "everyone will take public transportation?".  If this
ordinance
> is for middle income (cops, teachers, etc.) they all have cars and drive!
> There is also the matter of enforcement. Who will monitor every project to
> make sure those units stay "low income"? The biggest problem we face in
our
> area is getting developers to comply with the conditions attached to their
> projects. How many times do developers tell the community they will do all
> kinds of things to get support for their CUP's? We are still waiting and
it
> is up to us to police the projects. Anyway I was glad someone sent your
> letter to me.
>
> JO
>
> ********
>
> Monday, May 17, 2004 7:15 PM
>
> Hello Gerald -
>
> Good points on your rebuttal to inclusionary zoning.  While those I
received
> your e-mail from do not agree with you, I do.  My name is ... I'm the head
> of the ... Planning and Land Use Committee as well as an urban planner.
> While the ... has NOT yet taken a position on the Inclusionary Zoning, we
> are concerned ... and personally, I am opposed to IZ.
>
> The bottom line is Inclusionary Zoning guts local zoning codes ...   I'd
> just like to suggest that you embellish your point #11 ...  An illogical
> component of IZ is the claim that since the units will be on a major
> transportation corridor and although the residents will be of a lower
> income, they're still working people (and we all know that they will have
> cars), so that a reduction in required parking will greatly burden the
> adjacent residents.
>
> I'm glad to see there are others that are opposed (and vocal) regarding
the
> Inclusionary Zoning!
>
> Thanks,
>
> JC
>
> ********
>
> If you would like to share you opinion with others, please email to:
>
>      gsilver@sprintmail.com
>
> ********
>
> If after reading the above, you may wish to send your opinion to the
> following:
>
> (You may cut and paste these addresses directly to your emails.)
>
> "Councilwoman Janice Hahn" <hahn@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Tony Cardenas" <cardenas@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Tom LaBonge" <tlabonge@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa" <villaraigosa@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Alex Padilla" <apadilla@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilwoman Jan Perry" <jperry@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Ed Reyes" <ereyes@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Bernard Parks" <parks@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Eric Garcetti" <garcetti@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Greig Smith" <smith@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Martin Ludlow" <ludlow@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Jack Weiss" <weiss@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilman Dennis Zine" <zine@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilwoman Wendy Greuel" <greuel@council.lacity.org>,
> "Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski" <miscikowski@council.lacityorg>,
> "James Hahn - Mayor" <jhahn@mayor.lacity.org>,
> "Jennifer Stein - Hahn Valley Deputy" <jstein@mayor.lacity.org>,
> "Con Howe - LA City Planning Director" <chowe@planning.lacity.org>
> "Greg Nelson-LA City DONE" <gnelson@mailbox.lacity.org>
>
>
***************************************************************************
>
> **NOTICE:  In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.**
>
> If you would like to be removed from this email list, please contact:
>
>     gsilver@sprintmail.com
>
> Thank you
>