Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
jay_ross [2024/06/22 19:59] – aorchid | jay_ross [2024/06/22 20:33] (current) – aorchid | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | ====== |
Letters to the City Planning Dept from the WLASNC. No dates on the letters, but discussions appear to have happened in late June 2023. | Letters to the City Planning Dept from the WLASNC. No dates on the letters, but discussions appear to have happened in late June 2023. | ||
+ | ===== Resolution WLASNC Housing Element 23.6.pdf ===== | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
- | ===== Resolution WLASNC NodesCorridors 1.2021.pdf ===== | + | The best one. |
- | Proposed heights and densities | + | 1. Provides the list of 500 parcels for redevelopment. (page 7-34.) This creates an additional 13,000 units for 27,000 residents. Most are along commercial |
- | Small map included. Not very helpful. | + | 2. Notes that the City's first iteration of the Housing Element was not in alignment with the State' |
- | ==== Resolution\ WLASNC\ ZoningCapacity\ 4.20.pdf ==== | + | 3. " |
- | A request to postpone upzongin until zoning capacity is provided. | + | 3. Existing excess capacity can already provide for 20,000 in WLASNC |
+ | 4. Chart from page 3 needs to be translated to here. | ||
- | ==== Resolution WLASNC | + | ==== Resolution WLASNC |
+ | {{ : | ||
- | This is talking about revisions to Commercial Zoning. | + | Request for Dwelling Unit Capacity Calculations |
- | Notes that new zoning removes requirement for affordable units (up to 6 stories no affordable required), while increasing allowed densities. | + | A request |
- | Notes that incentives are massive. Allowing 160% increase without increased affordable component. Asks afffordable to be increased to 25% for very low-income. | + | Notes that the area population is about 91,000 in 2020, with existing zoning |
- | FAR are too large and prevent tree planting and public plazas and open space on ground level. | + | We have excess |
- | - example o f5 story building FAR 3 gives only 5 ft setbacks. | + | |
- | - offers example | + | |
- | Agrees with the upzoning along the corridor in principle, as notes that the housing should be directed toward the commercial corridors. | + | Shows that no upzoning is required. |
- | - notes two prior resolutions from WLASNC claiming same | + | |
- | States that upzoning to R1 and R2 should be eliminated. | + | Contains this link: [[https:// |
- | Nice diagrams to explain the FAR. | ||
- | This is it. | ||
- | 1. Is the new community plan still calling for same give-aways in height and FAR? | ||
- | 2. Has there been reimplementation of affordable housing requirement in the plan? | ||
+ | ==== Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan RHNA 23.6.pdf ==== | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
- | === Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan RHNA 23.6.pdf === | ||
This letter is talking about Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). | This letter is talking about Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). | ||
Line 50: | Line 48: | ||
4. RHNA allocation to each neighborhood. | 4. RHNA allocation to each neighborhood. | ||
- | === Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan Resid LandUse 23.6.pdf === | + | ==== Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan Resid LandUse 23.6.pdf ==== |
+ | {{ : | ||
Opposition to Community PLan Residential re-zoning proposal. | Opposition to Community PLan Residential re-zoning proposal. | ||
Line 58: | Line 57: | ||
Bundy, nor is Sawtelle, considered transit corridors. | Bundy, nor is Sawtelle, considered transit corridors. | ||
- | === Resolution WLASNC ZoningCapacity 4.2022.pdf === | ||
- | Request for Dwelling Unit Capacity Calculations | ||
- | Notes that the area population | + | === Resolution WLASNC NodesCorridors 1.2021.pdf === |
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | Proposed heights and densities along corridors. With regard to interior neighborhoods, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Small map included. Not very helpful. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan Comm 23.6.pdf === | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is talking | ||
+ | |||
+ | Notes that new zoning | ||
+ | |||
+ | Notes that incentives are massive. Allowing 160% increase without increased affordable component. Asks afffordable to be increased to 25% for very low-income. | ||
+ | |||
+ | FAR are too large and prevent tree planting and public plazas and open space on ground level. | ||
+ | - example o f5 story building FAR 3 gives only 5 ft setbacks. | ||
+ | - offers example | ||
+ | |||
+ | Agrees with the upzoning along the corridor in principle, as notes that the housing should be directed toward the commercial corridors. | ||
+ | - notes two prior resolutions from WLASNC claiming same | ||
+ | |||
+ | States that upzoning to R1 and R2 should be eliminated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nice diagrams to explain the FAR. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Is the new community plan still calling for same give-aways in height and FAR? | ||
+ | 2. Has there been reimplementation of affordable housing requirement in the plan? | ||
- | We have excess of 76,000 dwellings with existing zoning. | ||
- | Shows that no upzoning is required. | ||
- | Contains this link: [[https:// |