VNC Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda

Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda
Extra Space Storage, Presidents Row Room
658 South Venice Blvd, Venice, 90291
Monday, January 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM

Note: The Administrative Committee does not address or consider the merits of proposed agenda items. Its function is to determine whether a proposed agenda item will be placed on the next Board meeting agenda, postponed, referred to a specific committee for review and recommendation, treated as an announcement, or considered and resolved as a non-Board administrative matter.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

2. Approval of the AdCom Agenda

3. Approval of any outstanding Administrative Committee minutes submitted by the Secretary

December 8, 2008 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/081208VNCAdComMinutesRev.doc)

4. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)

5. Old AdCom Business

A Ivan Spiegel (310-821-9556; ivan13147@verizon.net): Bylaws changes to be made prior to June 2009 to bring VNC Bylaws into compliance with new City voting schedule and City Clerk default values.
[R&E to report in 60 days to January AdCom]

B James Murez (310-399-6690; murez@venice.net) & Jed Pauker (310-839-9209; jed@jed.net): Presentation of a case tracking system for LUPC (15 min) – See AdCom Exhibit A [LUPC 60-day trial – report to January AdCom]

C Ivan Spiegel (310-821-9556; ivan13147@verizon.net): schedule the confirmation election for the two new Board members.

D Joe Murphy (310-895-0344; joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com): Standing Rule 13 Principles of Representation Compliance form – See Exhibit A

6. New AdCom Business

A Bruce Birch (retrogrouch@earthlink.net): (i) Requests update on Oakwood cell tower situation; (ii) Suggested that public speaker cards be tallied and recorded in minutes; (iii) Post LUPC Policy Statements.

B Joe Murphy (310-895-0344; joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com): (i) schedule OPD elections; (ii) Attendance; (iii) Procedure for filling Aldis Browne board vacancy; (iv) Emily replaces Nadine to post to library; (v) Hugh wants members for Budget Committee; (vi) Status of handling of ‘Director’s Interpretation of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance’ per Robert Aronson’s 12/28 email – perhaps Challis has this info; (vii) Linda’s suggestion that those who draft letters receive copy when sent – SR?; (viii) Linda inquires re letter on Financial disclosure and Ethics – was it sent? Also suggests use of CIS instead of or in addition to letter; (ix) Interest in followup training from Sean on new website.

[Scheduling of various elections and dealing with board/LUPC vacancies & initiatives & ByLaw amendments is a problem requiring some careful attention. The main issue, in my mind, is coming up with consistent procedures for each type of election that provides transparency and timely notice to stakeholders. I’m providing separately the procedures used in the 2007 election which were approved by the Board and DONE.]

C Ivan Spiegel (310-821-9556; ivan13147@verizon.net): suggestion regarding reordering of information provided in each agenda item and in minutes to clarify issues to be considered for board and stakeholders.

D Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Board meeting and Obama inaugural are both on 1/20/09. Change date of board meeting?

E Consideration of DRAFT January 20, 2009 Board Agenda (see below)

7. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)

8. Adjourn

Draft – Board of Officers Meeting Agenda
Westminster Elementary School (Auditorium)
1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd, Venice, 90291
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Approval of any outstanding minutes submitted by the Secretary

December 16, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/081216VNCBoardMinutes.doc)

Committee Reports are provided in written form when available

4. Scheduled Announcements (no more than 1 minute per report unless otherwise stated)

A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org): (i) Reminder of Conflict of Interest Training – http://ethics.lacity.org/education/ethics2007/?audience=done; (ii) Reminder of Standing Rule 13, Principles of Representation and use of the Compliance Form – See Exhibit A; (iii) Promotion of Officer Richards; (iv) Certificate of appreciation to Mark “Sponto” Kornfeld, in memoriam; (v) Certificate of appreciation to Robert Graham, in memoriam; (vi) Certificate of appreciation to Officer Robin Richards for his services to Venice and congratulations for his promotion – 33072@lapd.lacity.org; (vii) Reminder of the food drive – please donate to:

West Side Food Bank
1710 22nd St.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Phone:(310) 828-6016
Fax:(310) 828-2646
http://www.westsidefoodbankca.org/

Fill the Food Bank
• Fruit Gallery Juice Shop – 1 Westminster Ave
• the otheroom – 1201 Abbot Kinney Blvd
• Urban Escape – 1505 Abbot Kinney Blvd
• The Slave Boutique – 2122 Lincoln Blvd
• Trim – 1424 Abbot Kinney Blvd
• Paper Scissors Rock – 1711 Pacific Avenue
• FillTheFoodBank@gmail.com to schedule Pick-Up

B Governmental Reports

• DONE: Deanna Stevenson
• LAPD: Officer ?, Senior Lead Officer
• State Assemblyperson Ted Lieu: Liaison
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Stephen Cheung, West Area Director
• City Councilperson Bill Rosendahl: Arturo Piña, Field Deputy

C Linda Lucks (310-745-3240/310-450-2554; Lindalucks@aol.com): American Red Cross/Venice Neighborhood Council Partnership Training: All VNC board and committee members and stakeholders are invited to receive training to help support the community when a large disaster event occurs. Attendees will have photos taken so ARCGLA identification can be issued to become an affiliated Red Cross Disaster Volunteers.

D Fruit Gallery (fruitgallery@yahoo.com): Focus on Venice Veterans

5. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person) no board announcements

6. Old Business

A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org):

I Conflict Resolution Committee: November 21, 2008 CRC decision regarding July 15, 2008 Standing Rule 13 Complaint by Nathalie Godts against Challis McPherson – See Exhibit B

B Isaias Cantu (213-473-6804; isaias.cantu@lacity.org) of Neighborhood Council Election Unit:

The City Clerk – Election Division is making preparations for the 2010 NC Elections. In this respect, we wanted to make sure that we meet with NC Leaders and invite them to participate in the NC Election Development Group.

As we prepare for the elections, we want to ensure that NC Leaders are kept abreast of critical information and their feedback incorporated as we move forward. As such, we are contacting you as a leader of a Neighborhood Council Coalition group to request an opportunity to visit your next meeting and address your membership. Some of the key items that we would be covering would be:

- General Election Process – Regional – NC Election Preparation (Bylaw Adjustments) – Participation in the NC Election Development Group – Approximate Election Timeline and Benchmarks (Candidate Filing, Vote-By-Mail)

We would appreciate an opportunity to get to provide this information to your coalition membership at your next meeting. More importantly, we would like the opportunity to personally invite your coalition membership to participate in the NC Election Development Group.

Please contact me to discuss the possibility of attending your next meeting.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you!
Isaias Cantu, Sr. Project Coordinator, Neighborhood Council Election Unit. Service Center Manager
City of Los Angeles, Office of the City Clerk, Election Division
[November AdCom: Postponed to January 2009 AdCom & Board meetings (I believe this was removed)]

C Westside Regional Alliance of Councils [20 min discussion & vote]

Request that the VNC adopt the following six motions:
Motion No.1
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Venice Neighborhood Council on December 16, 2008, a motion was made and seconded and passed as follows:
1. That Early Notification of all applications to the Department of City Planning, the Bureau of Engineering and to the Department of Building and Safety shall be sent to all impacted certified Neighborhood and Community Councils recognized by their Councilperson (hereafter, “council”), and the applicant shall be required to send notice, by certified RRR mail, to the applicable council, of all subsequent requests for modifications, adjustments, amendments, alterations, or revisions to the application.
2. Planning and Building and Safety shall review all such applications, and such review shall include, prior to approval, compliance with all relevant Community Plans, Specific Plans, and Overlay Districts.
3. With respect to all applications to Planning and Building and Safety for which a public hearing is not required, notice shall be sent to the applicable council of the terms of the proposed approval, no later than 10 calendar days prior to issuance of the approval, and consideration shall be given by the decision maker to any objections, comments, or questions submitted in writing by the applicable council during the 10-day period.
4. Planning and Building and Safety shall each establish an ombudsman or community advocate who is accessible to officers of a council and whose responsibilities shall include facilitating access to Department personnel, procedures, and documents.
Motion No 2.
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Venice Neighborhood Council on December 16, 2008, a motion was made and seconded and passed as follows:
That the Los Angeles City Council be requested to supply each Neighborhood or Community Council with an accounting of both 5117 parking funds, and Quimby Funds for its district.
Motion No. 3
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Venice Neighborhood Council on December 16, 2008, a motion was made and seconded and passed as follows:
The Venice Neighborhood Council hereby supports adoption of an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) / moratorium as proposed by the City Planning Commission temporarily prohibiting the installation of all new offsite advertising signs and supergraphic signs, as well as prohibiting alteration to existing offsite signs and supergraphic signs, until a new offsite sign ordinance can be developed, adopted and implemented. There should be no exceptions that might weaken the enforceability of the moratorium.

Motion No. 4
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Venice Neighborhood Council on December 16, 2008, a motion was made and seconded and passed as follows:
As gridlock is a major quality of life issue, the City of Los Angeles City Council is hereby requested to implement an enforcement mechanism and fine system to alleviate the constant gridlock in intersections in the City Limits. While the City has found it both effective and profitable to implement “Tiger Teams” to clear ‘No Parking, Tow Away Zones” during peak hours, the city has been unable to control gridlock.
Motion No. 5
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Venice Neighborhood Council on December 16, 2008, a motion was made and seconded and passed as follows: That the Los Angeles City Council be requested to amend the working documents for Neighborhood and Community Councils, thereby allowing N.C./C.C.’s the right to appeal city department decisions.
Motion No. 6 (added per Linda)
The Westside Regional Alliance of Neighborhood Councils understands that if we don’t prepare, no one will. Our goal for first quarter of 2009 is for the following:
• The Westside Regional Alliance of NC’s pledges to make Emergency Preparedness a top priority and to identify resources to help our communities.
• The Westside Regional Alliance of NC’s will work together and with other Alliances, Government offices and Agencies to share Best Practices, information and resources.
• The Westside Regional Alliance of NC’s will develop a Master Calendar for EP (including choosing evacuation/gathering places and locations to store emergency supplies).
• Finally to implement and/or refine the Incident Command Structure so that there is cohesion in all responses throughout the Westside.

D From Stakeholder [November AdCom: Postponed to 12/08 AdCom Meeting]

I Todd von Hoffmann (310-398-9231; BDBooks@aol.com) on behalf of the Venice Heritage Foundation: Request of Board to send a letter to Councilman Rosendahl and/or “To whom it may Concern”, supporting the Venice Heritage Foundation’s efforts to establish a Venice Heritage Museum along the lines of the Red Car Historical Museum in Seal Beach. Letter is:

On behalf of the VNC, I’m pleased to add my support to The Venice Heritage Foundation. Their mission statement – “Envisioning a Venice History Museum” – focuses on an important goal for our community. Abbot Kinney’s “Venice of America” has had a full and fascinating life and that continuing story deserves to be shared. While the need for a museum heritage center has often been discussed over the years, the VHF was created solely with this purpose in mind. The founding members – all lovers of things Venice – include collectors, successful community volunteers, and, significantly, noted author & historian Elayne Alexander.

The VHF plan is particularly exciting. It calls for the restoration of an original Pacific Electric Red Car to serve as the initial museum space to be located in Venice. The Seal Beach Museum has demonstrated the success of this idea with their own Red Car museum and public library residing similarly (and very appropriately) on old Pacific Electric right-of-way property.

The Foundation has located a 100 year old Red Car (PE511) ready for a home and restoration volunteers are standing by. The restored trolley itself will evoke a charming period of our history and add another treasured sight along our gateway to Venice. The VHF plan tastefully suggests an additional adjunct building replicating the old pagoda-style PE substation that used to stand nearby along Venice Blvd. called “The Tokyo Station”.

The museum space will be available to all local collections, public and private, and serve an important community function for residents, visitors, scholars, and students. We can’t think of a better theme than a celebration of our incredibly interesting past and a legacy for our future.
[August Board: Postponed to September 21, 2008 Board Meeting]
[September AdCom: Postponed to 10/21 Board Meeting] [Postpone to 1/12/09 AdCom]

E From LUPC

I Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: Request that the board send a letter (copied below) of, “No Opinion, No Recommendation Without Prejudice” on those projects (list to follow) declared minimal by LUPC and without need for VNC/LUPC hearing or recommendation for action:

Los Angeles City Planning Department
200 North Spring
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601

Subject: CASE NO. (Insert Here) Project Address: (Insert Here) Applicant: (Insert Here)

Madam/Sir…….: (Note: this will probably go to the ZA or planning person)

Please be advised that the Land Use and Planning Committee of the Venice Neighborhood Council has consented to take a “No Opinion Without Prejudice” and not send a recommendation for action to the Board of Officers of the Venice Neighborhood Council on the referenced planning case. However, we reserve the right to take a position and/or appeal.

Please provide a copy of the decision letter to the Venice Neighborhood Council, Post Office Box 550, Venice, California 90294, or electronically to Board@VeniceNC.org and LUPC@VeniceNC.org.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Venice Neighborhood Council [Postpone to 1/12/09 AdCom]

F From Board Member

I Joe Murphy (310-895-0344; joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com): As an alternative to the above LUPC motion, it is requested that the Board adopt the following as a standing rule:

Unless LUPC deems otherwise with respect to a specific project proposal, projects which comply with the development standards of the VCZSP and do not request significant variances, as defined by LUPC and approved by the Board, are deemed to be approved by LUPC and shall be placed on the board consent calendar without requiring a LUPC hearing or preparation of a LUPC report; and if approved by the board, the form letter below will be sent to the appropriate hearing authorities.

If requested by affected neighbors and the owner, the VNC will provide facilitation assistance to negotiations between the parties by maintaining and web-posting a list of willing facilitators from which the parties may choose and arrange appropriate meetings at their mutual convenience.

Form Letter
Los Angeles City Planning Department
200 North Spring
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601

Subject: CASE NO. (Insert Here)
Project Address: (Insert Here)
Applicant: (Insert Here)

Madam/Sir…….: (Note: this will go to the hearing authority and, through the CIP, to all subsequent appeals hearing authorities)

Please be advised that the Venice Neighborhood Council has approved the Land Use and Planning Committee recommendation that the above-referenced case is a “No Opinion Without Prejudice” matter pursuant to ___________________ and it therefore makes no recommendation except to support any agreements reached between the parties (the owner and affected neighbors).

The Venice Neighborhood Council reserves the right to take a position should future circumstances require.

Please provide a copy of the decision letter to the Venice Neighborhood Council, Post Office Box 550, Venice, California 90294, or electronically to Board@VeniceNC.org and LUPC@VeniceNC.org.

Please note that the Venice Neighborhood Council and LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl support the recommendations stated in the attachment insofar as they apply to this matter.

Please note also that facilitation assistance to the parties may have been provided by the VNC Facilitation Service and may be a factor in any agreements reached between the parties.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council

Addendum: The Venice Neighborhood Council and Los Angeles City Councilperson Bill Rosendahl urge you to use any discretion you have to opt for:

1. Widening sidewalks rather then streets in order to support, over time, the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment and to reverse any current policies that require further accommodation of vehicles or vehicular traffic.
2. Etc.

Bill Rosendahl Mike Newhouse, President*
Los Angeles City Councilperson, Council District 11 Venice Neighborhood Council
__________________________________________ ____________________________________

• The signature of the VNC President to this document constitutes written permission, under VNC Standing Rule 13, to VNC Board and Committee members to represent the VNC in any forum in which any of the items listed in this addendum is relevant. This permission applies only to the items listed in this addendum and permits advocacy on behalf of the VNC in support of these addendum items. A copy of this document, if signed by the VNC President, is valid for this purpose.

G From Board Member

I Nadine Parkos (310-827-2188; nadineparkos@aol.com) on behalf of listed stakeholders: I request that the VNC endorse the following letter as sent by email to the L A Department of Cultural affair from the undersigned stakeholders on November 30th:

Subject: Venice stakeholders regarding Cultural Master Plan
To: Leora.Lutz@LACity.org
Ms. Leora Lutz
Cultural Master Plan for Los Angeles
Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs

Dear Ms. Lutz,

As part of the pending Cultural Master Plan for Los Angeles, we, the undersigned Venice stakeholders, ask the Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs to consider the unique artistic character and features of the Venice community as an integral cultural image of the City.

MISSION: Venice is already known as a world-renowned arts center. Our Mission is to further vitalize Venice as an “Arts Gateway” in Los Angeles by enhancing existing arts activities, events and areas. By working closely with the City of Los Angeles to develop an immediately identifiable Venice “Hallmark”, Venice will greatly increase public awareness of Venice’s remarkably vital and diverse array of cultural and environmental events occurring throughout the year.

VISION: We propose to work with the City of Los Angeles to build upon Venice’s artistic diversity and environmental consciousness (witness Venice’s highly successful annual Venice Music & Arts Eco-Fest). Our vision includes Cultural Festivals benefiting Southern California focused on Arts, Performance and Education. Such Festivals could reflect the positive features of Charleston’s annual Spoleto Festival and Art Basel Miami.

OBJECTIVE: To further an “Arts Economy” in order to benefit all of greater Los Angeles. Arts Economies have contributed substantially to local economies throughout the United States. Among other benefits, community Arts Economies serve to increase tourism, create jobs, and help to reverse urban blight. Numerous studies are available on the benefits of Arts Economies.

GOAL: To further empower Venice’s support of diversified arts structures. We propose permanent structures with sufficient flexibility to host an art museum, heritage museum, civic auditorium, repertory theater & dance companies and a music center, all of which would create a thriving arts community that would significantly financially benefit all of Los Angeles.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES: We propose potential funding sources to include any combination of private contributions, government funding, and/or Special Assessment District Municipal Bond Financing. Such Special Assessment District Municipal Bond Financing is only paid for by real property owners within such a Special Assessment District. Those real property owners located within the Special Assessment District can vote to assess their real property with a “voluntary property tax” voted on only by those property owners who financially benefit by such a “voluntary property tax”.

Other sources of revenue could include fees from annual “Venice-Southern California Arts Performance and Education” Cultural Weeks. These Cultural Weeks will likely draw support from major sponsors as well as fees from exhibitors and could generate substantial revenues for the City, for example by incorporating a Pan-Pacific Exhibition at the L A Convention Center. (Though many arts festivals in the United States address Europe and Latin America, Los Angeles is in a unique position to focus on the thriving arts interest in Asia, Australia and the Western United States).

Aldis Browne: Art Dealer, member and co-chair: Venice Neighborhood Council (N C) Arts Committee
Bertha Suarez: Prima Ballerina Blankenship Ballet
Christopher Ekstein: Documentary Filmmaker Market Street Productions
Diana Pollard: Architect Studio of Architecture
Gary Silverston: Designer Gary Stefan Design Build
Jeffrey Solomon: Venice Chamber of Commerce, member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Jo Todd: Performance Artist and Educator, member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Maria Munroe: Artist The Eturn Society
Mark Blankenship: Blankenship Ballet Company, member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Michael King: Architect Studio of Architecture
Pat Snyder: Artist Printing Plus
Paulin Paris: Artist, member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Sandy Lajer: Artist, member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Tania Getty: Actor/Director Pacific Resident Theater member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Theo von Hoffman: member: Venice N C Arts Committee
Todd von Hoffmann: Author, member: Venice N C Arts Committee

Opposition was raised at the November meeting. I understand this was occasioned largely by my lack of clarity in drafting the November motion which was compounded by the absence of both Arts Committee co-chairs at that meeting. The above letter incorporates input from that meeting and clarifies a number of points. A memo further detailing special assessment districts as one among several possible funding options has been sent to Secretary@venicenc.org – See Exhibit C

7. Treasurers Report – See Exhibit D accept report as presented

8. New Business

A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org): ???? Bd vacancy nomination/vote? Ratification of Karen & Cynthia?

B From Rules & Election Committee

I Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Motion to amend Standing Rule 13IId as follows:

Within 15 calendar days after the hearing, the Chair shall notify all parties and the President and Secretary in writing of the decision. Within 7 calendar days following transmission of the decision to the parties, a party may appeal the decision to the Board by written request to the Secretary. The request must include grounds for appeal. and The decision and any appeal will be heard by the Board within 60 calendar days of receipt of the decision or an appeal by the Secretary. The Board may adopt or amend or overturn a decision of the CRC by majority vote. The decision of the CRC, as amended by the Board, will be final and a synopsis shall be [posted on the web for one month] [published in the next VNC newsletter].

C From Stakeholder

I michael rosen (mistermlr@aol.com): there is a serious traffic issue involving no less than 12-14 RV’s parked on 7th ave between broadway and california ave’s. when traveling east on broadway, westminster, san juan or santa clara coming to the stop sign at 7th ave. it is physicaly impossible to see if there is oncoming traffic based on the RV’s parked indefinitely on 7th ave. there have been numerous almost severe accidents trying to enter the intersection. i witnessed a women with a baby carriage tring to cross the street who was almost hit by a vechile that she was unable to see. why are these RV’s even parked on 7th ave for any amount of time! please address this issue before there is either a severe traffic accident or smeone is hit by a car trying to cross the street. thank you, m. rosen

D From Board Member

I Challis Macpherson (310-822-1729; challis.macpherson@verizon.net): Request board to recommend punitive action regarding trees wantonly razed on Venice Blvd right-of-way, and demand replacement with similar 16-year old trees.

II Challis Macpherson (310-822-1729; challis.macpherson@verizon.net): Robert Aronson wants VNC Board to appeal a decision by WLA APC to the Coastal Commission regarding the Marina Pacific Hotel. He has offered to be lead on this and do all the work.

E From LUPC

I Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: Move to accept projects that LUPC recommends be sent letters registering “No Opinion, No Recommendation Without Prejudice” – See Exhibit E

F From Neighborhood Committee

I Linda Lucks (310-745-3240/310-450-2554; Lindalucks@aol.com) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: At its meeting on 12/8/08 the Neighborhood Committee UNANIMOUSLY approved recommendation of the following motions for Board approval:

(i) The VNC Board shall appoint a Public Safety Officer for a one-year term.

Background: Many NC’s have this as a board position and devote much of their resources to EP training. It is also possible to to appoint someone to report directly to the Board.

(ii) The VNC Board shall rescind its previous decision to deny considering placement of all street furniture in Venice.

Background: The VNC Board previously voted to deny the placement of street furniture in Venice.

(iii) The Board shall authorize the Neighborhood and Ocean Front Walk Committees to a) identify possible locations for automated toilets and street furniture and b) negotiate with the CD 11 office on a formula to share revenue for the Community Improvement Fund program. All negotiations will be approved by a vote of the VNC Board.

Background: The OFW and VNHC’s met recently with Arturo Pina from the Council office and were asked to search possible locations for recommendation to the VNC. There is no point in pursuing this approach unless the Board reverses its previous position. Arturo Pina informed us that the furniture will be placed with or without VNC input. Some of the possible street furniture pieces (bus shelters) will offer an opportunity for VNC information as well as shared advertising revenue. This can be an excellent opportunity to create a partnership with CD 11 to provide funding for one of our most visual and successful programs. The council office has agreed to work with us and wait for our input before installing any further items. We will also consider removing inappropriate items of furniture which have already been placed.

Possible Alternative APT sites (not necessarily street furniture)

Penmar Park,
City lot on Main & Rose;
Rose Avenue Parking lot- adjacent to non working public toilets
Westminster Senior Center/dog park- on Main street side near bus stop or adjacent to senior center at Westminster and Pacific, near bus stop.
City parking lot under construction at Palms and Electric ( at Venice Blvd);
Vera Davis Center on California at Electric;
Oakwood Rec. Center on California side
Venice Blvd parking lot at Ocean Avenue- to replace porta potty at farmer’s market
Venice Blvd parking lot; near pacific Avenue/attendant kiosk.
Venice Blvd on City right of way near LAFD (good idea as people there 24/7 to monitor).
Life guard area and and/or near RAP/LAPD office
MTA bus lot on Main Street side.
Pacific at Windward on City lot

Revenue Sharing Procedures to be developed:
1) How is money allocated?
2) What committee will handle at VNC? Task Force? Ad-hoc?

9. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)

10. Adjourn (approx 10:00PM)

AdCom Exhibit A – Neighborhood Council – Case Tracking System
Pilot Overview V1.0, September 6, 2008 (Murez)

The Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC) has matured over the past several years. It has evolved from one meeting every couple of months with only one or two projects on the agenda to now responding to a Memorandum of Understanding with the City to submit a written determination report on every permit issued within the VNC geographic region. The committee has become more educated about the planning process and is now working towards a 2010 target of revising the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan.
Along with these growing responsibilities, the workload of the committee has increased from one or two projects being calendared every few months to the present level of hearing three to five projects twice a month. On average, what does this mean to each of the eight volunteer members that make up this committee, a workload that includes preparing 27 staff reports per month.

The process to analyze and prepare a project for hearing is fairly simple; contact the applicant, convince them to submit their plans for review, research the variances sought and flush out any that were not realized, organize their information and post it to the LUPC website, engage the potentially impacted neighbors and prepare a synopsis to post for Brown Act notification. Now multiply this process for one project 27 fold and the amount of information gathered and disseminated through this eight member volunteer committee becomes massive. What started out as a simple endeavor has now grown into a complex task with time sensitive details that must be accurately managed.

Automation to the rescue… with this sort of workload, managing details calls for a computerized case tracking system. What is needed is a centralized system that all committee members can access when they have volunteer time to give, that can reduce or eliminate many of the mundane tasks, and that will help engage the general public in the process. The system needs to enforce the policy rules of the VNC Board and the committee, while ensuring Brown Act laws are adhered. And, finally, the system must be available to all Venice Stakeholders and the City at large.

A pilot proof-of-concept system is being developed to address many of these needs. The system is being designed as a collaboration tool that will be managed over the internet. System access will be regulated through User Accounts that are grouped into security levels, starting with the general public then moving up the access ladder to project applicant, followed by registered stakeholder, committee staff member, committee chair, system administrator and program developers. Each higher group will be granted more access to functionality and system capabilities.

The system will track information by assigning case numbers to each project. The project or case files will be stored in a database and accessed through their respective case numbers. The routines that extract and modify the stored information will vary based on the individual access rights. The system will offer read-only reports to the general public while allowing stakeholders the rights to post feedback about issues they might have with any given project. Applicants will be assigned temporary access to upload their information and respond to feedback. LUPC staff members will be able to monitor all aspects of the cases, including being able to publish their findings, track correspondence and write recommendations (tentative motions) for the VNC Board to approve. Search and mapping functionality along with tracking key indicators will enable statistical analysis of accumulative impacts to be graphically generated. The VNC Board members, besides inheriting all the rights of the lower groups, will be able to post their final motion decisions and generate reports required by the City.

In addition, the audio meeting minutes that are digitally recorded will be divided into segments that correspond to the each project and posted into the case file along with any other archives.

In a nutshell, the LUPC Case Tracking system will automate the flow of information through the Neighborhood Council in a consistent, easy to understand format, while relieving a lot of the tedious tasks volunteers must perform at present. (follow up with PowerPoint overview and system demonstration.)

Exhibit A – Standing Rule 13 Principles of Representation Compliance Form (Item 4Aii)

Statement of Compliance with Venice Neighborhood Council Standing Rule 13*

As a member of the Board of Officers of the Venice Neighborhood Council and/or one of its committees, I am required, under VNC Standing Rule 13, to inform you that I am representing myself personally and I am not representing the VNC or a VNC Committee.

If the Board has considered and acted upon a motion dealing with a matter under consideration in this non-VNC forum, I am further required to disclose to you, verbatim, the nature and disposition of the motion considered by the Board, which disclosure is as follows (taken from the relevant Board Agenda or Minutes):

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

On _____________ I signed and submitted this statement before speaking in support of or in opposition to a VNC matter,

____________________________________, being considered by ____________________________________, a non-VNC forum.

Signature Member of VNC Board (yes/no) and/or the following VNC Committee:

________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

Position: _________________________________________________
_______________________________________

• Venice Neighborhood Council Standing Rules

August 19, 2008

13. Principles of Representation

I. The Board trusts and expects Board Officers and Committee Members to adhere to the following principles of representation:

a. No Board Officer or Committee Member, unless authorized in writing by the President of the VNC to do so, may in any way:

(i) Use the VNC logo or letterhead or stationery for any purpose; or

(ii) Claim to represent the VNC in any forum except:

• to present, verbatim, motions that have been considered and acted upon by the Board and which have not been subsequently repealed by the Board or superseded by a subsequent motion of the Board; and
• to correct misunderstandings or to respond to questions related thereto.

This rule shall not apply to the President of the VNC.

b. Any Board Officer or Committee Member may identify themselves as such in any forum. If doing so in support of or in opposition to a matter being considered in a non-VNC forum, s/he shall make clear that s/he is representing her/himself personally and is not representing the VNC or a VNC Committee. If the Board has considered and acted upon a motion dealing with a matter under consideration in a non-VNC forum, the nature and disposition of the motion considered by the Board shall be disclosed.

Exhibit B – Conflict Resolution Committee Decisions (Item 6AI)

October 14, 2008

DECISION

Re: Venice Neighborhood Council Standing Rule 13 Complaint by Fabiola Wright against Challis McPherson, dated Aug. 5, 2008

On September 30, 2008 a public hearing was convened of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Conflict Resolution Committee to hear a complaint by Fabiola Wright alleging a violation of VNC Standing Rule 13 by Challis McPherson, Chair of the VNC Land Use and Planning Committee and a VNC Board Officer. Present at the hearing were Challis McPherson, Fabiola Wright, the attorney of Fabiola Wright, and four members of the Conflict Resolution Committee consisting of James Schley, Oji Nwankwo, Pamela Pressley and Rush Gomez, along with members of the concerned public.

After reviewing the relevant evidence and testimony submitted by both the complainant, Fabiola Wright, and respondent, Challis McPherson, including an audio recording of a May 20, 2008 appeal hearing before the Los Angeles Board of Building and Safety Commissioners (LADBS Appeal # 080014), it is the opinion of the VNC Conflict Resolution Committee that a violation of VNC Standing Rule 13 was committed by Challis McPherson on May 20, 2008 during the LADBS appeal hearing. Specifically, the Committee finds that Ms. McPherson introduced herself as Chair of the VNC Land Use and Planning Committee and did not “make clear that she [was] representing herself personally and [was] not representing the VNC or a VNC Committee” (VNC Rule 13.II.b.) before giving her opinion regarding the subject of the LADBS appeal.

It is the opinion of the Conflict Resolution Committee that Challis McPherson’s history of community service and volunteerism is a mitigating factor.

Therefore, it is the recommendation of the VNC Conflict Resolution Committee that Ms. McPherson be censured and admonished that, except as otherwise allowed under VNC Standing Rule 13.I.a., when any Board Officer or Committee Member is offering his or her opinion regarding a matter being considered in a non-VNC forum, he or she may identify him/herself as a Board Officer or Committee Member; however, the Board Officer or Committee Member has an affirmative duty to use unambiguous language to make it clear that he or she is representing him/herself personally, and not the VNC. (See VNC Standing Rule 13.I.b.)

Pursuant to VNC Standing Rule 13.II.d., within 7 calendar days following transmission of the decision to the parties, a party may appeal the decision of the Conflict Resolution Committee to the VNC Board by written request to the Secretary. The request must include grounds for appeal and will be heard by the Board within 60 calendar days of receipt of the appeal by the Secretary. The Board may overturn a decision of the CRC by majority vote.

Respectfully,

Rush Gomez
Chair VNC Conflict Resolution Committee

November 21, 2008

DECISION

Re: Venice Neighborhood Council Standing Rule 13 Complaint by Nathalie Godts against Challis McPherson, dated July 15, 2008

On November 11, 2008 a public hearing was convened of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Conflict Resolution Committee to hear a complaint by Nathalie Godts alleging a violation of VNC Standing Rule 13 by Challis McPherson, Chair of the VNC Land Use and Planning Committee and a VNC Board Officer. Present at the hearing were Challis McPherson, Nathalie Godts, and three members of the Conflict Resolution Committee consisting of Rush Gomez, Chair, Oji Nwankwo, and Pamela Pressley, along with members of the concerned public.

After reviewing the relevant evidence and testimony submitted by both the complainant, Nathalie Godts, and respondent, Challis McPherson, including a transcript of the June 25, 2008 City of Los Angeles Parcel Map Public Hearing re: 720 Brooks Avenue, it is the opinion of the VNC Conflict Resolution Committee that a violation of VNC Standing Rule 13 was committed by Challis McPherson on June 25, 2008 during the City of Los Angeles Parcel Map Public Hearing. Specifically, the Committee finds that Ms. McPherson introduced herself as Chair of the VNC Land Use and Planning Committee prior to offering her opinion in support of the project under consideration and did not “make clear that she [was] representing herself personally and [was] not representing the VNC or a VNC
Committee” (VNC Rule 13.II.b.).

This violation is the second of two Rule 13 violations that the CRC has determined were committed by Ms. McPherson, the first one taking place at a May 20, 2008 LADBS hearing. (See Oct. 14, 2008 CRC Decision re VNC Standing Rule 13 Complaint by Fabiola Wright against Challis McPherson.) Therefore, it is the recommendation of the VNC Conflict Resolution Committee that Ms. McPherson be censured in writing by the VNC Board and admonished that, except as otherwise allowed under VNC Standing Rule 13.I.a., when any Board Officer or Committee Member is offering his or her opinion regarding a matter being considered in a non-VNC forum, he or she may identify him/herself as a Board Officer or Committee Member; however, the Board Officer or Committee Member has an affirmative duty to use unambiguous language to make it clear that he or she is representing him/herself personally, and not the VNC. (See VNC Standing Rule 13.I.b.) The CRC further recommends that this decision, the October 14, 2008 CRC decision, and the written censure by the VNC Board be made public by posting on the VNC website.

Pursuant to VNC Standing Rule 13.II.d., within 7 calendar days following transmission of the decision to the parties, a party may appeal this decision of the Conflict Resolution Committee to the VNC Board by written request to the Secretary. The request must include grounds for appeal and will be heard by the Board within 60 calendar days of receipt of the appeal by the Secretary. The Board may overturn a decision of the CRC by majority vote.

Respectfully,

Rush Gomez, Chair
Oji Nwankwo
Pamela Pressley
VNC Conflict Resolution Committee

Exhibit C – Special Assessment District Explained (Item 6FI)

From: ABVEN@aol.com [mailto:ABVEN@aol.com] – Aldis Browne
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:22 AM
To: secretary@venicenc.org
Subject: Special asssessment district bonds

A special assessment district is a designated geographic area in which the market value of real estate is enhanced due to the influence of a public improvement and in which an assessment is apportioned to recover the costs of that public improvement. Such a district might overlay only a section of Venice or parts of Venice, LA County and Santa Monica, etc. Since only those land owners who will directly benefit will be assessed, only they vote. These certainly do not raise everybody’s taxes, and generally when the bonds are paid off, they are retired.

Special assessments are not uniformly levied, they are apportioned to each property based upon the direct benefit the property will receive from the public improvements created by these bonds. In other words, whoever stands to gain the most pays the most. Thus commercial properties proportional assessments might be much higher than individual residences. Similarly, those properties closer to the improvements may pay a higher proportional rate than those further away.

Underwriters issue these municipal bond offerings, thus they do the requisite research and analysis in order to propose apportionment. If the potential benefit to the property owners who will be voting is attractive enough, usually these are successful.

Aldis

Mark Blankenship, who has been involved with such financing, wrote the following:

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MUNICIPAL FINANCING

The West Los Angeles Region has extraordinarily high real estate values that are essentially recession-proof, continuing to hold value despite the downturn in the economy. Traditional means of “priming” the economy have been exhausted and many decision-makers are looking to alternative mechanisms to “jump start” the macro-economy and the micro-economy. We are about to enter an era that will be tantamount to the New Deal period where public works projects funded by the public capital markets could provide jobs, infra-structure and hope. A beautifully conceived Special Assessment District for the Arts in Venice could truly make Venice a “Gateway to the Arts” by implementing a complex yet compelling rubric of municipal financing mechanisms from which everyone would benefit.

A Special Assessment District is a unique geographic area in which the market value of real estate is enhanced due to the influence of a public improvement and in which a tax is apportioned to recover the costs of the public improvement. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 117, (1990). Properties designated to be specially assessed are assembled into a geographic area with clearly defined boundaries. This geographic area is termed a Special Assessment District.

There is nothing novel or experimental about special assessment financing. It has been employed for years in more than 35 states, including California, Florida, Illinois and Maryland. The 2002 U.S. Census identifies some 35000 special district governments in the nation. According to The Bond Buyer newspaper, Florida has sold $14.8 billion in special assessment bonds in the last five years and California has sold $6.3 billion in the same period. Banc of America Securities estimated that it would underwrite some $3 billion in special assessment bonds in the year 2007 alone. Venice, however, has never implemented a Special Assessment District and now is the time to move forward with such a financing mechanism.

Special assessment financing allows the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance infrastructure improvement that are paid by special assessment on privately owned real estate in the development zone. Because these bonds are secured by tax liens on the real property, they are high credit, tax-exempt long-term securities and are very attractive to investors. Developers like special assessment bonds because they provide a long-term, low-interest source of funding for pre-construction expenditures, which does not interfere with construction or permanent project financing. The municipality benefits, of course, from enhanced property tax revenues from the project without a reduction of its scarce tax revenues or an increase in its municipal debt burden.

The Special Assessment District consists of only those properties which are designated by the applicable law as having received a specific and unique “benefit” from the public improvement. In general, the “benefit” must result directly, uniquely and specifically from the public project. The term “benefit” most frequently means an increase in the market value of the benefited property. Only certain property can be specially assessed: real property that the capital improvement project directly, uniquely and specifically “benefits”, which normally means that the capital improvement project increases the value of those certain parcels of real estate that are assessed to pay for the “benefit”.

In special assessments, proportionality is a key element. With a special assessment the fiscal burden imposed must be reasonably proportional to the benefit created. The fiscal burden is spread among only those properties within the Special Assessment District and it is apportioned to each property based upon the unique, specific and direct benefit the property received from the capital improvement.

Special Assessment Districts share a variety of qualities that separate them from the traditional democratic processes. First, voting and petitioning is, with a few exceptions, limited to property owners, even though the services and the capital improvements funded by the assessments often include nonexcludable and indivisible community benefits. Second, most of the times the assessments are based not on the property values but to the amount of benefits a property owner should expect to receive from the arrangement. Finally, because each vote must be weighed according to the percentage of the new assessment each property owner would be expected to pay, balloting is neither anonymous nor confidential. Certainly it does not provide one person with one vote but it does spare the non-real property owner from having to bear the financial burden of the cost of the capital improvements paid for by the funding arising from the Special Assessment District.

Essentially, by creating and implementing a Special Assessment District in Venice, the benefited real property owners will vividly improve the local infrastructure, enhancing the quality of life for all Venice stakeholders including themselves, and in the end reaping the reward of increased property values arising from a more culturally vibrant community.

Exhibit D – Treasurers Report (Item 7)

Exhibit E – No Opinion, No Recommendation Without Prejudice (Item 8EI)

Applications received by planning 9-4-08 to 9-15-08
4/9/2008 ZA 2008-3644 CEX 23 East 28th Avenue Addition to SFD CEX = coastal exemption
4/9/2002 ZA 2008-3657 CEX 2500 South Grand View Demo of garage CEX = coastal exemption
4/9/2008 ENV 2008-3692 CE, ZA 2008-3691 AIC 441 East Sherman Canal Removing & replacing window for SFD CE categorical exemption AIC approval in concept Applications received by planning 9-16-08 to 10-11-08
19-Sep-08 DIR-2008-3827-VSO 804 E BROOKS AVE 90291 NEW 3-STORY 3;310 SQ. FT. SFD VSO-VENICE SIGNOFF MARTIN CASTERAN (310)829-0676
17-Sep-08 ENV-2008-3779-CE 452 E HOWLAND CL 90291 APPROVAL IN CONCEPT TO ADD 371 SQUARE FEET OVER EXISTING GARAGE CE-CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION TIMOTHY MC CARTHY (310)918-8801
17-Sep-08 ZA-2008-3778-AIC 452 E HOWLAND CL 90291 APPROVAL IN CONCEPT TO ADD 371 SQUARE FEET OVER EXISTING GARAGE AIC-APPROVAL IN CONCEPT TIMOTHY MC CARTHY (310)918-8801
26-Sep-08 ZA-2008-3905-CEX 1426 S MAIN ST 90291 REMOVE INTERIOR PLASTER; INSULATE REPLACE WINDOWS/DOOR SAME SIZE; SAME OPENING TO MIX USE BUILDING CEX-COASTAL EXEMPTION LEN JUDAKEN (310)838-1816
16-Sep-08 ZA-2008-3773-CEX 819 W WOODLAWN AVE 90291 648 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SFD CEX-COASTAL EXEMPTION BRIAN MULLINIX (213)891-0871
9-Oct-08 AA-2008-4167-PMLA-CC 43 E NAVY ST 90291 PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP – CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX PMLA-PARCEL MAP;CC-CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION JENNY M. KIM (818)907-8755
9-Oct-08 ENV-2008-4168-EAF 43 E NAVY ST 90291 PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP – CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX EAF-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT JENNY M. KIM (818)907-8755
9-Oct-08 ZA-2008-4178-CDP-MEL 43 E NAVY ST 90291 CONDO CONVERSION OF EXISTING DUPLEX CDP-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT;MEL-MELLO ACT COMPLIANCE REVIEW JENNY KIM (818)907-8755
30-Sep-08 DIR-2008-3949-SPP 734 E NOWITA PL 90291 REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE STORY ONE CAR GARAGE RESIDENCE SPP-SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT PERMIT COMPLIANCE JOHN MULEAHY (310)827-1222
30-Sep-08 ENV-2008-3950-CE 734 E NOWITA PL 90291 REMODEL AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ONE STORY ONE CAR GARAGE RESIDENCE CE-CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION JOHN MULEAHY (310)827-1222
10-Oct-08 ZA-2008-4187-CEX 753 E PALMS BLVD 90291 2-STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE STORY DWELLING AND REMODEL EXISTING GARAGE TO ADD NEW RECREATION ROOM AND ROOF DECK ON TOP. CEX-COASTAL EXEMPTION KATHY ERDELYI (310)553-9339 Applications received by planning 10-12-08 to 10-25-08
16-Oct-08 DIR-2008-4262-VSO 2433 S BOONE AVE 90291 ENCLOSE FRONT PORCH AND REAR CARPORT VSO-VENICE SIGNOFF ADEL BAZZIO (562)869-2700
20-Oct-08 ZA-2008-4280-CEX 2433 S BOONE AVE 90291 ADDITION OF 39 SF. TO EXISTING SFD AND CONVERT EXISTING CARPORT TO GARAGE CEX-COASTAL EXEMPTION ADEL BAZZI (562)755-9232
16-Oct-08 DIR-2008-4257-VSO 726 E CALIFORNIA AVE 90291 DEMO SFD AND CONSTRUCT NEW SFD WITH DETACHED CARPORT VSO-VENICE SIGNOFF AMY SIMS (310)581-8500
20-Oct-08 DIR-2008-4281-VSO 2404 S FREY AVE 90291 9’X23.16’ ADD’N TO LIVING RM OF (E) 1-STORY SFD; EXPAND (E) COVERED PORCH TO 17’X5’ VSO-VENICE SIGNOFF DENNIS HOOPER (213)500-1605
15-Oct-08 ZA-2008-4230-CEX 2404 S FREY AVE 90291 216 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO LIVING ROOM AND EXPANSION OF COVERED PORCH OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CEX-COASTAL EXEMPTION DENNIS HOOPER (213)500-1605
22-Oct-08 DIR-2008-4322-SPP 2811 S GRAND CL 90291 DEMO (E) SFD AND CONSTRUCT (N) 3-STORY; 30’ HIGH; 4;721 SQ FT SFD WITH ROOF DECK AND ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE. SPP-SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT PERMIT COMPLIANCE MARIA CASTELLANOS (310)822-6913
22-Oct-08 ENV-2008-4321-CE 2811 S GRAND CL 90291 DEMO (E) SFD AND CONSTRUCT (N) 3-STORY; 30’ HIGH; 4;721 SQ FT SFD WITH ROOF DECK AND ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE. CE-CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION MARIA CASTELLANOS (310)822-6913
17-Oct-08 DIR-2008-4266-VSO 619 E SAN JUAN AVE N 90291 NEW CONSTRUCTION IN NON-APPLEABLE ZONE VSO-VENICE SIGNOFF HOWARD ROSEN (310)399-4794
16-Oct-08 ENV-2008-4253-CE 147 W VIA MARINA 90292 CONSTRUCT 5400 SF TWO -STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CE-CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION VINCENT VARELA (310)795-5615
16-Oct-08 ZA-2008-4252-AIC 147 W VIA MARINA 90292 CONSTRUCT 5400 SF TWO -STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AIC-APPROVAL IN CONCEPT VINCENT VARELA (310)795-5615

Location(s)

See map: Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps

Attachment	Size
090106DraftElectionProcedures.doc	221.5 KB
090112VNCAdComAgenda.doc	277.5 KB