Dublin Core
Title
Box 18, Folder 26, Document 38
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
August 9, 1967
HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Comparison of.July 5 Analysis by HRC from Zoning Map and
Appendix to July 21 Memo. from Planning Department
Zoning Map was revised April 31, 1967.
Appendix was compiled as of January 1966.
As can be seen, discrepencies exist in both land lots and acreages
between the Zoning Map Analysis and the Appendix. This may be accounted for
by zoning changes and new developments which have taken place since the
compilation shown in the Appendix. HOSVE?, this reduces the dependency which
can be placed now on the compilation of figures shown in the Appendix,
See Summary at end of the attached Comparative Tabulations for acreages
already committed; turned down or rejected; and planned for other uses.
Vacant areas zoned A-L (understood to be generally for a specifically
planned development) and A~2' (not generally accepted locally as suitable for
low-cost housing, except for the Elderly) have not been generally included
ts this comparison. The vacant land in both categories is relatively small
however .
CONCLUSION s
In any event, from the attached comparison, it is quite obvious that the
land euvnendly zoned A=-1 is both inadequate in quantity and unequitably
distributed throughout the City to meet requirements of the low-income housing
program,
Enclg Comparative Tabulations
Far el ’ De
HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Comparison of.July 5 Analysis by HRC from Zoning Map and
Appendix to July 21 Memo. from Planning Department
Zoning Map was revised April 31, 1967.
Appendix was compiled as of January 1966.
As can be seen, discrepencies exist in both land lots and acreages
between the Zoning Map Analysis and the Appendix. This may be accounted for
by zoning changes and new developments which have taken place since the
compilation shown in the Appendix. HOSVE?, this reduces the dependency which
can be placed now on the compilation of figures shown in the Appendix,
See Summary at end of the attached Comparative Tabulations for acreages
already committed; turned down or rejected; and planned for other uses.
Vacant areas zoned A-L (understood to be generally for a specifically
planned development) and A~2' (not generally accepted locally as suitable for
low-cost housing, except for the Elderly) have not been generally included
ts this comparison. The vacant land in both categories is relatively small
however .
CONCLUSION s
In any event, from the attached comparison, it is quite obvious that the
land euvnendly zoned A=-1 is both inadequate in quantity and unequitably
distributed throughout the City to meet requirements of the low-income housing
program,
Enclg Comparative Tabulations
Far el ’ De
Comments