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:// | ||