plum_motion

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		 Previous revision
plum_motion [2024/06/18 18:52] – created aorchidplum_motion [2024/07/09 19:58] (current) – aorchid
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== West Los Angeles Sawtelle Neighborhood Council PLUM Committee Motion ======+====== WLASNC PLUM Motion January 2024 ====== 
 + 
 +Letter opposing such changes by Randy Sakamoto {{ :randysakamotoletterwlasnc.pdf |}} 
 + 
 + 
 +---- 
  
 Comments to portions of it are below.  Comments to portions of it are below. 
  
 +The following Motions reference the "Alternative Proposal" passed by the
 +WLASNC PLUM in January
 +
 +
 +1 Motion 1:
 +===========
 +
 +1.1 Justification
 +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 +
 +1.1.1 After speaking with several land-use attorneys, it has become clear that the only measure that will protect Japantown is a HPOZ. Should new State laws become effective, the HPOZ may also protect against those infringements upon the rights of the Community.
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +
 +1.1.2 CP Parks has already said that there will be no moritorium, thus the Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) idea is dead in the water.
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +
 +1.2 Motion
 +~~~~~~~~~~
 +
 +1.2.1 Work with the Community to implement a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) for Japantown;
 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +
 +1.2.2 Work with "United Neighbors" and other Community-centered organizations to develop, in cooperation with the City Council, guidelines for ED1 ordinance that will exclude HPOZ in their entirety.
 +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +
 +2 Motion 2:
 +===========
 +
 +  Concerning the rezoning of certain blocks of Sawtelle to Hybrid
 +  Industrial, based upon the false pretense that RHNA driven development
 +  can be limited to certain areas within the WLASNC boundaries.
 +
 +
 +2.1 Justification
 +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 +
 +2.1.1 There is no redevelopment agency for West Los Angeles.
 +------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +  It is therefore, false and misleading to tell the community that the
 +  WLASNC has the ability to direct certain projects, their character,
 +  use and timing to any particular location in their boundaries. Over
 +  90% of the variances that developers seek are approved, proving that
 +  developers are calling the shots in Los Angeles. This makes it even
 +  more important that we limit up-zoning. Increasing up-zoning
 +  translates into increased automobile traffic, increased noise and
 +  light pollution, loss of smaller scale neighborhood character, without
 +  any important benefits to the Community in place. It is important to
 +  note that there were no co-motinos issued by PLUM that would improve
 +  the safety of our built environment, should these up-zonings in fact
 +  become a reality.
 +
 +
 +2.1.2 The WLASNC is the only Neighborhood Council in the City to vote to destroy existing R1 neighborhoods, destroy existing low-income properties and up-zone areas.
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +  The WLASNC needs to work with "United Neighbors" to craft guidelines
 +  for ED1 to prevent these behemoth projects from devouring smaller
 +  scale residential. In reality, ED1 will result in the destruction of
 +  our existing affordable housing stock, to be replaced with newer, SRO
 +  (studios), market-rate units, with the understanding that these units
 +  will be unaffordable to the majority of the existing tenets, causing
 +  further displacement and homelessness with the City. The ED1
 +  developments are not required to take Section 8 housing. To affect the
 +  homeless situation, these ED1 developments would be required to house
 +  persons making less than $10,000 per year. The market for "luxury
 +  housing" has bottomed out, requiring developers to focus on the
 +  "market-rate" market, i.e., ED1.
 +
 +
 +2.1.3 False neighborhood support
 +--------------------------------
 +
 +  Unfortunately, support from the larger Japantown Community for the
 +  "Alternative PLUM Plan" was garnered under false pretense. The
 +  Stakeholders who signed the petetion to save Japantown, did not
 +  realize that they were also signing to support an up-zoning of the
 +  neighborhood. This Community has always fought to prevent increased
 +  density and the associated ills including traffic, noise and light
 +  pollution, and loss of affordable units.
 +
 +
 +2.2 Motion
 +~~~~~~~~~~
  
 +2.2.1 Support preservation of the neighborhood's current zoning; to oppose any up-zoning within the upcoming WLA Community Plan Update; work with United Neighbors and other Community organizations to draft requirement for ED1 to insure that more family-oriented units are created.
 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  • plum_motion.1718736751.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2024/06/18 18:52
  • by aorchid