|
I listened to Dale Thrush present Wendy's proposal to change Shadow Hills zoning from RA1K 20,000 to RE 40,000, minimum density. Some of you know how discouraged I have become in re municipal politics, and skeptical about the future of LA horse communities. Well, it pleases me to state that this proposed motion, after tweaking, could give us what we have been begging for a long time - an equestrian future for equestrian communities.
The potential for negative impact associated with a change from RA to E zoning is real. Some meeting attendees leapt to challenge negative aspects before even thanking Dale Thrush for carrying what may become a welcome message. The concern was for possible loss of our K overlay which allows for more agricultural uses on the land than does "E" (estate) zoning. Under "E" zoning, horses would remain legal, along with a few layers, but not too much else. The concern is valid.
Variations will be explored to protect us without diminishing agricultural rights. Bill Eick asked if we could retain our K overlay. Dale conceded that it's possible. I asked about the possibility of changing our District Plan only to require a LEVEL 2,000 square foot horse pad not useable for any other purpose, without changing minumum lot size. That, along with enforcement of existing zoning code requirements might work. Our District Plan already includes a requirement for a 2,000 square foot horse pad. If a Plan amendment includes language requiring the pad to be level and prevents use of the pad for other than horses or open space (ie: no pools or sports courts) the K overlay would remain and the only remaining problem would be enforcement. The ideal might be to change the District Plan to read RA1K zoning with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. That particular language obviates the need to change the General Plan for the City since doing so is a major undertaking beyond our scope. However, if minumum square footage increases, the amendment would need language specifying that it applies only to properties subsequent to amendment approval. Were such language overlooked, existing lots under 40,000 square feet would become non-conforming and, therefore, not eligible for permits or rebuilding after a disaster.
If we appear to have no advocates on the Valley Planning Commission, we must remember that one of its prime objectives is to provide for adequate housing for LA residents. To that end, they tend to give as much latitiude as they can to builders. They can and do attempt to circumvent or reinterpret ordinnces and District Plan requirements. There is also the potential for LADBS (building and safety) to be lax about enforcement of something as unique as a horse pad for horses only.
If we get what we need we can expect new developers to seek variances from the amendment based on the fashionable NEED of the moment, but the Commission will enforce our Plan Amendment if it is clear and presented tied to a sledge hammer hung over their heads. If this proposal, once crafted to our needs, receives on going support from the Council office we might just have that figurative sledge hammer. Still, we must continue to appear and demand enforcement of a District Plan Amendment because where communityh apathy exists even the Council Office can be overruled by the Plannning Commission and/or ignored by Building and Safety.
The door is open a crack for us to grab and hold tight to a District Plan amendment that can help to protect us from developers who build horse pads at a 45 degree slope, market horse community homes as large enough for pools and tennis courts where horse pads are specified and Dale made it clear that we are invited to participate in this process. If we fail to jump at this opportunity WE DESERVE WHATEVER WE GET IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THE DOOR WILL CLOSE, PROMPTLY, SOLIDLY, PERMAMENTLY AND UNDERSTANDABLY.
I cannot recommend too strongly that everyone who has ever complained about developers take the time to call, write, fax or email Wendy's office to let her know how much we appreciate and want a well thought out motion to City Council to amend our District Plan. Even if you're not iinvolved in the machinations of creating the amenmdment, you can't afford not to let our Council Office know how much we value the offer.
|
