VNC Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda
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. Unless otherwise noted, the President abstains on all votes.
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
March 9, 2009 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/090309VNCAdComMinutesRev.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 James Murez (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 to report 60 days after Murez initiates system as pilot]
6. New AdCom Business
A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org): Approve VNC co-sponsorship of WRAC Candidates Forum.
B Administrative matters:
o Determine process & schedule Brooke Soles confirmation election & outreach.
o Determine process & schedule selection of two LUPC vacancy replacements & outreach.
o Etc
C Consideration of DRAFT April 21, 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, April 21, 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
March 17, 2009 Board Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/090317VNCBoardMinutesRev.doc)
Committee Reports are provided in written form when available
4. Consent Calendar
A From LUPC
I De Minimis Projects
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: Challis Macpherson moves that VNC Board of Officers send a De Minimis Form Letter stating No Opinion, No Recommendation Without Prejudice to CD11 regarding entitlement applications listed in the attached exhibit. See Exhibit A
II Letter supporting PRNA appeal regarding 534 Victoria
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: Regarding DIR 2008-4703 DI, 534 Victoria Avenue. November 30, 2007, VNC Board sent a letter supporting an appeal by Harris Levey and Presidents’ Row Neighborhood Association to Ms. Gail Goldberg, Director of LA City Planning. I submit that VNC Board of Officers send another letter stating the chronology of the project and re affirming our support of PRNA appeal to Ms. Goldberg, Councilmember Rosendahl and California Coastal Commission. Both letters included. See Exhibit B
B From Neighborhood Committee
I New Members for Neibhorhood Committee Linda Lucks (VicePresident@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: The Neighborhood Committee is adding two new members and reassigning a third:
• Adam Glick, Peninsula (Marina Peninsula Neighborhood Association;
• Jerry Washington, American Red Cross;
• Jeffrey Fritz, will now represent the Ballona East & West Neighborhoods
5. Treasurers Report – See Exhibit C accept report as presented
6. Scheduled Announcements (no more than 1 minute per report unless otherwise stated)
A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org):
B Governmental Reports
• DONE: Deanna Stevenson
• LAPD: Officer ?, Senior Lead Officer
• State Assemblyperson Ted Lieu: Melissa S. Ramoso, Field Representative (310-615-3515; Melissa.ramoso@asm.ca.gov)
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Jennifer Badger, West Area Representative (310-479-3823; jennifer.badger@lacity.org)
• City Councilperson Bill Rosendahl: Arturo Piña, Field Deputy
• LADWP: VNC Representatives DeDe Audet & Challis McPherson
C Oakwood Recreation Center search for fund-raising talent
Lizka Mendoza (310-452-7479; Lizka.Mendoza@lacity.org), facility Director-Oakwood Recreation Center: Oakwood Recreation Center is now searching for community members who can utilize their talents in fund-raising and are interested in improving their recreation center and park. The Oakwood Park Advisory Board is made up of individuals who are dedicated to working together to make their park the best it can for all facets of life. To apply contact Oakwood Facility Director, Lizka Mendoza at (310) 452-7479 or apply online at http://www.laparks.org/dos/ereg/facility/oakwoodRC.htm to download a PAB application.
D Emergency Preparedness Display at Abbot Kinney Venice Library
Maxine Leral on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: The Venice Abbot Kinney Library will mount a display of Emergency Preparedness materials necessary for surviving a disaster – April 20 through Labor Day.
E Emergency Preparedness Town Hall Meeting
Linda Lucks (Vicepresident@VeniceNC.org) & Nick Hippisley-Cox (Hippisley@earthlink.net) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: Emergency Preparedness EXPO/TOWN Hall event will take place in Venice on Sunday, May 31 from 12-4 p.m. (location tbd). Short Demonstrations in CPR for children to be offered in throughout the day; other demonstrations and giveaways.
F Status update on the Westminster Dog Park project (10 min)
Salem Garawi, P.E. (213-847-0345; Salem.Garawi@lacity.org) Project Manager for Prop O|BOE for LA Dep. of Public Works: The project was awarded to a contractor and the Notice-to-Proceed with the construction was issued on 3/4/09. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
G Introduction to spcaLA Specialty Spay/Neuter Center
Cheryl Anglin (323-730-5303 ext. 280; canglin@spcala.com) on behalf of spcaLA Specialty Spay/Neuter Center:
I would like to introduce myself and our veterinarian from spcaLA Specialty Spay/Neuter Center, then review the services we provide to the community at our Center.
H Ethics Training Update
Linda Lucks (Vicepresident@VeniceNC.org): Regularly Scheduled Monthly Announcement- naming Board Members in Compliance with State and City mandated Ethics Training. The following board members have taken the Ethics training: Newhouse, MacPherson, Rogers, Harrison, Koslow, Castleman, Saltzburg, Oscars, Rios, Murphy, Lucks, Parkos. Nine board members not yet in compliance
I Community Improvement Project Report Ivan Spiegel (ivan13147@verizon.net)
J New Website Update Sean Kelly (irishsk@yahoo.com)
7. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person — no board member announcements permitted)
8. Old Business
A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org):
B From LUPC
I Challenge to City Interpretation of impact of SLSO on VCZSP
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: Regarding DIR 2008-4703 DI, Director’s (of Planning Department) Interpretation of Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance as it pertains to VCZSP; considering that LUPC unanimously disagrees with the Director’s Interpretation and wants the Director to consider VNC prior recommendations, LUPC recommends that the VNC Board of Officers recommend that this document be reconsidered in light of prior recommendations made by VNC. [Discussion only]
See Exhibit D – SLS Discussion Questions
9. New Business
A From Board Members
I Proliferation of Medical Marijuana Clinics in Venice
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org): Boardmember Challis Macpherson requests that the VNC Board of Officers deliberate upon and move to recommend a course of action to CD11 regarding the proliferation of Medical Marijuana Clinics in Venice. Please note that the clinics open in facilities that were retail, there is (usually) no change of use; therefore, LUPC has no jurisdiction. This is a board issue.
Per a Venice resident, there is one at 812 Lincoln called Green Dot. This has been there for a few months. There is a new one being constructed at 736 Lincoln, which is just two doors down from 736. These are both a short distance from a school. They are also within 20 ft. of residences. The same landlord has rented to both of these … There is also another two blocks down at 410 Lincoln.
II VNC Vision Goals – Proposed Standing Rule
[Postponed to April 13 AdCom – JM/LL &/or REC to modify to reflect comments made by AdCom?]
Linda Lucks (Lindalucks@aol.com) & Joe Murphy (joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com): At its December 5, 2008 VNC Board retreat, the Board reflected on work done and considered these Vision Goals as a way to stimulate the vitality of the VNC. The intent is to focus the deliberations of the VNC Board and its Committees so that we can better serve our community. It is therefore proposed that the VNC Board adopt the following as a Standing Rule entitled VNC Vision Goals:
Standing Rule __ – VNC Vision Goals
To stimulate the vitality of the VNC, the Board and VNC Committees are encouraged to consider the below VNC Vision Goals in their deliberations.
Although the VNC is a political body, and inevitably it will become embroiled in issues that divide the community, these goals are designed to promote a more proactive, collaborative vision for VNC Committees to include in their deliberations as they formulate recommendations for Board consideration. The intent is to create a working framework of integrated strategies capable of achieving, over time, broader consensus and increased:
DELETE FROM HERE
• Participation
• Walkability
• Diversity
• Creativity
• Collaboration
• Brainstorming
TO HERE
Participation: Consider strategies that encourage & facilitate broader involvement of stakeholders, major organizations, community groups, and government institutions, etc. …
Walkability: Consider strategies that reduce the use of cars and that promote alternatives such as walking, skateboarding, biking & bike racks, circulation systems (trolleys), park & ride rather than additional parking, street-narrowing/sidewalk widening, walk/bike/skateboard lanes separated from traffic, easier neighborhood pedestrian access to commercial stores, etc. …
Diversity: Consider strategies that encourage & facilitate realistic recommendations designed to increase economic diversity, including affordable housing, etc. …
Creativity: Consider strategies that promote the arts, encourage & facilitate creativity. This can apply to architecture, public art, social events (neighborhood gatherings/street movies/theatre/dance/pottery/…), etc. …
Collaboration: Consider strategies that encourage & facilitate ‘level playing fields’ for collaborative negotiation; opt for procedures & policies that ‘promote flexibility & dialogue’ over ‘reacting defensively to rigid criteria’, facilitation/mediation training, etc. …
Brainstorming: Consider strategies that encourage & facilitate exploring of non-traditional options for achieving shared objectives, etc. …
DELETE FROM HERE
Board Commitment: The VNC Board commits to considering these vision goals in its deliberations.
Committee Implementation: VNC Committees are encouraged to:
• Consider the above vision goals in their deliberations on any matter that will come before the Board as a recommendation from the committee.
• Identify the major organizations, community groups, and City institutions within its purview. Add them to mailing & email lists, invite them to meetings, and include their written positions on any matter that will come before the Board as a recommendation from the committee.
• Designate one of their members as its liaison to consult with and solicit comment from peer liaisons from other affected VNC Committees as deemed appropriate by the committee.
• In its recommendation to the Board, provide a brief summary that includes:
a. Analysis of each vision goal considered (including input from peer liaisons); and
b. Its impact, if any, on the recommendation.
TO HERE
[Above proposed amendments are by Joe Murphy after hearing March 9 AdCom comments]
III Ask City Council to revisit Financial Disclosure Requirement
Linda Lucks (Vicepresident@VeniceNC.org): Whereas the City Council adopted the requirement that Neighborhood Council’s wishing to participate in the opening of Neighborhood Council Files be required to disclose financial interests relating to the File in question, and whereas the City Ethics Commission and the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners oppose the Form 54 adopted by the City Council as being much too intrusive; and whereas Councilmembers Janice Hahn, Zine and Gargetti agreed to revisit the form in an effort to find a more appropriate form that encourages Neighborhood Council participation,
I move that the Venice Neighborhood Council support the motion of Councilmember Janice Hahn to revisit the issue of financial disclosure in relation to the NC Council File motions and recommend that the currently approved Form 54 be replaced with a more suitable form.
IV Request City Council repeal Section 5 of City of Los Angeles Ordinance Number 179680
Joe Murphy (310-895-0344; joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com): Request LA City Council repeal Sec. 5. Subdivision (2) of Subsection (a) of Section 22.811 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code which it amended on February 20, 2008 to read:
(2) That neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works, owns property in the neighborhood & also to those who declare a stake in the neighborhood & affirm the factual basis for it.
Request further that LA City Council use expediting procedures if necessary to enable the City Clerk to be prepared to conduct the 2010 Neighborhood Council elections.
B From Budget Committee
I Funds available for three projects
Hugh Harrison (310-487-2533; chezhaha@aol.com) for Budget Committee: Funds are available for the three projects below. Affirmed by the Budget Committee by unanimous vote.
• The Arts Committee has requested and the Budget Committee has approved the financial capacity to fund as a Board Community project, the 2009 Venice Music Fest. The budget request is for $2000.
• The Environment Committee has requested and the Budget Committee has approved the financial capacity to fund as a Board Community project, the 2009 Venice Eco-Festival. The budget request is for $2600.
• The Education Committee has requested funding for an Education Forum as a Board funded community project. The Budget Committee has approved the financial capacity to fund $1000 towards the cost of this project.
There is currently $3988 in unallocated funds for community improvement projects for the current fiscal year. A decision will be required by the Board as to the allocation of funds to these projects.
II Approval in concept of funding of Annual Oakwood Barbeque
Hugh Harrison (310-487-2533; chezhaha@aol.com) for Budget Committee: The budget committee unanimously approved in concept the funding of the annual Oakwood Barbeque out of 2009-2010 funds, not to exceed $5000. While the exact budget numbers are not yet known, the timing of this project requires assurances of funding before the budget process is complete. The committee is requesting approval in concept by the Board, with final figures to be decided when the budget is complete.
C From Neighborhood Committee
I Increase LAPD presence at Venice Beach – May 31-Labor Day
Linda Lucks (VicePresident@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee:
Whereas the influx of tourists from around the world is greatest from May-September,
Whereas a large LAPD presence is historically necessary and provided to manage crowds and prevent crime;
Whereas the City has removed police officers from the Westside due to falling crime statistics;
The Venice NHC request the VNC to send a letter to Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilmember Rosendahl, to urge them to assign at least 54 officers to Beach detail from Memorial Day to Labor Day to meet the needs of this community.
II VNC Support for Safe RV Pilot Parking Program
Linda Lucks (VicePresident@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee:
Whereas the issue of RV’s parked in Venice has long resulted in media attention, anguish, anxiety and anger by many Venice stakeholders;
Whereas Councilman Bill Rosendahl, at the urging of the VNC, researched the models for safe parking programs that work in other municipalities (Santa Barbara and Eugene, Oregon);
Whereas the Venice Neighborhood Committee feels that a pilot program may indeed provide a partial solution; Whereas Councilman Rosendahl submitted a motion before City Council to establish a pilot program in CD 11 to test the feasibility of such a program Citywide,
The VeniceNC Neighborhood Committee voted unanimously to ask the VNC to send a letter of support to City Council and Mayor Villaraigosa in support of Councilman Rosendahl’s Council motion #_______ to establish a pilot program to find safe parking locations, tbd by permit & case management services, in CD 11.
III Motion for Letter Requesting Traffic Mitigation on Venice Blvd
Maxine Leral & Linda Lucks (Lindalucks@aol.com) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee:
Whereas the VNC’s Neighborhood Committee is aware of the horrendous traffic gridlock occurring in the area between Pacific Avenue and Ocean Avenue on North and South Venice Boulevards on Sunday afternoons during the summer and when the weather is hot before summer.
And whereas the traffic situation on North and South Venice Boulevards has all the ingredients of a disaster waiting to happen and motorists are frustrated being caught in a traffic jam without the assistance of an official Traffic Controller to direct traffic and prevent gridlock at each of the intersections between Pacific and Ocean Avenue.
And whereas the “Left Turn Only” traffic sign at Dell Avenue and North Venice Boulevard exacerbates the situation by preventing motorists from being able to legally exit the congested area once they turn left onto Dell Avenue from South Venice Boulevard only to find that the City lot between Dell and Ocean Avenue is full.
And whereas motorists do not have the ability to leave the area by continuing on Dell Avenue and cross North Venice Boulevard and they are again forced back into the not so merry merry-go-round traffic on North Venice Boulevard, creating a mega-traffic gridlock.
And whereas the City parking lots are filled to capacity very early in the day and there is no warning to motorists approaching the beach on Venice Boulevard of the situation, the traffic snarl begins.
And whereas if an emergency response was needed, there would be no way for an emergency vehicle to get through.
And whereas this traffic gridlock jeopardizes the safety and hinders the ingress/egress traffic access of local residents in area and prevents visitor access to the beach from all parts of the County for free entertainment and to enjoy the famous Venice Beach.
Now therefore, the Venice Neighborhood Council requests Councilmember Bill Rosendahl (CD11), the LAPD, and the Department of Transportation to alleviate the untenable situation by removing the “Left Turn Only” traffic sign at Dell Avenue and North Venice Boulevard;
AND further, to assign Traffic Control personnel at each of the intersections from Pacific Avenue to Ocean Avenue on North and South Venice Boulevards – particularly at Dell Avenue where it intersects with North and South Venice Boulevards – to keep intersections free and clear of gridlock on Sunday afternoons during the summer and when hot beach weather encourages excess vehicular traffic at Venice Beach.
D From Stakeholders & Organizations
I Direct LUPC to consider issues surrounding project proposals
Jed Pauker (vnc3@veniceworks.net) on behalf of neighbors: To direct LUPC to consider the issue of projects that meet buildable envelope numeric dimensions but fail to conform with existing mass, scale and character compatibility dictated by prevailing development guidelines, with reference to an existing project proposal whose pending Planning Department approval is expected to be appealed based on these issues.
II Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan Amendment on Signage
Dennis Hathaway (310-386-9661; dennis@banbillboardblight.org) on behalf of Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight: Request the board adopt a resolution asking Councilman Rosendahl to introduce an amendment to the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan that would prohibit all off-site advertising signs and all digital advertising signs.
III Community Impact Statement on Citywide Sign Ordinance
Dennis Hathaway (310-386-9661; dennis@banbillboardblight.org) on behalf of Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight: Request the board adopt the following Community Impact Statement to be transmitted to the city clerk: The Venice Neighborhood Council supports adoption of the new sign ordinance in the form adopted by the City Planning Commission on March 26 as follows:
[need language]
IV Venice Garden & Home Tour Sourcebook ad
Barbara Baumann (310-821-1857; venicegardentour@ca.rr.com) on behalf of Neighborhood Youth Association: The annual Venice Garden & Home Tour 2009, a benefit for the Neighborhood Youth Association’s Las Doradas Children’s Center in Oakwood, publishes a Sourcebook with a resource guide and advertising. This is a request that the Venice Neighborhood Council purchase an ad in the book: 1/4 page ad $250 – 1/2 page ad $500 – full page ad $1,000. The deadline for ad submittal is April 13 – but confirmation ASAP. Please contact venicegardentour@ca.rr.com or visit www.venicegardentour.org for more information…
V Motion for Letter of Support of Venice Heritage Museum
Todd von Hoffmann (310-398-9231; vonHoffmannbros@gmail.com) on behalf of VENICE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Request Board to send its letter of support to Councilman Bill Rosendahl, CD 11, and to whomever else it may concern, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, acknowleding its support of the Venice Heritage Foundation’s efforts to establish a Venice Heritage Museum in Venice and, further, to permit the Venice Heritage Foundation to proudly display the VNC’s logo on all of its promotional materials (with the specific exception of VHF fundraising events):
To Councilman Bill Rosendahl, CD 11
and to whomever else it may concern:
On behalf of the Venice Neighborhood Council (“VNC”), I’m pleased to add our support to the Venice Heritage Foundation (“the Foundation” or “the VHF”). 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 and historian Elayne Alexander.
The VHF plan is particularly exciting. It calls for the restoration of an original Pacific Electric Red Trolley Car to serve as the initial museum space located in Venice of America’s Centennial Park, immediately East of our Venice-Abbot Kinney Memorial Library. The Seal Beach Museum has demonstrated the success of this idea with its own “Red Car” history museum and public library residing similarly (and very appropriately) on old Pacific Electric right-of-way property.
On March 17, 2009, in support of this concept, the VNC Board of Officers unanimously passed the following Motion that was submitted by our Land Use and Planning Committee:
Recommendation for locating Red Car east of Venice Public Library
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: Regarding LUPC proposals for community use of 520 Venice Way:
Regarding proposals to occupy city owned land located at 520 Venice Way, Challis Macpherson moves that VNC Board of Officers accept LUPC’s recommendation to recommend to Councilman Rosendahl that the Venice Heritage Museum (Red Car) be situated on Centennial Park, located immediately East of the Venice Public Library, as soon as possible and that the restoration (of the Red Car) take place there on that site.
Accordingly, on behalf of the VNC and the VHF, I recommend the City Council’s support of the Venice Heritage Museum project as soon as possible. I further recommend that the Museum be situated on Venice of America’s Centennial Park as soon as possible and that the restoration (of the Red Car) take place there on that site.
The Foundation has already located a 100+ year old Red Car (PE 511) ready for a home and restoration volunteers are standing by. The restored Red Car 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 Boulevard called “The Tokio Station”.
Once it is up and running, 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 celebration of our past and legacy for our community’s future, and are proud to have the logo of the Venice Neighborhood Council displayed on the Venice Heritage Museum’s promotional materials.
Sincerely,
Mike Newhouse
President
Venice Neighborhood Council
E From Environmental Committee
I Letter of support for land swap deal to save “Egret Park” Kristopher Valentine (805-341-4577; kristophervalentine@gmail.com) on behalf of Environmental Committee: Motion to send the following letter was voted for unanimously by the Environmental Committee.
April 8, 2009
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City of Los Angeles City Hall, Room 452
200 North Spring
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601
RE: Saving Egret Park / Land Swap Deal
Dear Councilman Rosendahl:
The Venice Neighborhood Council (“VNC”) supports the efforts of the Ballona Institute and The Committee to Complete the Park to secure and protect all of the privately-owned parcels of land located in the Ballona Wetlands area. The VNC urges you to help us complete the full preservation and conservation of all of the Ballona Wetlands.
Recently at the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils, Marcia Hanscom, Co-Director of Ballona Institute, pressed Mayor Villariagosa for support of the plan to swap the city owned Westchester Firehouse with the privately held north end of Del Rey Lagoon know as “Egret Park.” The mayor was definitely receptive to the idea, and expressed interest in assisting the Ballona Institute.
This land swap is vitally important, not only for “Egret Park”, but also for setting a precedent for future land disputes in the greater Ballona Wetlands area. In light of the City’s budget crisis, it is essential to strike a deal before the Firehouse is put back up for sale. You recently were quoted as saying local residents, “must decide if the building is worth fighting for.” Mr. Councilman, it is.
Thank you for your work thus far in forming a potential resolution. The VNC and our Environmental Committee are willing to help you and your office in any way we can to facilitate this deal in a timely manner. No matter what direction your office chooses to take, we hope that it is in-line with the goals of the Ballona Institute and The Committee to Complete the Park , which is the preservation and conservation of all of the Ballona Wetlands. To do that, we must first secure all of the outstanding, privately-held parcels to achieve those goals.
Sincerely,
The Venice Neighborhood Council
F From Arts Committee
I Motion for VNC Board of Officers to support Assembly Bill 700 – Creative Industries & Community Economic Revitalization Act 2010. Nadine Parkos (310-869-4733; Nadineparkos@aol.com) on behalf of the Arts Committee: I, Nadine Parkos, Chair of the VNC Arts Committee, move that the VNC Board of Officers accept the motion of the VNC Arts Committee to send by FAX the following letter in SUPPORT of AB 700. (Vote: Unanimous)
(VNC Letterhead)Today’s Date
The Honorable Paul Krekorian FAX: (916) 319-2143
Member of the California State Assembly
State Capitol Building Position: SUPPORT
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Assembly Bill 700 Location: Assembly Arts,
Creative Industries & Community Entertainment, Sports, Tourism
Economic Revitalization Act 2010 and Internet Media Committee
Dear Assembly Member Krekorian:
The Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) was certified by the LA Department of Neighborhood Empowerment in March, 2002 and the original bylaws of the organization were approved and the area of representation defined. On March 29, 2006, the Board of Officers approved amended bylaws. These bylaws were ratified by Venice stakeholders on May 1, 2006, and approved by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) and subsequently amended. We are a duly elected body of community officers governed by state and local laws and assisted by the City of Los Angeles DONE.
On behalf of the VNC, I thank you for introducing AB 700 and support its passage. California is in its sixth year spending three cents per capita from the General Fund on the arts, and it remains last in the nation for state spending. AB 700 will provide funding to invest in California’s creative sector which contributes to the state’s economy and its ability to compete in the global marketplace.
• The non-profit arts community, large and small, that the CAC has nurtured over the years is a feeder to California’s very profitable creative industry that employs 500,891 as of January 2008. (Dun & Bradstreet data.)
• Non-profit arts organizations are a proven economic driver for California’s economy, a $5.4 billion industry that generates $300 million in state and local taxes.
• Providing a designated funding stream for the CAC can help grow programs that help non-profit arts organizations and artists serve 37 million Californians and the millions of people who visit California every day.
The arts are vital to the quality of life that we are so very proud of in California. With your legislation providing a stable revenue source for the CAC and its programs, the arts can continue to be a significant contributor to California’s economic recovery through tourism, jobs, social services and education outreach. AB 700 proposes a sound investment for California. Thank you for your commitment to a better California.
Sincerely,
Mike Newhouse
President
Venice Neighborhood Council
CC: Ted W. Lieu, AD53
Karen Bass, AD47
Julia Brownley, AD 41
Ms. Dana Mitchell, Consultant, Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism & Internet Media
Committee
Ms. Kathryn Lynch, Legislative Advocate, Lynch & Associates California Arts Advocates
FAX #s: Lieu – ; Bass – ; Brownly – ; Mitchell – (916) 319-3451; Lynch – (916) 443-7353; CAA – (916) 979-1116
II Request for $2000 funding request for the Venice Beach Music Festival Nadine Parkos (310-869-4733; Nadineparkos@aol.com) on behalf of the Arts Committee: I, Nadine Parkos, Chair of the VNC Arts Committee, move that the VNC Board of Officers approve the Motion of the VNC Arts Committee to approve funding from the VNC Board’s Discretionary Fund for the Venice Beach Music Festival in an amount not to exceed $2,000. (Vote: unanimous)Motion to send the following letter was voted for unanimously by the Environmental Committee.
III Motion for Letter of Support of Venice Eco-Fest 2009 Nadine Parkos (310-869-4733; Nadineparkos@aol.com) on behalf of the Arts Committee: I, Nadine Parkos, Chair of the VNC Arts Committee, move that the VNC Board of Officers write a letter of endorsement “To whom it may concern” in support of Venice Eco-Fest 2009. (Vote: unanimous)
G From LADWP/MOU Committee Representatives
I Request for $2000 funding request for the Venice Beach Music Festival
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) & DeDe Audet (310-821-4417; dd1audet@verizon.net): As official VNC Representatives to the LADWP/MOU Committee, Challis Macpherson and DeDe Audet request that the VNC Board of Officers move to recommend as follows:
Whereas the LADWP/MOU Committee moved that inasmuch as the Neighborhood Councils and Community Councils opposed Measure B on the basis that it was asking the voters to approve Charter Amendments and an Administrative Ordinance in order to establish a solar 400 MW roof top plan without specific costs or analysis,
We move and recommend that the Solar Plan be returned to LADWP to be properly vetted; and, that the formation of the Plan include the private sector, solar producers (situated within the United States), Crafts’ and Workers’ Unions, Environmentalists and Neighborhood Councils; and, furthermore, that the Neighborhood Councils and Community be informed in a timely manner before decisions are made relative to the Solar Plan being approved by the LADWP Commission.
NOTE: Saturday, April 4, 2009, above motion was made by Challis Macpherson and seconded by Tony Butka at an official meeting of the LADWP/MOU Committee meeting. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
H From Outreach Committee
I Motion to Amend the Publication policy of the VNC Marc Saltzberg (310-305-9660; outreach@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of the Outreach Committee:
The publication policy of the Venice Neighborhood Council shall be changed to:
The Venice Neighborhood Council may publicize the events, activities, announcements and information from the Departments, Agencies and Officeholders of the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the State of California and the Federal Government of the United States of America. The events and activities of other organizations may be publicized by the Venice Neighborhood Council only if the VNC Board of Directors agrees to sponsor or endorse such events, activities or organizations.
NOTE: The existing policy (as expressed in Standing Rule 18) is:
The Venice Neighborhood Council will publicize only VNC, City of Los Angeles and VNC sponsored or endorsed events where determined by the VNC Board of Directors.
10. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person — no board member announcements permitted)
11. 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 – LUPC De Minimis Projects (Item 4) (to be provided)
Exhibit B – PRNA appeal regarding 534 Victoria
Proposed letter of support
April 8, 2009
Charles R. Posner, Coastal Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802
Subject: 534 Victoria Avenue, Venice, California 90291. Planning Case Number: DIR 2006-10495
SPP;
CEQA: ENV 2006-10496
CE; Prologue Entertainment: Kyle Cooper and Sharyl Beebe
Dear Chuck:
These people are playing fast and loose with beach access parking. Please reference attached letter dated November 30, 2007 from Venice Neighborhood Council in support of PRNA appeal of ZA decision.
The chronology is that Prologue Entertainment in 2006, bought a warehouse, built in 1999, with legal number of on-site parking spaces. This property is immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood. They changed the use of the building to a manufacturing office and converted a majority of the parking spaces to offices without a permit.
Los Angeles Department of Building & Safety caught them. LADBS issued citations (4) which were ignored. LADBS stated that their options were to prosecute the owner for failure to comply with the existing orders or to order vacation of the unapproved portion of the building. In either case, the owner would be compelled to come to an agreement regarding the parking and continue with the City Planning case and ultimately secure a permit, legalize the construction, and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Planning case was originally filed on December 22, 2006, accepted for review on March 30, 2007. ZA hearing November 5, 2007 resulted in recommendation for approval. ZA recommendation was appealed by Harris Levey and Presidents’ Row Neighborhood Association as of December 19, 2007. After numerous continuances at the request of the applicant (Prologue Entertainment) the appeal period timed out because the WLA Area Planning Commission didn’t have enough members to seat a quorum for a hearing. Thus according to the statutes the appeal was denied.
This company is appropriating visitor-serving parking well within the coastal zone. Their intensity of use requires 22 parking spaces; they have 10 on site and propose street parking for 12 employees’ cars.
We strongly request that you recommend denial of this company’s Coastal Development Permit when the California Coastal Commission hears the project. Approval would set a dangerous precedent which would open the door for other enterprises to usurp visitor-serving beach parking.
Sincerely,
Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council
Documentation will be provided immediately upon request
CC: Councilman Bill Rosendahl
Prior letter of support
November 30, 2007
Ms. Gail Goldberg
Director of Planning
Los Angeles City Hall, Rm. 525
200 N. Spring St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: VNC Support of Appeal by PRNA of 11/5/2007 decision of City Planning Department
Case No: DIR 2006-10495-SPP Project Permit Compliance CEQA: ENV 2006- 10495-CE, Section A #5, Parking in Lieu Fee
Dear Gail:
First of all, thank you again for taking part in our Town Hall on November 10th. We know how busy your schedule is, and we really appreciated you time.
I am also writing to inform you, that on November 20, 2007, the Board of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) unanimously endorsed a request from the Presidents Row Neighborhood Association (PRNA) to co-sponsor and fully support its above referenced appeal with respect to Parking In Lieu Fees.
This PRNA/VNC appeal asks for denial of the applicant’s request to eliminate twelve (12) on site parking spaces. On street parking is scarce and the neighborhood can ill afford to lose these spaces. By not providing parking as required by city code, the property owner has shifted the parking burden onto the adjacent neighborhood. As this is within the Coastal area, it further creates a problem of reducing beach access. This also sets a precedent which would be detrimental to the Venice community.
If in lieu fees are assessed as an alternative, this appeal asks that Parking in Lieu Fees of $18,000.00 per parking space be raised to $45,000.00 per parking space to reflect the realities of current construction costs and that these collected fees be specifically, and only, used in Venice to replace the lost parking.
Thank you,
/s/
Mike Newhouse
President
Cc:
Jane Ellison Usher, Chair of Planning Commission
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
VNC Land Use and Planning Committee
Harris Levy, President, Presidents Row Neighborhood Association
Betsy Weisman, Los Angeles City Planning Department
Exhibit C – Treasurers Report (Item 5) (to be provided)
Exhibit D – SLS Discussion Questions (Item 8BI)
Introduction
Small Lot Subdivision Board/LUPC Review Procedure & February 17, 2009 LUPC Motion
The Administrative Committee decided, at its March 9, 2009 meeting, to implement the following proposal for final discussion & vote at the Board’s May 19, 2009 mtg:
Joe Murphy (joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com): I would like AdCom to consider Jed Pauker’s below suggestion & to include an invitation to Shana Bonstin to address the Board. Jed’s 02/21/2009 suggestion:
All, Given the time frame, perhaps it will be helpful for LUPC, and for the VNC Board, to schedule multiple considerations over the next two months of the effects of this ordinance.
Whether you already support or oppose the SLSO as it affects Venice, the ordinance represents a very significant amount of work by Planning, with dedicated research and follow-up by LUPC. Its complexity of issues affecting day-to-day Venice life and development cannot possibly be explicated in two or three hours.
I’m not entirely willing to “bet the farm” – the relationship between VNC and the City Planning Department – on an issue where due process is (finally) allowing timely public input. Knowing that it takes a lot to get Venetians out of our yards and into the chambers of civic counsel, wouldn’t some coordinated and sustained outreach effort be a “best practice” here? Understanding that this might slow down the process, what’s the hurry?
Inviting Helene Bibas to answer questions in 2007 and Shana Bonstin to discuss the Director’s Interpretation last month were two of the smartest things LUPC has done during my short tenure. Why not build on these successes by giving this issue the considered forum it deserves?
IMHO, Jed Pauker
Inviting Shana Bonstin to speak would broaden Board understanding of this issue. As in the selection of members to fill board & LUPC vacancies, this would provide an opportunity for Board Members to pose questions. It would also provide Shana & LUPC an opportunity to respond in writing for distribution to the Board and posting for public information before discussion at the April meeting and discussion and vote at the May meeting.
Challis Macpherson and Joe Murphy recommend the following schedule:
• On or before Friday March 27, 2009 Board & LUPC members are asked to:
1. Review the attached Venice Coastal Specific Plan Director of Planning Specific Plan Interpretation and the attached ‘VNC prior recommendations’ which LUPC indicated that it ‘wants the Director to consider’ (see below LUPC motion).
2. Prepare & email questions they may have about its impact on Venice to Joe Murphy (joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com) and Challis Macpherson (challis.macpherson@verizon.net).
• On or before Friday April 3, 2009 Joe Murphy compiles & posts the questions on the web and emails them to the Board & LUPC & Shana Bonstin.
• On or before Wednesday April 8, 2009 LUPC (or individual LUPC members) & Shana Bonstin prepare responses to the Board & LUPC questions and send them to Joe Murphy (joedmurphyvnc@ca.rr.com) along with any reports or other materials they deem relevant for Board & stakeholder review. Joe Murphy then posts these materials on the web and emails them to the Board & LUPC & Shana Bonstin. This process will be repeated as necessary to air and clarify all concerns.
• At the Tuesday April 21, 2009 Board Meeting LUPC (or individual LUPC members) will attend to briefly frame the issues they consider to be key and to respond to Board member and stakeholder questions.
• At the Tuesday May 19, 2009 Board Meeting Shana Bonstin will attend to briefly frame the issues she considers to be key and to respond to Board member and stakeholder questions. The Board will then consider and vote on the original motion presented by LUPC at the Board’s February 17 meeting which is:
February 17, 2009 LUPC Motion
Questions
Joe Murphy Questions
I believe that housing & diversity are correlated diverse housing is key to community diversity. So my questions are:
1. Will the VSP or the Director’s Venice Interpretation of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance encourage owners to build a larger number of smaller homes in Venice?
2. Will the VSP or the Director’s Venice Interpretation of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance encourage owners to build a larger number of affordable homes in Venice?
3. Based upon what I’ve heard & read, my understanding of the issues to date is as follows:
a. If an affordable unit on a lot is demolished, both the SLS and the VSP require that it be replaced.
b. If there is no affordable unit on a lot that permits building 3 units, the VSP would require a 3rd unit, if proposed, be affordable whereas the SLS would not. Both the VSP and the SLS would permit the construction of 2 units without requiring that either be affordable. The VSP permits the construction of 1 unit; the SLS is not relevant to a 1 unit proposal.
c. If a lot without an affordable unit on it is large enough, the VSP would limit construction to 2 units, or three units if one is affordable, whereas the SLS would permit the construction of 4 units without requiring that any be affordable – and this would hold true if the lot were large enough to be subdivided under the SLS into more than 4 units.
d. If the lot were large enough to allow 4 parcels to be created under the SLS with one unit on each lot, the SLS and the VSP would both require 2 ½ parking spaces per unit – ie, a total of 10 parking spaces. If one of the 4 is an affordable unit, the VSP would still require 10 parking spaces whereas the SLS would only require 9.
e. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in a larger number of homes (and greater density) under the Director’s Interpretation than under the VSP.
f. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in a larger number of smaller homes under the Director’s Interpretation than under the VSP.
g. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in no difference in the number of additional (or replacement) affordable homes under either the Director’s Interpretation or the VSP.
Please correct my understandings above & add any key issue I’ve failed to include. Please provide examples to help clarify any changes & additions.
Arnold Springer Statement
——-Original Message——-
From: Arnold Springer [mailto:ulanbator@venice-ca.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Challis Macpherson
Cc: ‘LUPC’
Subject: For Your Deliberations:
Dear Challis.
I am submitting this for the SLSO VSP reconciliation process which you and Joe Murphy are supervising. I assume this position paper will be submitted to the Board in its entirety, and not summarized by either you or Joe and that all other submissions will be treated in a similar manner.
My position is that this issue of increased density authorized by the SLSO and ‘clarified’ by the Directors Interpretation will have a decided impact on Massing and Scale. Therefore, increasing residential density should be handled carefully and deliberately by revising the Venice Specific Plan. The Board should call for the start up of hearings and workshops now, and not support rushing to a decision on the Directors Interpretation.
What’s the hurry, anyway?
I will be content to let others talk about parking, affordable housing and outline concerns in these areas. But otherwise I especially think that the impact of the Director’s Interpretation on the R-3 and C-1 zoned areas of Venice should be of very real concern to the VNC Board and to you when you make your presentation and ask questions of Shana B.
Arnold Springer
MASSING, SCALE, AND MANSIONIZATION &
ITS IMPACT ON SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER IN VENICE
PAST SHORT HISTORY
1) Venice was designated as a special beach community characterized by special design characteristics which were supposed to be protected and preserved. Coastal Commission took the lead on this and City of LA reluctantly followed.
2) The Draft Neighborhood Plans drawn up by Venice neighbors (1988-89) in a LA City sanctioned process were ignored and or omitted by L.A City planners when they issued the VSP. (1990-1991?).
3) The City never submitted the VSP to be certified by the Coastal Commission because, among other things, it had omitted a key element of the neighborhood plans which would have protected the special character of the three beach residential neighborhoods and walk streets.
The result was that, although many people who subsequently decided to build in Venice voluntarily decided to respect neighborhood character (22-27 foot buildings), others, developers who were motivated by other considerations, built 30-35 height three story, two unit boxes. These over sized and out of scale buildings dot the Venice community and anyone can pick them out. Examples of newer projects which don’t fit the neighborhood character where they were build but conform to the VSP are to be seen in all neighborhoods.
RECENT HISTORY
1) Overly massive and out of scale development has been a recurrent appeal issue before the VNC.
2) New 3 story development (30-37 feet) is common in existing one and two story (15-27 feet) residential areas of Venice.
3) Rooftop access sun deck/garden can add 4-5 feet for security wall.
4) Rooftop access structures add up to 10 feet by 10 ft top box above the typical roofline of 30-35 ft.
The SLSO (Director’s Interpretation) allows three units per lot, where two were allowed under the VSP.
SLSO (DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETION) WILL EXACCERBATE MASSING AND SCALE EXCESS
The result will be a reduction in the size of the units. To make these smaller units more attractive, developers will seek to eliminate open space and maximize the height as well as the square footage. Common interior walls with no set backs are being proposed now. The result will be out of scale and excessively massed new boxes. No light, no air, for the three units or for the adjacent neighbors. They compensate with rooftop decks which hurt the adjacent neighbors even more.
The only way to stop this from happening is to: (a) limit the total square footage of build able on each lot, or (b) adopt design restrictions similar to those already recommended by special neighborhoods in the Draft Neighborhood Specific Plans.
The SLSO was advertised as an attempt to increase the supply of new housing while protecting the bungalow type residential construction characteristic of beach communities such as San Pedro and Venice. In the absence of massing and scale guidelines or total square footage restrictions the SLSO adds density but destroys the special neighborhood character.
The problem is that nothing but the VSP limits the heights of buildings since all the design elements in the draft neighborhood specific plans were removed by the Planning Department when it issued the VSP.
Design restrictions were in fact included in Oakwood, Milwood, and Central Venice Draft Specific Plans and these design elements would have protected the Special Character of the Neighborhoods. The VSP, as issued by the City, does not.
Consequently, with no VSP design restrictions on height and massing and scale (removed by the City but extant in the Draft Neighborhood Specific Plans) the SLSO, when it is applied, will allowed for very large boxes, of say 3 separate homes or units on a standard VSP lot.
The result will be to exacerbate the construction of large boxes which fill the build able envelope of these small lots. Thus to adopt a density increase of 2 to 3 units will undermine the neighborhood character with overly massive and out of scale new development.
The SLSO needs to recognize the legitimate concerns of neighbors who wish to maintain neighborhood character and object to out of scale new development in their neighborhoods.
The Directors Interpretation needs to recognize that the special bungalow like character of the Venice neighborhoods and especially the walk streets needs to be protected, as promised by the City and Coastal Commission, and not sacrificed to a 1/3 increase in residential density as proposed under the SLSO.
The VNC needs to defend and represent the legitimate concerns of neighbors and neighborhoods for new construction which fits in with the existing neighborhood character and does not overwhelm or destroy that character.
ADDENDUM: {EXTENDED PRE HISTORY}
When the LUP and the LCP for Venice were being developed by Los Angeles Planning Department, a program of public participation was instituted by the City, a public program which was mandated by the Coastal Act and Coastal Commission. Central to this program were the creation of Draft Neighborhood Plans, which were meant to fine tune the Coastal Commission’s development guidelines and prepare the way for the adoption of the Venice Coastal Program. As a member of the Venice Town Council I helped oversee those meetings and was an active participant in the Milwood Neighborhood Draft Plan.
Most of the neighbors, in Milwood, but in other neighborhoods as well, were already concerned about over scale new developments, boxes which filled an envelope, deprived neighbors of their light, air, privacy, and horizons. At that time the height set by the Coastal Commission for buildings in Venice was 30 ft, and the density was 2 units per lot.
Most everyone in the neighborhoods accepted that two units per lot was reasonable, although some people wanted more units if these were low income.
But for the neighbors, the problem was the height and boxes filling development envelopes. So at the meetings there was much discussion about how to lower the height and reduce the massing and scale, so that new construction could fit in with the scale of the existing housing stock. Milwood, Central Venice and other neighborhoods sought to resolve this dispute by proposing more specific restrictive heights at about 25 feet, and second story setbacks. Other neighborhoods developed a volumetric approach which they thought would achieve the same result.
The result they were aiming for was to have new development in residential neighborhoods fit in with the scale of the existing developments in a specific neighborhood or area. Everyone agreed that property rights had to be guaranteed and that restricting the height of new construction to 12 or 15 feet was probably unconstitutional and confiscatory . At the same time most everyone agreed that two stories should be the height which developers and applicants aimed for in new construction, and that would be acceptable to neighbors.
ADDENDUM: {VCZSP}
When the Planning Department produced the VCZSP, it decided to leave out of it all the mechanisms which the various neighborhoods had agreed upon. They did this because, they said, it would be too hard to implement and or regulate by the City. This was before the Neighborhood Councils were created, and the City did not want to empower the Venice Town Council to regulate the development.
Venice activists were upset, but thought they would have a chance to reintroduce these elements on scale and massing at the Coastal Commission, when the VCZSP was submitted by the City to the Commission for approval. But since the City has refused for 15 years to submit this plan for Coastal Commission certification, Venice stakeholders and neighbors have never gotten the opportunity to participate fully as promised by the City and by the Coastal Act. Thus the massing and scale issues were never resolved.
At the time the City’s decision to ignore stakeholders and activists concerns on scale and massing were hailed by developers. But now the chickens have come home to roost. Scale and Massing were issues back in 1988, in 1972 (when the height was lowered by the Coastal Commission from 45 to 30 feet, against the wishes of the City of Los Angeles) and they continue to be issues today. LUPC forwarded recommendations to the VNC Board but Ad.Com refused to allow these to be heard and discussed.
ADDENDUM: {PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS TO MASSING AND SCALE LIMITS}
‘Language urging restraint on Massing and Scale issues already exists so this policy is in fact redundant.’
Some have recently argued that both the current LUP, Community Plan, and VCZSP contain language which urges people/ applicants to respect massing and scale issues when developing new project proposals for specific neighborhoods or streets.. However, this language is often ignored by developers who give lip service to the existence of such language but then disrespect it when applying for their projects.
In fact, while this language does actually exist, it does not have the force of law, and is often just ignored by developers and by the City in favor of the specific height limits set out in the VCZSP.
The Draft Specific Plans which contain the suggestions of the various neighborhoods on how specifically to address the issue of out of scale development need to be revisited in a neighborhood process of meetings and discussions.
ADDENDUM: {HEIGHT}
Project height creep has been extensive in Venice recently. If the height limit is 30 feet, then developers often seek to ‘cheat up’ to 32 feet and then add 4 feet so they can have a fence for safety purposes around their roof top deck, then install at 9-10 foot roof access structure which effectively set the building at about 35 feet and a huge rooftop access structure at 40 feet. This has resulted in serious ‘height creep’ and caused neighborhood dissatisfaction and unrest, which this Board has been hearing. The VNC should be representing the neighbors and neighborhoods and protecting same from out of character and out of scale new development.
Background
May 23, 2008 Board Motion & Letter to Councilman Rosendahl
Venice Neighborhood Council
PO Box 550, Venice, CA 90294 / www.VeniceNC.org
Email: info@VeniceNC.org / Phone or Fax: 310.606.2015
May 23, 2008
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City Hall
200 North Spring Street, Room 415
Los Angeles, California 90012
Subject: Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance Number 176354 Enacted December 14, 2004 and
Approved December 16, 2004
Dear Bill:
The Board of Officers of the Venice Neighborhood Council at a regular meeting May 20, 2008 passed a motion by 13-1-4 as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Committee at a regular meeting May 7, 2008 to draft the following policy statement letter for distribution to reflect the following regarding Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance Number 176354:
When a parcel of land is subdivided into two or more lots, the sum of the individual lots shall not exceed the whole of the parcel as defined by the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (VCZSP). This shall be a City imposed condition of the subdivision which will require a reciprocal statement to be recorded on the Title of each lot which shall stay in effect as long as the subdivision exists.
The vote further asked the Los Angeles City Department of Housing to implement policy reflecting that replacement affordable units shall be defined as per the clarification in the new Mello Act legislation.
Background: The City of Los Angeles passed a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance which is undermining the intent of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. The SLSO is a City wide ordinance which was written after the VCZSP was adopted. The VCZSP defined maximum restriction for parcels of land within the sub areas defined by the plan. The SLSO allows a parcel of land to be divided into smaller lots providing each lot does not exceed the limits of the specific plan. However, this SLSO allowance does not take into account neighborhood and community impacts when a large parcel is divided into many smaller lots each of which inherent the governing code of the specific plan.
Example: The owner of a 3,000 square foot parcel which is zoned RD1.5 (a typical Oakwood or Walkstreets parcel) applies for a Small Lot Subdivision. They intend to divide the parcel into two 1,500 square foot lots. The VCZSP allows the owner to develop each lot based on the rules that apply for the subarea, in this case a duplex or second structure is allowed on RD1.5 parcels and a third unit is permitted so long as it is registered as a replacement affordable dwelling. Hence lies the problem, the original parcel which allowed only two units after subdividing now has four units and the requirement for any third unit to be designated as affordable is gone because each of the new lots is two small to have a third dwelling.
Impacts: The impacts to the community include; reduction in affordable housing, increased traffic, greater demands on the infrastructure and the recycling of many original and perhaps historic Venice cottage styled homes (including walk streets).
Sincerely,
/s/
Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council
CC: City of Los Angeles, Department of Housing
S. Gail Goldberg, General Manager, City of Los Angeles, Department of Planning
Betsy Weisman, Senior Planner, City of Los Angeles, Department of Planning
secretary@venicenc.org
LUPC Small Lot Subdivision (Town Home) Ordinance Summary
A new ordinance (2005) permitting small lot, fee-simple ownership opportunities in commercial and multi-family neighborhoods has recently been adopted. The new law provides an entirely new housing option which allows people to purchase a house and the lot it sits on, just like they do in a single family neighborhood, rather than a unit in a condominium.
Properties zoned for multi-family residential use may be subdivided into much smaller lots than is required today, while complying with the density requirements established by both the zoning and the General Plan. It is anticipated that the ordinance will reduce the cost of home ownership and generate creative housing solutions, such as modern versions of bungalow courts, courtyard housing and row houses.
Documents posted to LUPC section of VNC website:
The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance
Small Lot Subdivision Design Guidelines, FYI.
The Small Lot Subdivision Advisory Policy from 2006, FYI.
Venice Community Profile
Population, Housing, Employment Projections Plan Population and Dwelling Unit Capacity
Detailed comparison between Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance and the Venice Coastal Specific Plan is contained in the Director’s Interpretation, to be released on Monday. The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance was adopted after the adoption of Venice Coastal Specific Plan and the subject interpretation clarifies the maximum number of permitted units, number of subdivided lots, number of required parking spaces, location of driveways, and minimum setback requirements relative to each zone and each subarea within the Specific Plan.
Section 11.5.7 F.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code authorizes “Interpretations of Specific Plans.” The Director of Planning has the authority to interpret specific plans when there is a lack of clarity in the meaning of their regulations. This Director’s Determination is called a “Director’s Interpretation” and is the formal way to publicly clarify a point of confusion (or differing interpretations). The process for a Director’s Interpretation requires the Decision be drafted and transmitted as done for Project Permit Compliance Decisions. The subject document, upon being published, will be reviewed by the community, including the Venice Neighborhood Council.
The City Planning Commission shall hear appeals on Director’s Interpretations which affect an entire specific plan area, as the subject Interpretation does. I do not have the authority to change this process. I wish there were a way to present to you our interpretation first, get your specific feedback, and then issue the determination.
The Section of the LAMC authorizing Director’s Interpretations is copied here:
H. Interpretations of Specific Plans. The Director shall have authority to interpret specific plans when there is a lack of clarity in the meaning of their regulations.
1. Application Procedure. To request a specific plan interpretation, an applicant shall file an application with the Department of City Planning pursuant to the application procedure set forth in Paragraph (a) of Subdivision 2 of Subsection B of this section. The application shall include a reference to the specific plan regulation(s) for which clarification is requested and a narrative description of why a clarification is necessary for the project or subject property involved. 2. Director’s Decision. Upon receipt of a deemed complete application, the Director’s written interpretation shall be subject to the same time limit to act, transmittal requirement and effective date of decision as set forth in Paragraphs (a) through© of Subdivision 4 of Subsection C. 3. Appeals. The City Planning Commission shall hear appeals on Director interpretations which affect an entire specific plan area or any of its subareas, and the Area Planning Commission shall hear appeals on Director interpretations which are applicable only on a site specific basis. The procedures for filing and processing appeals of Director interpretations shall otherwise be the same as those set forth in Subdivision 6 of Subsection C of this section. LAMC Section 11.5.7 in it’s entirety is posted. Section H is at the bottom of page 7.Location(s)
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 090413VNCAdComAgendaRevised.doc | 279.5 KB |
| 090421EducationCommitteeCIPApplication.doc | 157 KB |
| 090421EnvironmentalCommitteeCIPApplication.doc | 165.5 KB |
| 090421VeniceBeachMusicFestivalCIPApplication.doc | 140 KB |
| 090430CandidatesForum.pdf | 2.78 MB |
| HahnMotionToRevisitForm54.pdf | 65.35 KB |
| BONC-FINALForm54letterfore-mailblast.doc | 39.5 KB |
- Calendar
- 1003 reads