Here is what I said at the Planning meeting, which will be continued. So that we don't have to enter it into minutes / so our meeting can be shorter. Together with Dana, I will write a report from the meeting to put on our new blog; I will start making the blogroll for the blog too. I will send a version of this to some people I haven't contacted yet @ WAHA, La Fayette Square HPOZ, and La Fayette Square HPOZ. Dana and I will be meeting with Lambert Geissinger about HPOZ & Mills Act -- not entirely related to LFSNA.

Also, they want to do a workshop with us, and we need to plan that. We need to review the complete text of the proposed policy revisions and write a letter in advance of the next planning meeting and next time we meet, too.

My name is Catherine Daly. I am on the board of Los Feliz Square Neighborhood Association. As a former board member of West Adams Historical Association, La Fayette Square HOA, and La Fayette Square HPOZ, I am concerned with both the Western - Vermont and Crenshaw Corridor impacted areas for the new planning policy.

I came here to appose the passing of Agenda Item #8 which we view as the first domino of nine to potentially topple; I will be here to oppose every single agenda item related to revising the plan. Since I signed up to speak, there has been a motion to continue this hearing and vote, I am now in support of that, but a continuation -- for giving us more knowledge of the policy changes, which I have read -- does not alter what I came here to say.

My comments are not "merely" semantic. A change to the language of a policy is a change to the policy. You have asked us to cite "chapter and verse" for policy changes. In previous responses to speakers, the idea of intent has arisen, in the case of the change of the phrase "harmony with" to the phrase "substantial deviation." Regardless of case law, the phrase "harmony with" not only substantially deviates from the phrase, "substational devision," is has an utterly different meaning.

My other comments are:

you have replaced a series of "and"s with a series of "or"s when speaking about whether a proposed change offers a benefit. Whether something benefits a neighborhood and a region rather than benefits a neighborhood or a region is a substantial change because often the needs of neighborhoods and regions differ: what benefits a region often degrades a neighborhood, and vice versa.

You have removed language about mitigants to negative impacts of development. As you know, there are some negative impacts which CANNOT be mitigated, and those which CAN and MUST be mitigated. By eliminating the language, not only do negative impacts which can be mitigated not get mitigated, not only do negative impacts which cannot be mitigated get approved, but a conversation about mitigating impacts never occurs.

Thank you.

No comments: