Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda
Extra Space Storage, Presidents Row Room
658 South Venice Blvd, Venice, 90291
Monday, May 12, 2008 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

April 7, 2008 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/080407VNCAdComMinutes.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 Administrative Matters:

o Registration of stakeholders: ongoing role. [CM to check with Liz Wright & Valerie Lynn Williams]
o AdCom Operations Budget: submit to Budget and Finance Committee in April, 2008. [JM & MN to do this]
o pdf software: Jed Pauker spoke with a rep at Bluebeam Software, which produces Bluebeam Revu, a very easy and comprehensive PDF markup application. Ira willing to procure educational seat of the Standard version for $30 per individual. [Favorable response – recommend interested individuals download to test useability]
o Meetings at Beyond Baroque: cheaper, some concerns (see attached CM email) [CM – test w/LUPC – report]

B Yolanda Gonzalez (310 902-8690; firstmateyo@yahoo.com): [LL to research status and report]

(i) Request to make an ANNOUNCEMENT at a Board meeting: Dear Board. On Friday 22, in the Los Angeles Times in the California Section, there was an article in reference to the Quimby fee funds that our City Controller Laura Chick has acknowledge of unspent fee funds collected from condominium builders, which at last years board a presentation was done by Mark Winters from Venice Peninsula. The General Board unanimously voted to proceed to go after an seek to find these funds belonging to Venice.

(ii) Request of Board to SEND A LETTER: There is on file that motion and written presentation, which I also dropped off at the Controllers office. Plus requested twice an interview with Ms. Chick, personally at her office, with the office of Rosendahl“s knowledge. There is $10 million apiece in three Districts in unspent funds. ONE IS OURS. That is for Venice. The board must decide to make a recommendation on how to proceed to get this funding with Rosendahl“s office. And maybe get a task force in place. This is of great urgency to start work on.

(iii) Request of Board to CONSIDER A MOTION: A motion is requested by the Board to:
A-Assign the proper people to this task force B-Request from The District Office any recommendations, probably from Mark Antonio Grant if there are forms needed to fill out. And who would be the most qualify to do so to identify where this funds belong and are needed. This requires a team with knowledge on land issues for identification of funding. Mark Winters would be my choice. He brought it forward from the beginning. We need this group from the Peninsula. I am requesting from our President Mike Newhouse to give Mark Winters a call. Mark Winters put a lot of work into it with two other stakeholders per DeDe Audets recommendation. I will be gone until March 14, 2008. Any help I can be off, I will be happy to do so.

6. New AdCom Business

A Administrative Matters:

o Election ratifying newly appointed board members and Bylaws amendments: I can prepare the ballot but we also need the list of registered voters so that we don’t have to register everyone again. Richard maintained and prepared this as part of the Communications function. Perhaps Sean has received it from Richard or could consult him to get it. We also need to decide when it will be held and be sure to publicize it.
o CM proposes we approve the LUPC recommendation and send a letters to Rosendahl (see attached) regarding digitalizing City Planning documents. I believe it was adopted last year, so sending the letter may be purely administrative; if not, then it should be a motion.
o CM proposes sending letters of appreciation to Rosendahl & Shana Botsin (see attached) regarding help with Lincoln Blvd CDO.
o Need webpages for committees so that they can post agendas and minutes (AdHoc-Venice Parking, AdHoc-Animal Welfare, AdHoc-Community Safety Committee, AdHoc-Environmental Committee, AdHoc-Overnight Parking District, TF-Homeless, TF-Fences & Hedges Working Group, TF-RV, AdHoc-Graffitti)
o Implement Marc’s suggestion to provide audio stream online for recordings of Board Meetings to accommodate desire for actual transcript.
o Place LUPC reports on Board Agenda webpage – puts all supporting documents relating to agenda on one webpage.
o Are Policy Forum and Town Hall meetings ‘Board Meetings’? If so, I suggest agendas and minutes be posted on Board webpage and that Policy Forum meetings be recorded and transcribed by Linda Lee.
o ‘Bypassing funding procedure’ issue:

Linda email: I sent to the budget committee just before their meeting but no one read email in time. Can’t I submit to ad com who can send to budget? My purpose being to raise awareness of the needs of the NHC/ER task force before the board decides to allocate remaining funds on last minute request with no thought to the big picture or w/o waiting to hear report from comm. Improve fund. Process which it could decide to further fund. There seem to be last minute requests just to grab funds.

Joe response: I’ll submit it as an administrative matter to be resolved for all such ‘last minute’ requests ‘just to grab funds’. It’s something we should address. Is this OK? [Linda indicated OK] Otherwise, I think it’s up to the AdCom to decide whether to bypass the Budget review procedure.

B Consideration of DRAFT May 20, 2008 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, May 20, 2008 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

April 15, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/080415VNCBoardMinutesRev1.doc)

4. Committee Reports (no more than 1 minute per report) DELETE FROM AGENDA?

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

A DONE, LAPD, and Governmental Reports

I DONE
II LAPD
III CD 11
IV Mayor’s Rep

B Steve Clare (310-399-4100; sclare@vchcorp.org) on behalf of the Task Force on Homeless: Presentation of Task Force Recommendations.

C Linda Lucks (310-450-2554; Lindalucks@aol.com) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: Presentation of Recommendations for Community Improvement Funds Awards to be considered by Board at June 17 Meeting.

D Jill Prestup (310-967-5170; Lindalucks@aol.com) on behalf of Venice Historical Society: See attached information about Venice Historical Society and its goals.

E Yolanda Gonzales (310-902-8690; firstmateyo@yahoo.com): a max. five to 10 min. presentation of the Garden tour observation, and interviews with young parents and their concerns, on the future education of their children. This are our new comers to the area and are paying well over the $12,000 to $15,000in property taxes. Venice is changing. I promise to make it worth the boards time.

F Yolanda Gonzales (310-902-8690; firstmateyo@yahoo.com): Requesting from the admin. comm. a Max 10 mn. presentation and introduction from Yolanda G., Stan M., Jonny Godinez,of a letter of support to the Mayor in support of Venice 2000 and and the gang intervention programs together with the Human Relations Dept. which are in threat of being cut of from funding. Request of an urgent letter to the Mayor of Los Angeles, NOT to cut funding of our gang intervention programs for Venice 2000, and the Human Relations Department.

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

7. Old Business

A From Board Member

I DeDe Audet (310-902-6943; ddaudet@ca.rr.com): Please entertain a motion to review Audet’s report on the Eugene, Oregon overnight camping program for the purpose of a motion to forward the report to the District 11 office and the RV/vehicle task force. Twenty-two copies of the report will be furnished to the board at the April 15 meeting for consideration and action at the May 20, 2008 meeting. [Postponed to May 20 Board Meeting for action at June Board Meeting. DeDe to present at April 23 Live-In Vehicle Parking Task Force Meeting]
8. Treasurers Report accept report as presented

9. New Business

A From President

B From LUPC

I Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve the following motion approved by LUPC unanimously [need vote #]:

The Land Use & Planning Committee moves that the Venice Neighborhood Council send a letter to the Mayor, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl and the other City Council members, the Los Angeles Housing Department, the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and other Neighborhood Councils:

(1) Registering opposition to the proposed Housing Element in its current form;

(2) Demanding adequate and meaningful community and public input;

(3) Requesting that the City revise the draft Housing Element to reflect such public input;

(4) Demanding the City to:

(a) Release data detailing what housing units were destroyed and/or converted, where this occurred within the City, and what replaced those units. If these units were replaced by housing, what that new housing sold/rented for, and how many net-units were lost, particularly low income units; (b) Release the production numbers for the following programs, along with affordability levels: Second Unit, RAS, Adaptive Reuse, Redevelopment Area, Other Inclusionary Requirements;

(c) Provide details regarding how the Housing Element is going to achieve the goals it purports to achieve;

(d) Provide specifics regarding how it will ensure that each community plan area in Los Angeles will meet its Fair Housing Share goals, and what the City intends to do to reward those areas that do;

(e) Revise the language concerning how the City intends to preserve existing affordable units, as well as units subject to the City’s rent stabilization laws, and provide specific details and solutions regarding both;

(f) Devise a long-term plan regarding demolitions and condo-conversions, including adherence to the City Council’s directive regarding adherence to existing law allowing the City to deny conversions when the vacancy rate is less than 5%, instituting allowances regarding the total amount of demolitions and conversions that may occur each year, committing funds to the same, among other things;

(g) Demonstrate how it will facilitate building affordable units, how it will enforce affordable housing covenants and promises by developers to build affordable housing on site or within a certain radius of the proposed project in exchange for variances and permits, and ensure collection of any lieu affordable housing fees paid where this is not feasible;

(h) Include a mandatory city wide program to ensure affordable housing will be built on sites identified in its inventory and to address its prior failures in meeting affordable needs;

(i) Implement a Community Benefit Fee Program establishing a permanent source of funding for affordable housing, where the monies collected shall be used for affordable housing in the community plan area where the development occurred; and

(j) Require developers to replace, provide or build affordable units either onsite or within the same community plan area as the underlying development.

II Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve LUPC recommendation re: Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance as follows:

Policy Statement –VCZSP Modification Request: LUPC recommends the Board of Officers of the VNC hereby resolves the following motion and drafts a policy statement letter for distribution to reflect the following:

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 this plan (VCZSP). This shall be a City imposed condition of the subdivision which will require a reciprocal statement be Recorded on the Title of each lot which shall stay in effect as long as the subdivision exists.

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 adopted after the VCZSP. 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 unit 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).

Argument: Most parcels in Venice can be redeveloped to offer greater density which translates into higher resale profits. The speculation developer(s) can purchase one lot and elude affordable housing restrictions thereby maximizing on investment. Lower per house price because individual homes will smaller and therefore less expensive. More available houses to choose from are on the market.

Definition: In real estate a parcel is “a contiguous area of land described in a single description by a deed or other instrument or as one of a number of lots on a plat or plan, separately owned and capable of being separately conveyed. In other words, a parcel is a unit of land under unified ownership (with or without buildings).”

III Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve LUPC report and recommendation re 2812 – 2819 South Grand Canal, as follows.

IV Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve LUPC report and recommendation re SB 1818, as follows:

V Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve LUPC report and recommendation re Billboards, as follows:

VI Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve LUPC report and recommendation re 18 Ocean Front Walk, that the VNC Board of Officers recommend to the City of Los Angeles, CD11 and the Housing department the motion regarding establishing a policy of rooftop gardens and solar panels in accordance with the prototype rooftop garden and solar panel array proposed for the roof of 18 Ocean Front Walk, as follows:

C From Outreach

I Marc Saltzberg (310-305-9660; outreach@VeniceNC.org): The Board will be asked to approve an expenditure of $xxx.xx for t-shirts that will be sold to the public at cost. (prices will be provided when Marc returns).

D From Arts Committee

I Tania Getty (310-428-3363; tsparkly@aol.com) on behalf of Pacific Resident Theatre application to run a Summer Acting Program with the Venice Library: Requests that the Venice Neighborhood Council approve funding for the proposed Young Adult Theatre Program in an amount not to exceed $4,000.00, pursuant to the Budget set forth below.

The Young Adult Theatre Program is a newly created collaborative project lead by members of Pacific Resident Theatre, which is a four week program, starting July 10, 2008, to benefit members of the Venice Library’s Young Adults program. The young adults (12-18 years of age who come to the Library from all areas of the Venice community) will experience first hand the play production process as they rehearse scenes from world class dramatic works with members from PRT who will be directing, coaching, and mentoring the teens through the program at the Library facility. There will be a FREE performance for the families of the young adults and general public on August 2, 2008.

BUDGET for 4 Week Summer Program
Director Stipends 1600 400/each *
Printing and Publicity 400
Water and rehearsal snacks 300
Costumes 300
Props 300
Lighting design and equiptment 300
Sound design and equiptment 300
Program and Refreshments for shows 200
Set design elements 300
Total 4000

• Elizabeth Karr, Christopher Shaw, Christian Barillas, Sarah Zinsser

E From Neighborhood Committee

I Linda Lucks (310-505-4220; Lindalucks@aol.com), Nick Hippisly-Coxe (Hippisley@earthlink.net), Bill Boyd on behalf of the Emergency Response Task Force: That the Venice Neighborhood Council fund the following:
• Emergency Guide(4000 copies) $4,500 (By Moorhead Publishing with VNC ID)
• Emergency Preparedness flyer (5000 copies) $1,500
(Budgeted at 5c a copy)
• “Be Prepared”/”Are you Prepared”/ “I am Prepared”
bumper stickers $1,500
• Registration with www.enla.org $ 25
(Tying in with ALL the County services)
TOTAL $7,525

F From Budget & Finance

I Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of Budget Committee: That the Venice Neighborhood Council not fund refreshments at committee and sub-committee meetings. Motion carried unanimously.

G From Environmental Committee

I Nick Karno (323.578.6038; nkarno@yahoo.com) on behalf of Environmental Committee: Moves that the Venice Neighborhood Council of the City of Los Angeles does hereby proclaim its opposition to the proposed Oceanway Secure Energy Project based on its conclusion that construction is unnecessary, endangering, disruptive, and counterproductive to the city of Los Angeles’s commitments to the environment, security, safety, and energy independence. The Venice Neighborhood Council hereby joins the coalition of organizations, individuals and municipalities opposed to this project.

II Nick Karno (323.578.6038; nkarno@yahoo.com) on behalf of Environmental Committee: Moves that the Venice Neighborhood Council of the City of Los Angeles adopt the following resolution regarding the proposed Woodside Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal off the Coast of LAX:

A RESOLUTION OF THE VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PROCLAIMING THE CITY TO BE OPPOSED TO [OPPOSING?] THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) DEEPWATER PORT IN SANTA MONICA BAY KNOWN AS THE OCEANWAY SECURE ENERGY PROJECT, AS PROPOSED BY WOODSIDE NATURAL GAS.

WHEREAS, Woodside Natural Gas, a subsidiary of Woodside Petroleum, is Australia’s largest publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company; and

WHEREAS, Woodside is proposing to construct, own, and operate a deepwater port, referred to as the OceanWay Secure Energy project, for the delivery of natural gas into Southern California Gas Company’s natural gas distribution system; and

WHEREAS, OceanWay Secure Energy, would enable ships to transport LNG from overseas, transfer the LNG to a specially built regasification vessel which would dock to two floating buoys anchored below the surface of the water, regasify the LNG, and utilize two sea-to-land interconnected pipelines to transport the gas to landfall on the north end of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The pipelines would connect to the mainland’s natural gas network via underground pipelines measuring anywhere from a quarter mile to several miles long and trenched especially for the project. The unmanned submersible buoys would be approximately 21 miles offshore from Port Dume and 23 miles off Palos Verdes; and

WHEREAS, liquefied natural gas, commonly referred to as LNG, is misleadingly described as a “clean fuel.” LNG, like oil, is a finite fossil fuel which emits CO2 and harmful air pollutants when burned. LNG, unlike traditional natural gas, is energy intensive in transport, refrigeration, and storage creating substantial increases in CO2 emissions. LNG thus aggravates global warming and causes human health problems; and

WHEREAS, LNG imports cause air and water pollution, and harm wildlife and the environment, from the places where the gas is extracted and liquefied, to the coastal communities where it is delivered, processed and sold. Global warming impacts from burning imported natural gas include significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions over domestic gas or re-gasification of supplies prior to consumption; and

WHEREAS, existing U.S. gas supplies are more than plentiful to meet California’s needs, since U.S. natural gas reserves recently hit a 20-year high and the 2006 California Gas Report, prepared by the California Gas and Electric Companies, stated that existing supplies exceed the California projected demand for natural gas over the decade ahead; and

WHEREAS, there is no guarantee that California will keep the natural gas that enters the state via the OceanWay terminal; and

WHEREAS, many, including Woodside Natural Gas, state that the price of LNG is likely to rise sharply over the next several years, increasing the price of LNG equal to or higher than oil; and

WHEREAS, Woodside executives in California have argued that the OceanWay Secure Energy facility will reduce natural gas prices in California, Woodside executives in Australia, such as Chief Executive Don Voelte and Marketing President Reinhardt Matisons, have been cited in press reports as saying that they expect LNG prices to be set at parity or even a premium to the price of crude oil, which recently hovered above $100 per barrel, and

WHEREAS, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. report cited in Australian news reports said that the bank is reluctant to grant any of Woodside’s proposed LNG developments a vote of confidence that they would come online by their due date; and

WHEREAS, expanding the use of climate-safe renewable energy sources (such as wind, solar, bio-fuels and others) to levels already mandated by California state law would provide enough energy to meet our state’s projected demand, and would provide new jobs in energy research and development; and

WHEREAS, using renewable sources of energy would increase our energy independence instead of increasing our reliance on foreign suppliers. Energy conservation and efficiency, which is mandated by California law to take priority over other energy sources, could provide California with more than twice the energy supplied by one LNG terminal without increasing our dependence on another imported fossil fuel or aggravating global

warming. An increase in the use of natural gas could be directly proportional to the decline in renewable sources; and

WHEREAS, the OceanWay terminal would be located near major shipping lanes, impacting navigation by commercial, recreational, and naval vessels. An accident at the terminal or on a tanker could threaten ships, boats and mariners and marine wildlife with asphyxiation and burns from a natural gas fire or explosion; and

WHEREAS, in December 2007 the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report entitled “Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers” (GAO-08-141) that questioned whether adequate resources were available to mitigate the threats against energy-laden vessels, including LNG vessels, and whether there was enough training and sufficient ability to respond to such an attack given the limitations of many disaster response plans, stating that “increased demands could cause the Coast Guard to continue to be unable to meet the standards it has set for keeping U.S. ports secure;” and

WHEREAS, the GAO report states that an accident or attack on an LNG vessel could result “in the closure of a port, damage to a key facility, or long interruption of a key transit route.” And even if a port were not closed entirely due to such an accident or attack, the Coast Guard could increase the threat level at one or more ports or industries to its highest level which “will involve significant restriction of maritime operations that could result in the temporary closure of individual facilities, ports, and waterways, in either a region or the entire nation;” and

WHEREAS, the offshore gas pipeline can cause water pollution and threats to marine wildlife. Construction of gas pipelines could cause harmful spills of drilling fluids and even contaminated sediments into the near shore marine environment, as well as create noise and light impacts for marine wildlife. Vessel traffic also increases the likelihood of hazardous diesel, oil, or sewage spills; and

WHEREAS, the onshore portions of the project will impact sensitive ecological habitat and rare beach communities that are home to the federally endangered El Segundo blue butterfly. Impacts to federally protected wildlife or their habitat could result in violations of the federal Endangered Species Act. The LAX coastal dune habitat, crucial to El Segundo blue butterfly survival, would be negatively impacted by onshore pipelines from the project; and

WHEREAS, the onshore portions of the project could disproportionately impact low-income and culturally diverse communities, since the pipelines and transfer facilities will be located in lower income areas. Under one proposed scenario, the 11 miles of pipelines would run from LAX through Inglewood, South Los Angeles, South Gate and Huntington Park until they tie into the existing Southern California Gas lines at three existing locations. This puts the lines directly through some of the lowest-income areas in the region; and

WHEREAS, among others who could be impacted by the construction and risks of this project are seven schools adjacent to the pipelines and 14 schools within 1,500 feet of the pipelines; and

WHEREAS, an onshore pipeline located next to LAX will add an unnecessary risk to the world’s fifth largest airport, which is considered one of the West Coast’s top terrorist targets and the nation’s top airport terrorist target. The placement of a natural gas terminal will make this already attractive target even more attractive since an attack could not only cause loss of life, but also cripple air traffic nationally, interrupt fuel supplies for California, and disrupt the region’s economy; and

WHEREAS, if natural gas from this project is released by accident or deliberate terrorist attack, it may explode or burn at extremely high temperatures. LNG accidents have caused serious loss of life and property in the U.S. and around the world. Worst-case calculations of the potential loss of life, economic impact, and physical destruction caused by a terrorist attack must be assessed before the project moves forward; and

WHEREAS, the OceanWay Secure energy project poses a potential safety risk: a “vapor cloud” flash fire from a gas leak could result in a fire extending miles from the site, engulfing shipping lanes and any humans or vessels caught in range. In addition, according to the US Geological Survey, the LNG terminal and the proposed gas pipelines would overlay a number of seismic fault lines prone to major earthquakes. The Woodside proposal even acknowledges that “the OceanWay Project will be subjected to strong ground shaking from earthquakes and possibly other secondary effects caused by earthquakes,” such as liquefaction and fault ruptures. Unfortunately, there is no codified standard for seismic design requirements for an LNG import terminal; and

WHEREAS, the ships that Woodside intends to use to transfer the LNG halfway around the world are vessels that will not run on clean fuels. As such, these ships, which will sit and idle in the Bay while they transfer the LNG to regasification ships to convert the LNG to gaseous form, will spew noxious pollutants to coastal communities where residents will breathe in these dangerous pollutants; so

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF [DELETE?]THE VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM ITS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED OCEANWAY SECURE ENERGY PROJECT BASED ON ITS CONCLUSION THAT CONSTRUCTION IS UNNECCESSARY, ENDANGERING, DISRUPTIVE, AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF [AND?] THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES’S COMMITMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, SECURITY, SAFETY, AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. AND WE HEREBY JOIN THE COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS, INDIVIDUALS AND MUNICIPALITIES OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT.

Dated this ___ day of ______ 2008, by:

________________________________ President, Venice Neighborhood Council of the City of Los Angeles

H From Board Member/Parliamentarian

I Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board of Officers approve the following MOTION ON STREET FURNITURE

Whereas the below pieces of street furniture have been installed in Venice, and further requests for approval of sites are pending, the office of Council District 11 shall determine that street furniture sites are equitably distributed throughout the district prior to approving any additional sites in Venice. Furthermore, the office of Council District 11 shall not approve any street furniture sitings in the following locations.

1) Any area west of Pacific Ave.
2) On any street other than Lincoln Blvd., Venice Blvd., and Washington Blvd.
3) In any location where a motorist’s view of cross or oncoming traffic is impeded.
4) In any location where a pedestrian’s direct line of travel on a sidewalk is impeded.

Furthermore, any so-called “public amenity” kiosk shall have one side accessible at all times for community notices, bulletins, artwork, or any other community used deemed appropriate by a community oversight body to be determined.

Transit Shelters
NB Lincoln Blvd NS Lake
SB Lincoln Blvd NS Venice
NB Main St NS Rose
SB Main St FS Sunset Ave
NB Main St FS Sunset Ave
SB Main St NS Venice Way
NB Main FS Westminster
SB Main St NS Westminster
NB Pacific FS Westminster
EB Venice Blvd NS Abbot Kinney
WB Venice FS Shell
WB Venice FS Lincoln
WB Washington Blvd FS Ocean Ave
EB Washington Blvd FS Abbot Kinney
WB Washington Blvd FS Abbot Kinney
EB Washington Blvd NS Oxford Ave

Public Amenity Kiosk
WB Abbot Kinney NS Main St

I From Stakeholder

I Joe Young (joengeri@ca.rr.com) & Kristin Sabo (ksabo@wildwildwest.org) on behalf of the Sierra Club regarding opposition to funding cut for Park Rangers: Request a VNC resolution opposing the proposed budget for Recreation and Parks cutting 50% of the Park Rangers positions including the Chief Park Ranger.

II Yvette Neal (310-204-2749 or cell at 310-420-9177; yvette@wwwpgs.net) on behalf of Pacific Graffiti Solutions (PGS): PGS removes graffiti for most of the Greater West Los Angeles area and has done so for the past 5 years.

We are hoping to raise $100,000.00 to add additional crew members (and add second story graffiti removal) to our staff as graffiti has increase in the past year.

PGS has drastically been affected by the increase of gas prices and the snow ball effect that has increased paint and other cost. There will be no increase in our budget (from public works) so we are forced to seek funding from other sources to combat the all around financial increases we are experiencing.

We are asking for funding at or between $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 form all the Neighborhood/Community Councils in the area we service. As I’m sure you are aware of the public safety issues and the importance of prompt proficient, graffiti removal, these additional crews are essential to our 24 hour response time.

III MIchael (Micky) Schuman (310-571-0500 & 310-625-4681; musicmusicnext@aol.com & micky@thresholdsound.com) on behalf of Venice Beach Concert Series: Requesting a letter of endorsement and support for the Venice Beach Concert Series and also – “Any funding amount would certainly be appreciated, to help pay for security, entertainment, sound, cleanup, advertising, etc. Each concert Saturday may be anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 dollars. This is the first request of any kind and has not been voted on or reviewed by any body.”

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

11. Adjourn (approx 10:00PM)

Attachments

Letter regarding Digitalizing City Planning Documents
May 13, 2008

Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City of Los Angeles
City Hall
200 Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Subject: Digitalizing City Planning Documents

Dear Bill:

The Venice Neighborhood Council’s Board of Officers did at a regular meeting May 13, 2008 move and pass unanimously the following recommended motion from the Land Use and Planning Committee:

That the Venice Neighborhood Council’s Board of Officers direct Councilmember Rosendahl to introduce to the City Council the following motion posthaste:

Whereas the Department of City Planning is mailing to Neighborhood Councils complete sets of plans and file documents submitted by applicants for building permits, and

Whereas Neighborhood Councils must timely review these documents to prepare and forward recommendations to the Department of City Planning, and

Whereas the cost to prepare, reproduce and mail such documents is extraordinary,

Be it resolved that the Department of City Planning immediately commence a thirty-day study on the application of its extensive existing digital and internet resources to perform the following services:

1) Require all commercial project applicants to provide the Department of City Planning with digital Portable Document Format (PDF) project files and/or secure web links to same, in addition to the standard paper document sets,

2) Request all residential applicants to provide the Department of City Planning with same,

3) Digitize all non-digital project materials received,

4) Provide a web-based library (ftp site or similar) of all digitized project files, available to all Neighborhood Councils,

5) Include web links to these resources within the list of Entitlement Applications Received by the Department of City Planning, which is currently distributed to all Certified Neighborhood Councils,

6) Provide all Neighborhood Councils with annual training regarding use of the digital library,

7) Continue to provide both paper and digital formats during Year One,

8) Eliminate paper document delivery (except by specific request) in Year Two,

9) Fund these ongoing services with cost savings achieved by eliminating paper document delivery, expected to begin in Year Two after each Neighborhood Council

An identical request was sent to you last year, 2007. We feel strongly about this and would appreciate your attention.

Sincerely,

Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council

CC: Secretary@VeniceNC.org

Letters of Appreciation for Support of Lincoln CDO

May 13, 2008

Bill Rosendahl
District 11Councilmember
200 N. Spring Street
Rm 415
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Bill Rosendahl,

The Venice Neighborhood Council is extremely grateful to you for your leadership in shepherding the Lincoln Boulevard Community Design Overlay through the process and into reality. From the start, you have been ardent support of the re-vitalization of Lincoln Boulevard. We, on the Venice Neighborhood Council, look forward to the great improvements to this, our main street in Venice.

We also are aware of your leadership in the further planning for Lincoln Boulevard with the upcoming Master Plan for Lincoln Boulevard. Comprehensive planning is greatly needed, and we look forward to working with you and the community on this.

Please convey our gratitude to Grieg Asher for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the Lincoln Boulevard Community Design Overlay. He was instrumental in moving this along. We would also like to thank Whitney Blumenfeld who was your able representative before the Los Angeles Planning Commission when they heard this matter.
At that hearing, the Commission commended the Council Office for supporting this forward looking document.

Sincerely,

Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council

CC: Betsy.Weisman@lacity.org Kevin.Keller@lacity.org secretary@VeniceNC.org Grieg.asher@lacity.org

May 13, 2008

Shana Bonstin,
Los Angeles Planning Department
Community Planning Bureau
200 N. Spring
St. Room 621
Los Angeles, CA 90012 t

Dear Mrs. Bonstin,

The Venice Neighborhood Council is extremely grateful to you for your leadership in creating the Lincoln Boulevard Community Design Overlay. Your through work is a credit to the Planning Department. We are looking forward to the much needed re-vitalization of Lincoln Boulevard, our main street in Venice.

Please convey our gratitude to Kevin Keller who started advocating for this process years ago, and for his help in shaping the document. His help and enthusiasm is so appreciated. We would also like to thank Betsy Weisman for her leadership and knowledge. At the Los Angeles Planning Commission hearing, the commissioners commended you and the planning department for a superb job, and we echo that wholeheartedly.

Sincerely,

Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council

CC: Betsy.Weisman@lacity.org Kevin.Keller@lacity.org

Emails (DONE & Joe Murphy) regarding Election Procedure

NC Elections for FY 2008-09 Administered by DONE

May 5, 2008

To: All Neighborhood Council Board Members

From: BongHwan Kim, Interim General Manager Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment

Subject: NC Elections for Fiscal Year 2008-09 Administered by the Dept. of Neighborhood Empowerment

This is to remind all Neighborhood Councils who opted to have the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment administer their neighborhood council elections of the following important timeframe:

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CRITICAL ELECTION-RELATED DEADLINES:

• 180 Days Prior to the Proposed Election Date-Neighborhood Council board appoints/creates/directs election committee to organize election
• 140 Days Prior to the Proposed Election Date-a draft of election procedures, including the election date, election facility/facilities, and the name of the confirmed Independent Election Administrator must be submitted to DONE.
• 90 Days Prior to the Proposed Election Date-the election procedures must be approved by DONE.
• 60 Days Prior to the Proposed Election Date-election outreach notices must be distributed, in accordance with requirements of the Citywide Election Procedures for Neighborhood Councils.

Because of the lack of flexibility with these time frames, it is critical that you contact your DONE field staff representative as early as possible for assistance. Any Neighborhood Council unable to meet the timeframe requirements set forth in the Citywide Election Procedures will not have the opportunity to reschedule an election during the current calendar year and will instead be required to forfeit its City-provided election until 2010, the next opportunity to have your election administered by the Office of the City Clerk.

Additionally, those Neighborhood Councils who may wish to postpone their elections until 2010, MUST NOTIFY the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment NO LATER THAN May 31, 2008, or 140 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF YOUR PROPOSED ELECTION DATE, WHICHEVER IS SOONER.

If you have any questions, please contact your Project Coordinator / Neighborhood Empowerment Analyst at (213) 485-1360 or by dialing toll free 3-1-1.

Thank you.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
080508 email requesting clarification of above:

Hi BongHwan,

My recollection from the DONE meeting regarding these election changes is that DONE was going to continue to administer NC elections scheduled per their Bylaws for fiscal year 2008-2009. Since the VNC Bylaws schedule our next election for September 2009, am I correct in assuming that your notice does not apply to the VNC?

I also recall that the city would begin to conduct NC elections beginning with the 2010 cycle since all NC elections will be occurring only during even-numbered years. Therefore, the next VNC election is automatically relegated to sometime in 2010. If this is correct, then I am assuming that the VNC can deal with election matters in 2009. Are we required to do anything before then?

Thanks.

Joe Murphy

Email regarding use of Beyond Baroque auditorium for VNC meetings

From: Challis Macpherson [mailto:challis.macpherson@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:19 PM
To: mike@mikeandruthie.com; joedmurphy@ca.rr.com; IKoslow@aol.com; Lindalucks@aol.com; stewart.oscars@gmail.com; Edward-ferrer@worldnet.att.net; Nadineparkos@aol.com; ericaharms@yahoo.com
Cc: ‘‘CC Carter’‘
Subject: Using Beyond Baroque auditorium space
Dear All:

CC and Ed – please cancel Westminster Aud for LUPC for April 23rd and note in your books that I have reserved Beyond Baroque’s theatre space for LUPC for April 23rd at $30/night.

Just talked to Fred Dewey. We arranged for LUPC to meet there Wednesday, April 23rd for $30/night. We will talk again after the 23rd. Someone else has rented that space for first and fourth Wednesdays for $150/night for month of May. His office manager wanted to charge us $50/hour. I demurred and asked to talk to Fred.

He is loath to commit for only two Wednesdays a month to LUPC as he rents out the space to theatre workshop groups. He would prefer a commitment for every Wednesday every month. If we like Beyond Baroque, should we rethink the board meeting on a Tuesday, and perhaps change that to a Wednesday.

He would also prefer more money, but agrees that we are not rich and are a Venice community organization. I did not mention any historical preference to VNC as a descendent of VTC which had a free evening once a month at Beyond Baroque as agreed upon between council office and Beyond Baroque.

There is a screen there already. Attached and easy to pull down, but not so easy to get back up.

OBSERVATIONS:

It is an intimate space (I think it seats 99, Actors’ Equity rules) and would be more than adequate for most LUPC meetings and most board meetings. For those meetings which garner hundreds (which we have had) we could go back to Westminster (pinning them down totally for that night).

Majority of VNC committee meetings could use Extra Space Storage’s community room.

There is a screen.

If we want to negotiate for the space, we may have to raise the ante, reserve all Wednesdays, fix the windows and install an exhaust fan ourselves.

IMHO we will need a firm commitment on whatever dates we want to reserve. Without that commitment, we are right back to the unease we suffer with booking Westminster.

This would not be a casual move.

Even if we pay $50/night it is less than LAUSD charges for Westminster which is $30/hour, $120/night plus overage.

How would we arrange to pay Beyond Baroque? This is a Treasurer Ed question. Presume Beyond Baroque has tax ID, and all that stuff.

We would get two keys, front door and theatre door.

Joe — please put this on the AdCom agenda for next month. I will report.

Also, how about you all showing up at the LUPC meeting and help me appraise the room and its amenities.

Later, Challis

Information regarding Venice Historical Society

ABOUT US – Our Purpose and Our Mission

Venice, California is a unique part of Los Angeles, with one of the richest histories. Twenty years ago, a small group
of Venice residents joined forces to organize the Venice Historical Society (VHS). At the time, the founders were
aware that the historic significance of the area was often overlooked and many of the structures and cultural
memories of Venice were in danger of disappearing. Since its founding in 1986, the Venice Historical Society has
been actively working to increase public awareness of Venice’s irreplaceable historic, cultural, and architectural
resources. Its goals are to gather and disseminate information for the preservation of the structures and
neighborhoods that make Venice unique and to engage in activities that promote the unique, historic feel of Venice.
For 20 years, the VHS has been holding regular public meetings, which featured speakers ranging from the families
of their founding fathers, to artists, poets, and historians, anyone who provided insight into the unique diversity of
Venice’s rich history.

The VHS has educated the community through their regular publication of The Journal, a highly regarded newsletter
featuring articles, often written by well-known historians, which advance the public’s awareness of historic events in
Venice. In addition, the Society has held historic house tours, walking tours of Venice, and special archival showings.
Recently, VHS received a State Resolution and a Congressional Proclamation commending our work.

OUR GOAL – A Venice Historical Society Museum

The Venice Historical Society has amassed a large archival collection of photographs, documents, magazines & newspapers,
postcards, artifacts, and historic memorabilia. Many oral interviews, recorded on tapes and videos, have
been conducted with the Kinneys, Tabors and long-time residents, as a way of documenting Venice’s history. We
have acquired many types of presentation cases and file cabinets for our archives. All these items need a permanent home.

OUR PROPOSAL – To Establish a Permanent Site in the Venice-of-America Centennial Park or in the Vacant
Parcel of Land between the City Building at 681 Venice Boulevard and the Venice Fire Station #63.

Our proposal is to purchase and renovate an old railroad car, complete with tracks, or build a replica of a Pacific
Electric ticket station, and secure it in the Venice-of-America Centennial Park, on the body of land adjacent to the
Abbot Kinney Memorial Venice Library. (See Bureau of Engineering map attached); or in the Vacant Parcel of Land
between the City Building at 681 Venice Boulevard and the Venice Fire Station #63.
• Venice-of-America Centennial Park measurements: At the widest point, between north & south Venice Blvd.
is 120’, tapering to 40’. The entire Park is approximately 420’.

• Railroad Car replication: Various companies replicate rail cars at approx. $550,000

• Railroad Car renovation: Purchasing a skeleton car (W 9’ 4 1/2” x L 48’ 10” x H 12’ 6 1/2”) would be
approx. $2500. Renovating a car to ADA Standards would cost approx. $80,000 – $100,000

• Replication of Railway Ticket Station Building estimated costs: 20’ x 30’ building, built to ADA Standards
would cost $180,000 ($300 per sq. ft.).

OUR LOCATIONS – Their Importance and Significance

This median between north and south Venice Blvd. was the home of the original Pacific Electric Railway which
operated in the 20s through the 60s with 934 miles of track in the Los Angeles area. The city lot between
681 Venice Blvd. and Fire Station #63 is surrounded by culturally, historic buildings adjacent to
the old railroad route that operated on Venice Blvd.

Location(s)

See map: Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps

Attachment	Size
080512VNCAdComAgenda.doc	206 KB