jay_ross [West Sawtelle]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== WLASNC PLUM / Board Motions 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_housing_element.pdf |}}

The best one. 

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 corridors, already zoned for high-density and with existing density bonuses. 

2. Notes that the City's first iteration of the Housing Element was not in alignment with the State's HCD handbook and violated the social justice and fair housing criteria.  The City's second Housing Element is pending review based upon locations of the proposed housing. 

3. "Upzoning based on geography may not mitigate past harms from redlining and segregation"

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 ZoningCapacity 4.2022.pdf ====
{{ :resolution_wlasnc_zoningcapacity_4.2022.pdf |}}

Request for Dwelling Unit Capacity Calculations

A request to postpone upzoning until zoning capacity is provided. 

Notes that the area population is about 91,000 in 2020, with existing zoning for a population of 159,000. 

We have excess of 76,000 dwellings with existing zoning. 

Shows that no upzoning is required. 

Contains this link: [[https://westsidecouncils.com/motion/request-for-dwelling-unit-capacity-calculations/




==== Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan RHNA 23.6.pdf ====
{{ :resolution_wlasnc_wlacommplan_rhna_23.6.pdf |}}


This letter is talking about Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). 

1. Asks that the City show current zoning capacity 
2. Show reasonably expected population change
3. Methodology used to allocate RHNA growth number
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. 

Our neighborhood is WLA 1-4. States R1 and R2 should stay as is. Increased density should be pushed to transit corridors. 

Bundy, nor is Sawtelle, considered transit corridors. 



=== Resolution WLASNC NodesCorridors 1.2021.pdf ===
{{ :resolution_wlasnc_nodescorridors_1.2021.pdf |}}

Proposed heights and densities along corridors. With regard to interior neighborhoods, states taht the larger density and heights along the corridors with transit and services shall be balanced with lower densities and heights in interior neighborhoods. This keep building in character and more open space. 

Small map included. Not very helpful. 


=== Resolution WLASNC WLACommPlan Comm 23.6.pdf ===
{{ :resolution_wlasnc_wlacommplan_comm_23.6.pdf |}}

This is talking about revisions to Commercial Zoning. 

Notes that new zoning removes requirement for affordable units (up to 6 stories no affordable required), while increasing allowed densities. 

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 of how to fix, multiple starting page 1. 

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?