Note: This is an extensive email, dealing exclusively with the proposed VBS expansion. HOME is in the process of taking a position on this project.
To: Members of Homeowners of Encino
and Encino Residents
From: Gerald A. Silver,
Pres. Homeowners of Encino
VALLEY BETH SHALOM (VBS) PLANS MAJOR EXPANSION --
NEW 3 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE ON MOORPARK
EXPANDED FACILITIES, NEW CLASSROOMS
This email provides extensive information regarding this major, controversial project. With this email, HOME begins soliciting public comments concerning the impacts of this project on residents.
View of current VBS site at Ventura Blvd. and Densmore:
VBS Plot Plan:
View of proposed three level parking structure on Moorpark:
Excerpts from VBS Master Land Use Plan Permit Application 9/29/2008:
(For full details, see cases: CPC 2008 3937 CU-ZV-SPR-SPP-SPA,
ENV 2007-5578)
Valley Beth Shalom
5739 Ventura Blvd. Environmental Assessment Form Exhibit "A"
ENV 2007-5578
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Valley Beth Shalom Synagogue, the project Applicant ("VBS" or "Applicant"), proposes to improve its existing worship, educational and parking facilities located at 15739 Ventura Boulevard in the Encino-Tarzana Community Plan Area of the City of Los Angeles (the "Project Site"). The proposed improvements are included within the Master Plan for the Synagogue, the intention of which is to address the existing and future needs of the congregation. Generally, the Master Plan contains additions to and renovations of the existing buildings, demolition of three buildings, construction of four new replacement buildings, and increased parking with a new multi-level parking garage. The existing facility has a floor area of 115,402 gross square feet. A total of 27,067 square feet of building area is to be removed. The new construction will add 123,197 square feet of new building area and the result will be a total area of approximately 211,532 gross square feet.
The Applicant's proposed improvements to its religious and related social, educational and parking facilities are described below.
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL
The Applicant's religious and related uses were originally approved pursuant to a 1956 Conditional Use approval (City Plan Case No. 7691). The religious space has been expanded since 1956 to accommodate the growth of the congregation. Currently, the religious activity takes place in the 472-seat Sanctuary as well as the Winer Chapel, and the Glaser Social Hall space adjacent to the Sanctuary for special services. The enclosed current site plan shows these existing structures and uses. See A-1.02. To meet the growing needs of the congregation, the Applicant proposes the expansion described below.
Sanctuary Renovation
The Applicant proposes to renovate and enhance the existing Sanctuary and adjacent Glaser Social Hall. The proposed improvements to the worship space include: complete replacement of the existing floor, new wall and ceiling finishes, new restroom and storage below the Bimah, replacement of the stained glass windows and the south wall of the building, the addition of skylights, new roof covering, balcony seating, replacement of the existing moveable partitions, new, high-efficiency mechanical HVAC system, electrical system, and lighting. The existing 472 fixed seats will be replaced and 216 new fixed seats will be added for a total of 688 fixed seats for regular services, and 382 retractable fixed seats will be added to the adjacent Glaser Social Hall for special services on High Holy Days, which occur on four days a year.
New Social Hall Building
The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Malkin Hall, Burdorf Hall, Winer Chapel, and the Sandler Education Building; and a new three level Social Hall ~building (45,715 SF) will be constructed on the cleared area. The New Social Hall Building will include: a social hall (10,000 SF), , meeting rooms (2,900 SF), library (6,600 SF), and kitchen, storage, and support areas. The total height of the Social Hall Building will be 45' above grade. The space between the Sanctuary and the Social Hall Building will be enclosed and form the Community Court Building (12,386 SF), which will contain the New Chapel (1,740 SF) with 150 fixed seats and community gathering place. There will be a landscaped Community Court Garden along Ventura Boulevard. The total '!eight of the Community Court building will be 43' above grade
Misc. Religious
The Applicant also proposes a new trellis above the Peskin Outdoor Chapel, and a new ramp and stair to improve accessibility at the main Synagogue entry.
EDUCATIONAL
Related to its religious use, the Applicant operates an infant toddler program, nursery school, K-6 day school, and Hebrew School at the Site.
Nursery School
The Applicant currently operates a nursery school/infant and toddler program at the Site. Pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit granted in 1987 (Case No. ZA 87-0247) (the "1987 CUP"), the enrollment of nursery school and toddler students is capped at 240 (96 infant toddler and 144 nursery school). However, no more than 200 students are allowed in the day care portion at any one time. The nursery school hours of operation are described on the enclosed chart. See Schedule. The nursery school is currently located at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the enclosed site plan. See A-1.02. The Applicant also operates an infant and toddler program which currently operates at the times described on the enclosed chart. See Schedule.
The Applicant proposes expanding the total enrollment for the nursery school and toddler/infant program to 348, with the nursery school enrollment expanded to a maximum of 255. In order to accommodate the additional students, the Applicant proposes expanding its facilities as described below.
Two Story Nursery School Addition
The existing Ross Nursery Playground outdoor play area and part of the Reznik Parking Lot on the north side of the Synagogue will be cleared. The work includes the construction of a permanent two story classroom and office addition to the north side of the existing school building. There will be six new classrooms in this building and the total height of this addition will be 28' above grade.
Single Story Nursery School Addition, Entry Court
The existing VBS owned residence at 4754 Densmore will be demolished. A four-classroom single-story building will be constructed on partly on this lot and on the north side of the site opposite the main entry to the Synagogue. The four classroom building will have a total height of 14' above grade. The work includes: a play area for the nursery school, a landscaped Entry Court with accessible parking and a passenger loading area.
Option - Modular Classrooms, Play Area, and Parking
In the event funding is not in place to construct the two-story Nursery School Addition, the Applicant proposes constructing four new classrooms (two modular units) on the play space and part of the Reznik Parking Lot, located north of the existing school. Following the installation of the first two modular units the existing VBS owned residence at 4754 Densmore will be demolished and four classrooms (two modular units) will be constructed on the cleared lot. The proposed site improvements will include: a perimeter security fence, playground surface and equipment, parking lot, and landscape screening. When funding becomes available, the classrooms will be removed for the construction of the permanent Two Story Nursery School Addition described above.
Day School
Pursuant to the 1987 CUP, the Applicant operates a K-6 day school at the site with a maximum enrollment of 420 students. As shown on the enclosed site plan, day school instruction currently takes place at the Sandler Education Building. The Applicant proposes expanding the day school enrollment to 462 students.
After day school instruction ends, the Applicant operates a Hebrew School at the day school classrooms at the Site on certain days of the week. The 1987 CUP allows for enrollment of 400 students at the Hebrew School. Due to increased demand, the Applicant proposes expanding the Hebrew School enrollment to 750 students with a proposed maximum of 300 students allowed on campus at anyone time. The current schedule for the day school and Hebrew School is described on the enclosed chart. See Schedule.
To accommodate the proposed day school expansion, the Applicant proposes improving the Site as described below.
Day School Building
The Applicant proposes clearing the existing area used for the Ventura parking and playground in preparation for the new four story Education Classroom and Multi-Purpose Room Building. The roof of the multi-purpose room will include a roof top play deck. There will be fifteen new classrooms and eight rooms for specialized instruction on four floors and the total height of this addition will be 48' above grade. The total height for the Multi-Purpose Room Building will be 40' from grade to the protective canopies at the play deck at Ventura Boulevard. As shown on the enclosed plans, a landscaped courtyard and outdoor play area will be constructed between the New Day School Building and the proposed New Social Hall Building.
Day School Administration Building
The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Sandler Education Building to make room for the new two-story Day School Administration Building that will link the new Day School to the Social Hall Building and the existing Day School. The roof of the administration building will include a roof top play deck. The total height of the Day School administration Building will be 34' from grade to the top of the perimeter mesh enclosure at the play deck.
Administrative Office Expansion
The existing administrative office area on the second floor of the Synagogue will be renovated and expanded over the single story part of the building. Access to this area will be from the entry on the north side of the building and from the Community Court Building on the south side.
PARKING
Sinder Parking Garage
The Applicant proposes constructing a new 496 space three level parking garage to replace the 286 space Sinder Parking Lot. The current Sinder Parking Lot operates pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit granted in 1986 (Case No. ZA 85-1213-CUZ).
The proposed parking garage will be constructed in the space behind the existing screen wall and landscaped front yard on Moorpark Street. The structure will have one subterranean parking level, grade level parking with access from Densmore and Gloria Streets, and an elevated parking level. The structure will have a landscaped roof deck over part of the structure suitable for the student play space and picnic area. The roof deck will also be able to accommodate overflow parking for approximately 82 vehicles, bringing the total capacity of the new parking lot to 578.
There will be multiple stair towers and an elevator for vertical circulation. The design will incorporate an accessible pedestrian ramp to the roof play deck and accessible toilet facilities. There will be eleven accessible parking spaces on the ground level. In addition to intensive landscaping the facility will have decorative screening designed to accommodate climbing plants on the street facing elevations The total height of the structure will be 33' from grade to the top of the perimeter fence at the roof play deck.
DESCRIPTION OF NECESSARY ENTITLEMENTS
All requests to be heard by the City Planning Commission as the initial decision maker and the City Council as the appellate body pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.36.E.
Religious and Social
Social Hall Building
Project Permit Compliance, pursuant to LAMC Section 11.5.7
Educational
Two Story Nursery School Addition
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24.W.51, to permit a nursery school use in the R3-1 and R1-1 Zones
Option - Modular Classrooms
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24.U.24 (b), to permit a private school use in the R3-1 and R1-1 Zones
Day School Building
Project Permit Compliance, pursuant to LAMC Section 11.5.7 C
Project Permit Adjustment pursuant to LAMC Section 11.5.7.E.2 to permit a height of 48' in lieu of the 45' allowed in the Ventura Specific Plan area.
Administrative Office Expansion
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24.U.24 (b), to permit an administrative office associated with a private school use in the CR4-1 and R3-1 Zones
Day School Administration Building
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24.U.24 (b), to permit a private school use n the C4-11 and R3-1 Zones
Four Classroom Building
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24.U.24 (b), to permit a private school use in the R3-1 Zone
Parking
Sinder Parking Garage
Zone Variance, pursuant to LAMC Section 12.27, to permit a parking garage use which includes a student play/picnic area on the upper lever in the RE9-1 Zone, as not otherwise allowed by LAMC Section 12.07.01 (A)
Other
Site Plan Review, pursuant to LAMC section 16.05-D.2, Site Plan Review approval for the Proposed Project.
****
HOMEOWNERS OF ENCINO, AND THE PROCESS OF ADDRESSING THE VALLEY BETH SHALOM (VBS) EXPANSION ISSUE
HOME supports a fair and deliberative process when it comes to issues of expansion and development that affect Encino residents. HOME is a non-profit 501(c4) organization supported entirely by paid resident memberships. HOME's mission is to preserve the single-family habitability of residents living in Encino. To carry out this mission, the Board of HOME considers matters of development and expansion carefully.
Expansion of schools, churches, temples, hospitals and the like, often involve controversial issues that have great impact on nearby residents, as well as the broader community. Noise, congestion, parking, traffic, lighting, etc., are only a few of the impacts that residents living near these community assets experience. In an ideal world, residents would work closely with these institutions and reach common agreement. Negotiation, compromise, mutual respect and understanding is the better course than confrontation.
Homeowners of Encino will be taking a position with regards to the VBS expansion soon. For the present, HOME is soliciting as many comments and written input from Encino residents as possible. We want to hear from you regarding the positive or negative impacts of VBS expansion on your home, and community. HOME will then circulate these comments to its Board, elected officials and others. After obtaining more feedback, HOME will then take a firm position on this matter. HOME intends to articulate our official views at key City Planning hearings on this matter.
HOME believes that residents need time to work with VBS, and to organize community interests, and thus no action should be take by the Encino Neighborhood Council (ENC)until affected residents and VBS have had an opportunity to work together.
This email begins our sharing of comments with our Board, elected officials and Encino residents. We encourage residents to write and express their views and concerns. All comments will be carefully reviewed by the HOME Board.
****
LETTERS AND COMMENTS
Friday, January 02, 2009 6:42 PM
Dear [Encino Planning & Land Use (PLU) Committee]:
We are writing to report that the majority of neighbors adjacent to VBS property who are in dispute with VBS over its expansion plans met on December 30, 2008 regarding finding our consensus position on the dispute. Those neighbors not in attendance gave me their proxy to discuss the matter before VBS, PLU and other bodies and help frame a path forward for the homeowners.
We discussed the matter in detail as well as our options. We decided in the end that owing to the complexity of the matter, VBS’s aggressive posture towards homeowners thus far and most importantly, the fact that VBS has an attorney representing them against the homeowners, that we affected homeowners will retain counsel to represent us as a class going forward in opposition to the expansion. We expect to retain counsel shortly.
Therefore, we will not meet with VBS before counsel is retained, nor before your January 8 meeting. We have requested several times in writing that VBS be taken off the agenda for this meeting and have not yet received written confirmation that this action will be taken. We would be astonished not to have the PLU confirm this, since they acted decisively to take the matter off the agenda out of respect for VBS when the homeowners were represented at a PLU meeting this fall and VBS did not have a representative present.
Second, we as residents have new concerns with the PLU’s handling of this matter. Two members have already stated their support of the VBS expansion to homeowners. We ask that the PLU membership determine if any members have a conflict of interest or any other professional or personal issue which they would feel might compromise their objectivity in voting on this matter. If so we expect them to reveal it and then recuse themselves from voting on the issue.
Finally, we will also be sending the PLU and ENC a formal letter declaring our opposition to the VBS expansion to be entered into the record.
Please write or call me with your reply to this email.
Sincerely,
HE
Encino
****
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:24 PM
To: HE
I am recovering from surgery or else I would have responded earlier to the numerous emails that have been sent to the ENC concerning the pending VBS planning case.
First and foremost, I want to assure you and the other neighbors adjacent to the VBS property that the ENC Board and I believe the members of our Planning & Land Use Committee remain objective and without any conflict of interest with regard to this matter. In order to protect the integrity of our process and provide more time for you and other adjacent neighbors to retain legal counsel and hopefully have further discussions with VBS representatives, I have asked that the PLU Committee not take any vote on this matter at its January 8th meeting. Diane Rosen, PLU Chair is in agreement with this approach.
Second, Diane has properly urged you and other neighbors to meet with VBS in an effort to try and work out your differences. Her efforts are not based on any conflict of interest but rather several realities that all of us involved with neighborhood councils, homeowner associations and other resident groups have to face all across this City with great frequency.
Legally, any experienced land use attorney will acknowledge, the hands of City officials are severely tied by federal law when they try to regulate religious institutions - including those in residentially zoned areas. Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) passed by Congress in 2000, the power of cities to use their zoning powers to deny or impose burdens on religious institutions has been severely weakened. Though there are still pending cases going through the federal courts, I can personally tell you that in the City of LA, I am not aware of any proposed expansion of religious institutions or facilities (including accessory uses for parking, etc.) that have been denied in the past 5-8 years.
As a land use attorney who regularly represents neighborhood residents in these type of cases involving churches and temples, I know first hand the difficulty - both legally and politically - of fighting such proposals. In addition to RLUIPA's restrictions on the zoning power of cities in these cases, here you have the City Councilman for the area that is also in support of VBS requests. And that reality is that such support is always the decisive factor when it comes to final decisions by the City Council. So again, Diane's comments are based on these realities rather than any conflict of interest. To my knowledge, neither she or anyone else on the PLU is affiliated with VBS. Nor does Diane or anyone else to my knowledge have any financial interest in the outcome of the case.
Third, there are 21 voting members of the ENC of which only 5 are voting members of the PLU Committee. There have been several instances of where the full ENC has not agreed with recommendations of the PLU. Again, I can assure you that the other members of the ENC have not been nor will they be involved in this case until the matter is presented to us which will probably be at our February 25th meeting.
Fourth, the ENC has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the entire community. That community includes adjacent neighbors who may be opposed to the project and other Encino residents are likely to support the project. Again, as a matter of advice only from one who is normally on the same side of the fence as you on these issues, it would be poor strategy to not engage in discussions with the applicant and try to focus on specific concerns, issues and potential conditions.
Finally, regardless of what action the ENC might take in the future, it is impossible to please all stakeholders involved in most land use cases. It would be unfair to characterize a disagreement on the merits as a conflict of interest. Most of the ENC are local residents just like you and we work very hard as volunteers on a variety of difficult issues affecting Encino.
While I can't promise you that the ENC will take the kind of action you might want us to, I can promise that the process will be fair - that we will give all sides opportunities to express their views before the PLU and then the full ENC. Your criticism of the time constraints posed by the January 8th date was valid. I now hope that you and other neighbors will utilize the additional month to follow the well-intentioned advice from Diane to meet with VBS officials.
Please understand that the comments above are from me personally and reflect my personal experience, judgment and thoughts. I would appreciate you passing this along to the other neighbors you are working with.
Rob Glushon
****
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:42 PM
Mr. Gerald Silver, President
Homeowners of Encino
Dear Mr. Silver:
We met during the first VBS invitation to their planned expansion in April. As you are well aware all of the affected homeowners were very disappointed by the lack of information on the proposed development. It was as if a meeting had to be held to satisfy a requirement in their application process. It was a symbolic meeting with no substance.
During the two meetings of the Planning and Land Use Committee that I attended on the VBS zoning application very little was discussed about the significant impact that the proposed development would have on the homeowners and the residential neighborhood. Not one member of the PLU talked nor asked about the air and noise pollution that the project would create on an ongoing basis.
No one talked about how the construction would be managed with the need for parking, continued school sessions during construction and why did VBS need to increase its school capacity to the detriment of a residential neighborhood. Did anyone ask how the additional traffic would impact the neighborhood? Densmore and Moorpark Streets are residential streets not designed to accommodate the increased traffic that a garage for 500 automobiles would create. There are many other concerns and issues that need to be taken up by the PLU before any reasonable decision can be rendered on theVBS application.
As none of these issues and many others were not discussed or raised at the PLU earlier meetings the affected neighbors have banded together to retain legal counsel to assist them in opposing the VBS application. On the agenda for January 8 PLU meeting is the VBS application but the neighbors need additional time to meet with counsel to discuss the issues and actions that may be available.
As President of the Homeowners of Encino organization we ask for your assistance in presenting our request for the PLU to remove the VBS application from its January 8 agenda and to schedule it for a later date. It is not an unreasonable request and should not in any way be detrimental to VBS’ application.
We thank you for your assistance in presenting this request for postponement.
Sincerely,
TP
Encino
****
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:38 PM
To Whom It May Concern
Reg: Valley Beth Shalom (VBS)
Please be advised that I, ... have been living in my house (the 1ST house behind VBS’s property) for the past 6 years and I am strongly opposing the VBS project.
VBS’s intentions are to rezone the house that belongs to them to commercial zoning, which will effect my family’s life and my house in so many ways.
In my opinion the new proposed development will create a major problem to the neighborhood such as major traffic jams, pollution, stress and danger to our kids and to the VBS kids.
Due to the location of my house relative to VBS, my family and I will be forced to live next to an eight foot tall wall and enlarged developed four classrooms nursery that will create an uneasy and unpleasant lifestyle to us due to the noise and all of the above mentioned problems.
My house and my pool will be blocked from the sun coming from the South. Therefore we’ll be in the shade most of the day. My house will always be cold and my pool will be useless.
We will be forced to live next to a "huge ugly parking structure" that has no business being in a residential area.
When I purchased my house, I knew what I purchased. A new development that was devised purely for financial motivations on VBS’s part will decrease the value of my house as much as it will effect my family’s day to day life.
So, I ask you once again to vote against this unnecessary development and think about the "little" people in the neighborhood that worked very hard to get to the point of being able to purchase a house in a nice neighborhood, just to let VBS (a money machine) destroy it.
Sincerely,
MC
Encino
****
Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:07 PM
(Via email and US Postal Service)
Encino Neighborhood Council
Planning and Land Use Committee
PO Box 260439
Encino, CA 91426-0439
To the Encino PLU,
We reside adjacent to property owned by Valley Beth Shalom (VBS).
Over the last nine months we have been speaking before the PLU to convey our opposition to the proposed VBS expansion. In summary, VBS intends to expand all programs—worship, education, after school programs, special events and others—by between 40-50%. It intends to increase square footage under roof by over 80%. And finally, it intends to increase parking by over 100% and concentrate all of it in front of our homes.
This letter is to summarize and enumerate our concerns as adjacent homeowners and neighborhood residents. We feel the neighborhood cannot accommodate expansion on this scale without severe negative impact on the homeowners, residents and neighborhood. We vigorously oppose the expansion in its entirety on the following grounds. The VBS expansion program will, among other things:
Negatively affect our quality of life
Reduce the value of our homes
Create unnecessary and disturbing noise
Generate massive increases in tailpipe emissions and pollution
Negatively affect our physical and mental health
Impede our freedom of movement
Vastly increase neighborhood traffic and traffic on our street
Create safety issues at crosswalks
Result in years of very early morning into late evening construction noise
Pump drainage water onto our street for months or even years
Increase litter and debris (VBS does a poor job of this even now)
Displace current parking into our neighborhood during two years of construction
Replace our current view of mature trees on a greensward with a view of a parking garage (in the case of one nearby homeowner, replace an adjacent single family home with a school building)
VBS has been aggressive in promoting this expansion to its own stakeholders, but they have been very poor at communicating with us and only acceded to meet with us under pressure from the PLU. We are not aware that they have:
Performed an environmental impact study (this may be required by law)
Presented a traffic mitigation plan
Polled their membership on their desire for this expansion
Presented their membership with any alternatives to this plan, for example, acquiring the commercial land to the east of the temple for a garage
We have read their application to the City Planning Commission very carefully. They have misstated their position relative to this document repeatedly before the Board. While not under oath, they have dissembled on the record. A 40-50% increase in size of an enterprise on the scale of VBS is of great concern to us. Several elements of it—aside from the fact of living our daily lives by the synagogue timetable for two years and beyond as the structures are built and operated—deserve special concern by the PLU.
The synagogue intends to use the roof deck (the fourth level) of the proposed garage for both daily playground events and paid evening events "until 11PM weeknights and 1AM weekends." That means VBS will aggressively market the roof for large, noisy, night-lit events that will continually and negatively affect the serenity of the neighborhood.
Moving all parking to the garage—in addition to being in front of our homes—concentrates all human traffic crossing Densmore to access VBS—greatly increasing the traffic and potential fatal accidents.
They claim that denial of their proposed zone variances—harder to get than an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit—"denies them the full ‘economic benefit’ of the grade level parking lot site, which was envisioned in the 1980’s by the City as a buffer from the commercial activity of the Fujita Building to the south of the lot. They claim it would cause them "unnecessary hardship."
They have argued before the PLU VBS’s position is that an 8’ wall and ornamental landscaping is sufficient to mitigate homeowner concerns over this vast expansion project. We as homeowners are amazed and dismayed.
When VBS in an unprecedented step tore down the nine homes across our street, they crafted their Conditional Use to accommodate all future growth, and the City granted it stating the ground level parking lot "a buffer against further commercial development" of the neighborhood. Now they’d like to tear up that document and have free reign to over-develop this property at the expense of adjacent and nearby residents. It dwarfs almost any development issue that has come before the PLU. It is too much for the neighborhood and too much for the homeowners. We urge the PLU to vote against it.
Sincerely,
HE/VM
Encino
****
Call the Councilmembers below now, and demand action!
Councilmember Jack Weiss
weiss@council.lacity.org(818)971-3088, Fax (818)788-9210
Beverly Kenworthy, Planning Deputy
beverly.kenworthy@lacity.orgCouncilwoman Wendy Greuel
wendy.greuel@council.lacity.orgPlanning Director, Dale Thrush
Dale.Thrush@lacity.org(213)473-7002, (818)755-7676, Fax: (213) 680-7895
Coucilmember Dennis Zine
zine@council.lacity.orgJose Martinez Field Deputy, Tarzana & West Hills
Jose.M.Martinez@lacity.org 19040 Vanowen Street
Reseda (818) 756-8848 (Office), (818) 756-9179 (Fax)
****
TO KEEP YOU INFORMED ABOUT ENCINO OVER-DEVELOPMENT,
HERE IS A TALLY OF WHAT IS COMING TO THE ENCINO AREA:
33 unit condominium, 4741 N. Libbit Avenue (just off of Ventura Blvd.)
42 unit condominium (Balboa Grand), 5021 - 5041 Balboa Blvd.
62 unit condominium, 4949 Balboa Blvd.
131 unit apartment (Avalon Bay), Ventura Blvd. near Noeline
51 unit apartment, (Woodrise), 16100 Ventura Blvd. at Woodley
51 unit condominium, 15222 Ventura Blvd., just each of Sepulveda
500 unit apartment complex, Sepulveda Blvd. and Camarillo
125 unit apartment (Gold Mountain) 16704 Ventura Blvd.
58 unit condominium, 5239-5305 Lindley Ave. (replaces 39 apartments)
31 unit condominium, 4410 Sepulveda Blvd. (near Greenleaf off-ramp)
43 unit condominium, 5168 Yarmouth Ave. (replaces 29 apartments)
120 unit apartment, 5501Newcastle Ave. (replaces 71 aparts.) incl. 9 low income units
43 unit condominium, 5445 (5501)Lindley Ave. (replaces 44 apartments)
112 unit apartment, 18301 Ventura Blvd., at Etiwanda
12 row houses, 4726 Petit (between Petit and Rubio) (sub standard lots, no side yards)
****
HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. Attend the hearings and meetings and speak out against intrusive
developments.
2. Write/phone/email Councilmember Jack Weiss and state your objections, ask
his Planning Deputy Beverly Kenworthy to attend the hearing and support the
residents' position.
3. Meet with your Councilmember Weiss and his Planning Deputy.
4. DEMAND a building moratorium along Ventura Blvd. in Encino.
5. DEMAND that the Ventura Blvd. Specific Plan be amended downzoned to
reduce by-right development and mixed use density bonuses.
6. Call your friends and neighbors in Sherman Oaks and Tarzana and ask them
to insist on amending the Ventura Blvd. Specific Plan.
7. Join Homeowners of Encino and assist in bringing back some sanity to
Encino.
8. Sign and return Petitions opposing over-development projects.
HANDS OFF OF VENTURA BLVD.!!!
****
Homeowners of Encino (HOME) serves as a watchdog over Encino community issues. It monitors the work of elected officials, the Encino Neighborhood Council (ENC), Van Nuys Airport, etc. HOME is NOT another form of Neighborhood Council. Neighborhood Councils by law must represent Chambers of Commerce, business interests, developers, apartment associations, high-rise building owners, homeless, and "anyone who lives, works or owns property" in Encino. HOME's mission on the other hand is to preserve the single-family habitability of residents living in Encino. As such, it actively addresses issues of traffic, congestion, aircraft noise, over-development, sign blight and air pollution. While the Encino Neighborhood Council seeks to be all things to all people, HOME targets issues that specifically affect the residential quality of life, and is
NOT under the control of the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhoods (DONE).
If you are not a Homeowners of Encino member, please join, mail a $30.00 check to: Homeowners of Encino, PO Box 260205, Encino, CA 91426
Name________________________________________________________
Address___________________________City___________ Zip__________
Phone_________________ Email_________________________________
**********************************************************
** 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:
gsilver4@earthlink.net Thank you
********************************************************************
