Advertisement
 
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsVentura Boulevard Specific Plan
IN THE NEWS

Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan

FEATURED ARTICLES
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 13, 1994
A drive along Ventura Boulevard in the days after the quake provided a snapshot of the considerable damage sustained by businesses there. As Jeff Brain, past president of the Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce, put it: "We've got burned-out buildings, displaced tenants and not a whole lot of places to move them." The financial struggles those merchants will face in re-establishing their livelihoods weighs heavily on an important debate that will be aired again in the coming weeks.
ARTICLES BY DATE
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 31, 2000 | SUE FOX, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Ali Sadeghi works among the glassy office towers shooting into the sky along Ventura Boulevard. But that doesn't mean he wants to hang out there. With six lanes of traffic drowning out conversation, no place for sitting and few shops within strolling range, the sidewalk is populated by many more parking meters than people. "There is no shade here. There are no benches.
Advertisement
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 3, 1990
Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky is to be commended for criticizing the delays in adopting restrictions on future development along Ventura Boulevard. Over the past four years homeowners and developers have worked with city planning staff to propose reasonable limits on density, additional parking and transportation requirements and measures to protect residential areas from commercial encroachment. Whatever justification for the delays, the fact is that Ventura Boulevard landowners and developers are quickly getting projects through the door so that they do not have to meet the new requirements.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 13, 2000
The Times editorialized that Studio City Hand Car Wash should be allowed to keep its sign, even though it violates the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, because it's quirky, fun and eclectic ("This Car Deserves a Hand," Feb. 6). The sign is certainly quirky. And it's hard not to admire the moxie of the carwash owner who has skillfully cast this as a confrontation between a resourceful business owner and humorless city officials and homeowners groups. It's easy to poke fun at the Studio City Residents Assn.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 13, 2000
The Times editorialized that Studio City Hand Car Wash should be allowed to keep its sign, even though it violates the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, because it's quirky, fun and eclectic ("This Car Deserves a Hand," Feb. 6). The sign is certainly quirky. And it's hard not to admire the moxie of the carwash owner who has skillfully cast this as a confrontation between a resourceful business owner and humorless city officials and homeowners groups. It's easy to poke fun at the Studio City Residents Assn.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 5, 1996 | KAY HWANGBO
A new way to raise money for bus benches, trees and more parking on Ventura Boulevard will be discussed at a community meeting Thursday in Woodland Hills. The city Planning Department will sponsor the meeting, which will present information on how community leaders and the city can form so-called business improvement districts along the boulevard. The districts are areas where merchants agree to be taxed to pay for amenities, such as landscaping and special paving, that would presumably make the businesses more attractive to shoppers.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 12, 1992 | MAYERENE BARKER
The Los Angeles Planning Commission on Thursday postponed voting on a proposal that would give developers greater leeway in paying stiff fees levied last year for traffic improvements along Ventura Boulevard. The fees, known as trip fees, were authorized under the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, a sweeping ordinance adopted last year to manage growth on the boulevard.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 16, 1993 | SCOTT GLOVER
There is "considerable merit" to a study that alleges the plan to overhaul Ventura Boulevard is "fatally flawed," said the chairman of a citizens panel charged with overseeing the plan. Jeff Brain, chairman of the 13-member Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan review board, said there are problems in the way the plan--a 20-year blueprint--assesses fees on boulevard property owners. Brain said the group would discuss findings of a study commissioned by property owners at its meeting today.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 29, 1990
The Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. is doing everything it can to expedite final approval of the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan. Implementation will score a major victory for homeowners and environmentalists in the Valley. The timing of approval by the Los Angeles City Council is critical because there are several mammoth, three-story complexes planned for our area, and the developers behind them are just as eager to see the plan delayed. However, before the City Council can act, City Atty.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
December 30, 1990
After five years of watching Ventura Boulevard explode with development and traffic, the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan came within an eyelash of final approval on Dec. 18. Ignoring the pleas of homeowners and the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores withheld her crucial vote, a highly unusual move, thus delaying further City Council action on the plan until Jan. 4. This could allow time for other developers with out-of-scale projects to squeak through.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 9, 1999
San Fernando Valley residents are likely to have a been-there, done-that attitude toward the city planning effort underway for Ventura Boulevard. After all, city planners have been hauling around blueprints and talking up the Valley's "main street" since 1991. Why another plan? The plan being aired this week at public hearings in Encino and Studio City is not, in fact, new. It's the same Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in 1991 to direct growth along the 17-mile strip.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 10, 1996
Steve Hymon's opinion column of Oct. 20 ("Ventura Blvd. Plan a Dead End") was right on. I agreed with everything he proposed. Are there any like-minded people on the City Council or in some organization that you know of? Also, I agree the $75 million for the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, as I understand it, is a waste of money. What persons are responsible for this plan? Please continue to give voice to this important issue. The building of our cities to accommodate cars to the detriment of people severely impacts our quality of life and is largely ignored as an issue.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 7, 1996
Re "Land-Use Rules, Courts Boost Housing Costs," June 23. Law Professor Emeritus Gideon Kanner's "Second Opinion" facts regarding the Woodman / Ventura Canyon block on Ventura Boulevard are askew and denigrating . . . but isn't that the way too many lawyers perform? As a member of the committee that helped defeat builder [Jacky] Gamliel's illegal attempts to thwart the law, I'm happy to straighten Kanner out. At no time did the homeowners committee tell Gamliel not to build. His three-story glass building didn't fit the community.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 5, 1996 | KAY HWANGBO
A new way to raise money for bus benches, trees and more parking on Ventura Boulevard will be discussed at a community meeting Thursday in Woodland Hills. The city Planning Department will sponsor the meeting, which will present information on how community leaders and the city can form so-called business improvement districts along the boulevard. The districts are areas where merchants agree to be taxed to pay for amenities, such as landscaping and special paving, that would presumably make the businesses more attractive to shoppers.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 8, 1994
If the buildings at Ventura Boulevard and Woodman Avenue are in "advanced disrepair. . . a present mess," as you say in your editorial of Oct. 9, then why haven't the city officials used their authority to force the owners to simply clean up their property? If only an "extra five feet" is not much, then why not simply reduce the height to conform to the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan? If the project is "opposed by some of its neighbors," then why have thousands of neighbors signed petitions against this project?
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 6, 1994 | ALFRED E. F. STERN, Alfred E. F. Stern is a member of the Ventura-Woodman Committee of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn
A few years ago we decided to have a carport built at the foot of our driveway. As building began, an inspector drove up and measured the distance between the edge of our driveway and our neighbor's house. He ordered us to stop. "You don't have the necessary space between his house and your structure," he said. "You can't build that close." Our argument that we were only a foot off had no merit in his book. "It's still a structure," he said. "A foot is still a foot. It's the law."
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 23, 1994
I question The Times' conclusion (Valley Perspective, Oct. 9) that objections to the Ventura-Woodman project "are of dubious merit or outweighed by the good points" and that "the project's pluses more than offset the minuses." How can this newspaper, after all these 5 1/2 years of coverage and letters, not understand that the "good points" and "pluses" are still not addressing the gross objection of this community: simply that any project over two stories is too big for the site!
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 7, 1996
Re "Land-Use Rules, Courts Boost Housing Costs," June 23. Law Professor Emeritus Gideon Kanner's "Second Opinion" facts regarding the Woodman / Ventura Canyon block on Ventura Boulevard are askew and denigrating . . . but isn't that the way too many lawyers perform? As a member of the committee that helped defeat builder [Jacky] Gamliel's illegal attempts to thwart the law, I'm happy to straighten Kanner out. At no time did the homeowners committee tell Gamliel not to build. His three-story glass building didn't fit the community.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 23, 1994
I question The Times' conclusion (Valley Perspective, Oct. 9) that objections to the Ventura-Woodman project "are of dubious merit or outweighed by the good points" and that "the project's pluses more than offset the minuses." How can this newspaper, after all these 5 1/2 years of coverage and letters, not understand that the "good points" and "pluses" are still not addressing the gross objection of this community: simply that any project over two stories is too big for the site!
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 28, 1994
Everyone in Sherman Oaks should appreciate Zev Yaroslavsky's parting gift to the community: It's $2,400,000, to the would-be builder of the low-income apartment tract that has been planned for the Woodman Avenue/Ventura Canyon area, on Ventura Boulevard. The money is to be used by the builder to buy the derelict property, so he can start building. In his kindness, Yaroslavsky has also included $200,000 of that money to tear down the structures, clean up any toxic earth beneath it, etc. He obviously has the council votes for this project or he wouldn't have been so open in his recent announcement.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|