Events

Upcoming events

VNC Ad Hoc Homeless Committee/Vehicular Occupation(Event)(1 day)
VNC Board of Officers Meeting(Event)(6 days)
Land Use and Planning Committee(Event)(7 days)
Board of Officers Retreat(Event)(25 days)
Land Use and Planning Committee(Event)(28 days)

Navigation

Board Policy Forum on Fences & Hedges

Submitted by joedmurphyvnc on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 8:10am.

Board Meeting

Start: 01/29/2008 - 7:00pm

End: 01/29/2008 - 10:00pm

See /node/834 for more information

Policy Forum Agenda & Discussion Generator
Westminster Elementary School Auditorium
1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd, Venice, 90291
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Agenda

1. Call to Order & Suspension of Roberts Rules of Order

2. Policy Forum:

Introduction

The purpose of this Policy Forum Meeting is to consider, without a decision, issues raised by the LUPC Fences & Hedges Enforcement Recommendation. The Board invites members of LUPC and the Public to participate in this discussion. The Board will consider this matter at its February 19, 2008 Meeting and will take into consideration issues raised in this discussion.

Discussion

The procedure to be used will be informal but partially structured as indicated below.

� 5 to 15 minute description of the proposal by Jed Pauker, member of LUPC F&H Task Force
� 2.5 hours available for open discussion
� 15 minutes to provide feedback on the Policy Forum Concept

A Discussion Generator is provided below with the intent to stimulate discussion of issues.

3. Adjourn

Discussion Generator

(A Discussion Generator does not necessarily reflect opinions of its contributors. It is intended to help generate more focused discussion of relevant Policy Forum issues.)

Underlying Policies

It seems that, in considering the proposed LUPC Fences & Hedges Enforcement Recommendations, there are three policies at play within the framework of the VNC mission to �improve the quality of life in Venice by building community� (Article II A):

Policy A. Achieve a balance between the individual desire for enclosure/privacy and the community objective of insuring a sense of belonging to the community (ie, the proposed tightening of enforcement of the current 3.5 foot fences/hedges height limit);

Policy B. Encourage the creative impulses of residents (ie; the proposed exception for the �attractive gate configurations); and

Policy C. Enhance the safety of residents (ie; facilitate police and fire access with low, see-through/over fences/hedges).

The fourth policy seems to fit within the VNC mission to �secure support from the City of Los Angeles for the resources needed to achieve our goals� (Article II A):

Policy D. The recommendation to encourage the city to tighten enforcement of the existing regulations (except for �attractive gate configurations�) is considered appropriate based on the assumption that the current 3.5 foot height limit regulations have proven to be ineffective since higher fences/hedges have been installed in spite of the limit.

______________________________________________

Some questions pertaining to the proposed enforcement recommendation in Policy D above

1. Should it be applied proactively or retroactively?

2. If retroactive, should corrective action be required immediately or at some specific future time (ie; upon sale by owner)?

3. Should the exception for �attractive gate configurations� apply immediately (ie; as VNC support for variances) or only after the regulations are amended to permit this? Would this single exception encourage or discourage other forms of �spontaneous creativity�?

4. What are the comparable fence/hedge regulations applicable in the Ballona Lagoon and the Silver Strand Lagoon Buffer Strip? Do they satisfy the above policies?

5. Is the proposed recommendation politically timely?

Some questions regarding broader policy issues

1. In anticipation of future revisions of the applicable fences/hedges regulations, is a 3.5 foot fence/hedge height limit the only and/or best approach to achieving the intent of Policy A (between the individual desire for enclosure/privacy and the community objective of insuring a sense of belonging to the community)?

2. One aspect of the �character of Venice� might be described as the artistic creativity of its residents. Are the �attractive gate configurations� an element of this creativity? If so, do the proposed recommendations support or discourage a policy of encouraging this creativity � in forms, perhaps, that cannot be classified as �attractive gate configurations�?

3. In considering subsequent policies and/or proposals other than fences/hedges, should the VNC ask whether:

� A proposed policy creates an environment which prospectively facilitates and encourages the creative impulses of the community and its residents?

� A request for exceptions/variances for a proposal of any sort enhances the above policy (if so, support � if not, oppose)?

Supporting Documents

Online Meeting Website

You can post messages on this Online Meeting Website regarding the LUPC Fences & Hedges Enforcement Recommendation. Select Land Use & Planning, and insert 12/1/2007 as the From date & tomorrow’s date as the To date.

Location(s)

Calendar
286 reads