VNC Board Meeting Agenda
!!! PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF LOCATION !!!
Boys & Girls Club 2232 Lincoln Blvd, Venice, 90291
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
Swearing in of Brooke Soles as a new Board Member
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of any outstanding minutes submitted by the Secretary
April 21, 2009 Board Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/090421VNCBoardMinutes.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
5. Treasurers Report – See Exhibit B (expenditures thru 4/30/09 & draft budget for 2009-2010) accept report as presented
The Budget Committee requests Board approval of the draft budget for 2009-2010.
6. Scheduled Announcements (no more than 1 minute per report unless otherwise stated)
A Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org):
o Mention vote on Bylaw amendment extending Board term to 2010.
o See Item 8A for vote on LUPC candidates.
B Governmental Reports
• DONE: Deanna Stevenson
• LAPD: Officer Peggy Thusing, Senior Lead Officer
• State Assemblyperson Ted Lieu: Jennifer Zivkovic, Field Representative (310-615-3515; Jennifer.zivkovic@asm.ca.gov)
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Jennifer Badger, West Area Representatives (310-479-3823; jennifer.badger@lacity.org)
• City Councilperson Bill Rosendahl: Arturo Piña, Field Deputy
• LADWP: VNC Representatives DeDe Audet & Challis McPherson
C Introduction of the Los Angeles Parks Foundation
Judith Kieffer (310 472 1990; info@laparksfoundation.org): The Los Angeles Parks Foundation is a non profit 501© (3) that works to enhance, expand and preserve the parks of Los Angeles city. We would like to introduce ourselves as a possible tool to help your city parks.
D False Libelous Flyers Being Distributed in Venice
Stewart Oscars (stewart.oscars@gmail.com): Dirty tricksters are disseminating hate flyers in Venice attacking people with cars they do not deem appropriate, people who have dogs, and also people whose yards they do not approve. These flyers contain language that could be racist and signing the flyers so as to attack one person/one group in Venice. This must be stopped.
E Town Hall
Marc Saltzberg (outreach@VeniceNC.org): Venice Be Ready Emergency Preparedness Expo on May 31, 2009.
F FILL THE FOOD BANK
Alex Rose (310-409-9867; alexrosela@gmail.com): Request the VNC invite the public and its members to bring food to the meeting each month and spread the word through its eblasts and at the farmers market.
G Presentation of Neighborhood Committee rankings of 2009-2010 CIP
Ivan Spiegel (310-821-9556; ivan13147@verizon.net): The Neighborhood Committee will present the Board with its rankings for the 2009-2010 Community Improvement Project funding according to the Standing Rules. This will be a committee report and should not require discussion. We will need appx 5-10 minutes to explain the process & announce the rankings. NOTE: please put this near the end of the agenda as it is an election day and I have to work at the polls.
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):
o Need new chair of OFW Committee – Ira Koslow has stepped down.
o Vote on LUPC candidates:
a. Introductions: Each candidate will have 3 minutes to introduce him/herself and to make a general statement including qualifications and why s/he is interested in serving on LUPC. In doing so, please address the following question:
The Venice Specific Plan has been the blueprint for land development since 2000. The VNC is asked to consider variance requests & other modifications to the VSP. Keeping in mind that this is one of the more controversial issues in Venice, please tell us your insights and thoughts about the VSP & how it should be enforced (strictly, loosely, etc).
b. Vote: The selection procedure will be by voice vote.
B From LUPC
I Challenge to City Interpretation of impact of SLSO on VCZSP See Exhibit C – SLS Discussion Questions
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.
C 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 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.
III Request City Council repeal Section 5 of LA 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.
Comment: The above provision unnecessarily complicates the definition of a stakeholder by expanding it beyond what is required under Sec. 906 of Article IX of the Los Angeles City Charter which provides, as a condition of certification, that:
(a) By-laws. Each neighborhood council seeking official certification or recognition from the City shall submit an organization plan & by-laws to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment showing, at a minimum: (2) neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works or owns property in the area (stakeholders) …Thus, the Bylaws of every currently certified Neighborhood Council contains language defining a stakeholder in conformance with this charter requirement. The Venice Neighborhood Council Bylaws, for instance, define stakeholders as individuals who live, work, or own property within the Venice Neighborhood Council boundaries.
9. New Business
A From Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Occupation [15 min discussion only]
See the Ad Hoc Committee report and minority report for details regarding the below eight motions at http://venicenc.org/files/090507AHHomeless&VecOccCmteReport&Recommendati… and http://venicenc.org/files/090507AHHomeless&VecOccCmteMinorityReport.doc.
I Motion to Create Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): Request that the VNC recommend that the City of Los Angeles establish a program, funded by the City, County and possibly private charitable sources, and operated by a non-profit social service provider, to provide first responders and off-street sites and services to assist vehicular dwellers, on a voluntary basis, find affordable housing, per the program outline and conditional use permit contained in the Ad Committee’s report and recommendations.
II Motion for LAPD to Create Homeless Liaison Team
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): Request that the VNC request the LAPD to develop a team of officers with special training and primary responsibility for outreach to, and liaison with, the homeless in Venice and CD 11 and local social services providers, per the report and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Living.
III Motion for Limited Zoning Exemption for Permanent Supportive Housing
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): Request that the VNC recommend to the Councilman of the District and Mayor that, for the purpose of construction or adaptive reuse to create permanent supportive housing or transitional housing for chronic homeless individuals only, that a zoning exemption be granted to increase the number of units per acre (while maintaining height limits) beyond City code and the Venice Specific Plan, if the units created are vested in perpetuity as affordable by the project developer, whether publicly or privately developed, and located in commercial or manufacturing zones only, per the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.
IV Motion for Creation of Single Room Occupancy Facility
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): Request that the VNC ask the Councilman of the District and the Mayor to support the creation a new Single Room Occupancy project in Venice to house the most critically at risk homeless as soon as possible, through either master leasing or purchasing an existing structure as opposed to new development, and to this end recommend that the the Council Office, the Mayor and the Los Angeles Housing Department consider the sites below as examples of appropriate sites for such housing:
585 E. Venice Boulevard (former Samy’s Camera), Zoning: M1-1
4096 South Glencoe, Zoning: CM-2D (storage use)
4230 S. Del Rey Avenue, Zoning: CM-2D (storage use)
as explained in detail in the Ad Hoc Committee’s report..
V Motion for Greater City Subsidies for Affordable Housing
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): Request that the VNC recommend to the Councilman of the District and the Mayor that the City of Los Angeles factor in the high cost of land in the development of affordable housing and provide greater subsidies for areas of the City with high land costs where there are significant concentrations of homeless individuals, such as Venice, to allow the purchase of sites in, or adjacent to, these areas.
VI Motion to Create CD 11-wide Homeless Task Force
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): To assure that homelessness on the Westside is addressed as the regional issue that it is, request that that the VNC recommend that the Councilman of the District establish a CD 11-wide Homeless Task Force with two representatives of each neighborhood council and also representatives of residents associations to meet monthly with the Council Office, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, representatives of adjoining cities, service providers, representatives of appropriate county supervisors and county departments (County Mental Health, etc.), LA Housing Department, LAPD, LA City Attorney, etc., with the purpose of coordinating homeless services, educating the public about the solutions to homelessness, supporting increased private and public funding for services and housing for the homeless and reaching consensus on the siting of transition and permanent supportive affordable housing for the homeless.
VII Motion to extend the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness & Vehicular Occupation to September 18, 2009
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): To continue the dialogue begun by this Committee with various agencies and officials, to advance the recommendations made by this Committee (or which will be made by this Committee), and to maintain a focus on the needs of the homeless in our community, request that the VNC confirm the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee that it continue to meet until its one-year renewal date on September 18, 2009, on the subject of Homelessness, and the related issues of development of affordable housing in and around Venice, on a once per month basis or as determined by its chair(s), and that it act as the VNC’s interlocutor with homeless serving agencies, both public and private, City agencies such as the LAPD and City Attorney and LAHD, County representatives, and LAHSA. The committee shall also hold meetings with various agencies to gauge progress in assisting Venice’s homeless population gain access to services and housing.
VIII Motion to Create VNC Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Committee
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com): Request that That the VNC establish a Committee on Affordable Housing to promote the development of affordable housing and that said committee consider the following incentives:
• voluntary inclusionary zoning to allow an additional small affordable unit(s) (400 to 600 sq. ft.) per lot where lot size is adequate (i.e., those which now are allowed two or more units by right).
• selective re-zoning along major thorough-fares to allow owners the ability to build more and smaller units per acre.
• Historical Preservation variances that create incentives to retain existing non-conforming affordable housing stock (not to include legalization of garage conversions unless code-required parking is provided.)
• the reduction – but not elimination – of required care-provider staff parking and occupant parking for facilities which house the previously homeless, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) projects, and very low to low income projects. (For example, instead of the current requirement of one parking space per unit in an SRO project, the City might only require .5 spaces per unit, recognizing that individuals at this income level frequently do not have automobiles.)
B From Stakeholders
I Motion to form Ad Hoc G.et I.nvolved V.olunteering E.nergy Committee
Jeffrey Allen Solomon (310) 396-1585; info@venicebeachwalkingtours.com) on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: I move to form an Ad Hoc committee with the mission to:
Form an all volunteer group of multi-talented individuals to give various time to help the City of Los Angeles with janitorial, creative gardening, graffiti locating, and maintenance of all types to assist bringing all our neighborhoods into models of pride for all Venice stakeholders.
[Above mission statement approved by AdCom]
Use a creative data base to screen names for security, listing: contact info, hours available per month (and what days: example: “Mondays, from 11 am to 1 pm, first and third of month”). With homeless people, I will supply a safe place in which to report, some in-kind donation for refreshments. I will use my committee to flesh out the jobs, create the data base, and enlist the VNC to use its outreach committee for assistance. There are more details than available in this format. Example: When working in Las Vegas, Nevada in the very early 70’s, Young Electric Sign was mostly responsible for replacing every burnt out bulb every day. Vies-a vies: Las Vegas became the brightest city on the planet. Example 2: Under Mayor Giuliani’s watch, “The Broken Window Theory” was instituted using Bratton as the strategist and enforcer, bringing the subways into a safer environment, recreating the great White Way (Broadway) back to its former glory. Every window was repaired, under the premise that people would be not as likely to throw a brick though a window in a building that had no broken windows, and that this being said, poachers would be less likely to inhabit said vacant building. All graffiti was painted over daily, prostitutes, drug addicts and all manor of homeless people were taken to a newly formed system, not clogging up the standing court system. These people were helped, not treated as vermin. Many were offered residence in a safer community upstate, given an opportunity to be in programs that may change their lives. My wife says, “Everything loose, rolls west”. Venice is a catch basin for all manner of problematic situations, which we can change. Oh yes, I will request an advisory panel of senior citizens who have been through adversity and turmoil beyond anything experienced by us younger generations. I’ve already sounded out the Israel Levin Senior Citizen Center for their advice should this ad hoc committee be formed. I got a resounding YES! With more questions and hope and help. So many liked this idea, that it seem to brighten their eyes that they may give of their experience to help our and their community.
IIa Motion to Create Windward Circle Park and Community/Arts Center
[Items 9BIIa & 9BIIb are for 15 min combined discussion only]
Erin Sullivan (310-962-8513; tusker1_98@yahoo.com) on behalf of Windward Circle Park Committee: That the Venice Neighborhood Council recommend to Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Rosendahl that the City purchase, through current &/or future park bond funds and/or federal grants, the Postal Annex at Windward Circle and convert it to a park with the existing structure adapted to use as an eco-friendly multi-purpose community center offering space for an art, photograph and sculpture gallery, rehearsal, performance and dance facilities, a small screening room, community meeting room(s) & related facilities such as restrooms and kitchen. The facility is to be fenced and closed at night. All per the below proposal (petitions to be distributed separately):
IIb Motion to acquire and use postal annex on Windward Circle for Venice Community Purposes
Carolyn Rios (310-821-7922; crlynrios@ca.rr.com): Request that the VNC consider the following in its discussion of the sale of the postal annex on Windward Circle in addition to the above motion:
FEBRUARY 1, 2009
What Should Be Done With The Postal Annex?
By Carolyn Rios
Postal Annex on Windward Circle is up for sale.
This is the last available site in Venice that could solve our two biggest problems – parking and homelessness. The Postal Annex is the perfect site for:
1. Ground-level parking, desperately needed in Venice due to severe overdevelopment and use of “grandfathered” parking spots. This lot is conveniently located close to both the beach and the Abbot Kinney business district. Parking fines and fees have been put aside for years that could help fund this proposal.
2. Transitional housing on the 2nd and 3rd stories, with full services, for 30 people, possibly modeled after the highly successful OPCC Turning Point Program in Santa Monica, which has moved 60 homeless people into permanent housing.
The postal annex is located on four major bus lines so clients can easily get to jobs, services, schools in Santa Monica, Culver City and Los Angeles.
There is funding available from both the city, and county, and probably federal government to provide these desperately needed services.
We need to identify these sources and ACT NOW before private developers get in the way.
3. This could be a model “green” building with rooftop gardens and all, possibly opening up additional funding.
The site is large enough that the building itself could be set back 20 – 30 feet with landscaped parking to provide both beauty and privacy. Each story can be set back further with gardens on the balconies and roof.
Government officials must immediately stop any idea of selling this to private developers.
Imagine 50 or more additional parking spots between Abbot Kinney and the beach, just where they are needed the most. Imagine taking 30 homeless people each year off the beach. Imagine !!!
However the community decides to use this lot, it is vital that the community get this property for local needs.
C From Neighborhood Committee
I 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.
II Letter to keep funding of CDD Support Group
Kristopher Valentine (805-341-4577; kristophervalentine@gmail.com) on behalf of Neighborhood Cmtee:
It has been brought to the attention of the Venice Neighborhood Committee that AA/CS/NA Community Development Department support group meetings in Venice have had two meeting per week canceled due to budget cuts. These meetings have up to 80 people, many young, attend. The committee requests the board send the following letter to Councilman Rosenthal and Mayor Villaraigosa to keep the CDD and support group meetings funded. See letter below:
May 19, 2009
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa &
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City of Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601
RE: Funding CDD Support Groups
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Rosendahl:
Stakeholders have brought to the attention of the Venice Neighborhood Council that funding cuts for the Community Development Department (“CDD”) has canceled support group meetings held at the Vera Davis Center.
The Vera Davis Center is a priceless resource, which provides countless services to the Venice community. One such service is providing Alcoholic and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Attendance of these meetings can reach over eighty people, and many are young. Due to budget cuts two meetings a week have been canceled.
In this economic climate it is imperative not to cut services that directly affect those who are in need of help the most. Addiction is a plague that ruins lives, destroys families, and deteriorates communities. Every minute of each meeting strengthen sobriety, reduces poverty, and prevents crime.
We urge you to reinstate the cuts made to the CDD so that the Vera Davis Center can provide this essential service to the Venice community once again.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter
Sincerely, The Venice Neighborhood Council
D From the Rules & Elections Committee
I Standing Rule mandating Ethics Training for new Board members
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board adopt the following standing rule:
Until a Board member has completed the mandated ethics training and submitted a certificate of completion, she/he will be prohibited from voting on any land use issues or financial expenditures of any city funds.
II Standing Rule limiting repeat bylaw elections following defeat
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board adopt the following standing rule regarding election time limits for scheduling stakeholder ratifications of by-laws elections that do not meet minimum requirements for passage or defeat:
The Board cannot hold a stakeholder ratification for the same bylaw amendment or an amendment that addresses substantially the same issue in any six month period.
III Bylaw amendment limiting occurrence of petition elections
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board adopt the following amendment to VNC Bylaw VA1:
Receipt of this completed petition by the Secretary shall trigger this item being scheduled as an action item on the Agenda at a separate Election Meeting to be held not less than thirty (30) days nor more than [DELETE] ninety (90) [ADD] two hundred and ten (210) days following receipt of the completed petition. Notice of the Initiative, including the outline paragraph of fifty (50) words or less, shall be made in all public meeting notices and announcements for the upcoming meeting at which the Initiative shall be voted on. [ADD] This time limit may be waived by a majority vote of the VNC Board if there is evidence of a time sensitive matter.
IV Approval of REC responses to City Clerk regarding 2010 VNC Board elections
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board adopt the REC decisions reflected in Exhibit D.
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)
Exhibit A – LUPC De Minimis Projects (Item 4) See document below.
Exhibit B – Treasurers Report (Item 5) See document below.
Exhibit C – SLS Discussion Questions (Item 8BI)
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
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.
Joe Murphy Questions & Shana Bonstin Responses
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?
Shana Bonstin: First, let me clarify that the Director’s Interpretation does not establish new policy, the policies already exist within both the Venice Coastal Specific Plan and the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance. The Director’s Interpretation is intended to shed light on the difficulty in reconciling these two regulations, and to make sure cases are reviewed and approved or disapproved in a consistent manner. Second, let me clarify your question as I understand it , which is: if one’s goal is to accomplish an abundant number of smaller homes in Venice, is the VSP without regard to small lot subdivisions, or the Director’s Interpretation as it is currently written, more likely to accomplish that? ……I believe the Director’s Interpretation will… The intended consequence of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance is to allow for additional options in home ownership, namely smaller, fee-simple lots. I do think that the Director’s Interpretation indirectly incentivizes the construction of these small lot homes because it allows for cumulatively additional units in some subareas that otherwise restrict by number of units. A theoretical example is R3 zone in North Venice. If a lot is 3900 square feet, two units could be developed on it per the VSP. With the Director’s Interpretation, if the lot is subdivided, 3 units could be developed on it. But, if the lot were 3000 square feet or RD1.5, only two units could be constructed, even under the Director’s Interpretation. There are only specific scenarios in which an increase in density could occur. Never is density permitted greater than what the code allows, or the Specific Plan stipulates in terms of minimum lot area per dwelling unit measurement. But I believe the effect will be construction of smaller homes on smaller lots rather than condominiums or multi-family unit buildings.
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?
Shana Bonstin: It’s hard to say, and really at this point speculative. On one hand, the VSP in some subareas allows for the construction of additional new units, but only if they are replacing existing affordable units. The additional units wouldn’t be permitted if there were no units being demolished or if demolished units were not affordable. (Affordability is determined by the Housing Department, using median income standards). We don’t know how many units currently exist in these lots that are “Affordable” (and this is different than “rent controlled!). Per the Director’s Interpretation, additional units could be constructed and they would not have to be “Affordable” so they could all be market rate. However, the Mello Act still requires replacement of demolished affordable units, so under the Director’s Interpretation a new Affordable unit would still have to be supplied, but it could be constructed off-site or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone, as permitted by the Mello Act. This is the real difference—whether the affordable replacement unit is provided onsite or not.
Just a general note…a lot of these questions say that the Venice Coastal Specific Plan allows one thing, but the Small Lot Subdivision Interpretation allows for another….I’ve answered the questions as stated, for simplicity. But I would reiterate that this Interpretation does not change the Specific Plan, the Interpretation is justified because—whatever the intent or merits of approach—the Specific Plan is very detailed in its restrictions on numbers of units on lots—but the Small Lot Subdivisions separate properties into distinct lots…so these restrictions do not apply. It comes down very technically to how it’s written, regardless of the intent. Why? Because in the end, we pass down these rules from planner to planner, generation to generation, and as our City Attorney would advise us, they must be clear and detailed and stand by themselves. (Like any law….) If either the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance and/or the Venice Coastal Specific Plan need to be amended to be more clear, then so be it. This process will provide direction to that end. (Yay!?)
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.
Shana Bonstin: Yes—the difference is whether it’s on-site or off-site. (See #2 above)
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.
Shana Bonstin: No, if there was no original affordable unit the VSP would only permit 2 units, and the Director’s Interpretation would allow 3 (based your scenario and this simplified assumption). Per the VSP, additional units (in the subareas that state so) are only permitted if there was an Affordable unit that was demolished.
Both the VSP and the SLS would permit the construction of 2 units without requiring that either be affordable.
Shana Bonstin: Yes.
The VSP permits the construction of 1 unit; the SLS is not relevant to a 1 unit proposal.
Shana Bonstin: Yes.
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.
Shana Bonstin: Yes. But again, if there was an existing Affordable unit onsite, it would have to be replaced per the Mello Act.
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.
Shana Bonstin: No, under the Director’s Interpretation, these new single-unit lots are not multi-family, they are single family, so they will be required 2 units per lot (Except Silver Strand and Venice Canals which require 3).
If one of the 4 is an affordable unit, the VSP would still require 10 parking spaces whereas the SLS would only require 9.
Shana Bonstin: No, the number of parking spaces are not dependant on affordability of units.
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.
Shana Bonstin: Yes, but far less than what people are imagining. I will try and get some calculations done by our GIS unit to better understand this.
f. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in a larger number of smaller homes under the Director’s Interpretation than under the VSP.
Shana Bonstin: Yes. Smaller lots usually mean smaller homes. See #1 above
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.
Shana Bonstin: Basically true, given that the Mello Act requires replacement of affordable units. Maybe slightly fewer affordable homes under the Director’s Interpretation in Venice itself, but the same number overall (just elsewhere in Coastal Zone—or they can request to provide it within 3 miles of coastal zone)
Please correct my understandings above & add any key issue I’ve failed to include. Please provide examples to help clarify any changes & additions.
Shana Bonstin: Thanks for the opportunity to engage with you in this interesting format!
Arnold Springer Statement
Shana Bonstin: Although No questions were asked of me below, I added some commentary as I saw relevant.
——-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.
Shana Bonstin: I wasn’t working here at the time but my understanding was that it was submitted to the Coastal Commission, who wanted the City to include the entire zone code as part of the submittal. (Regulations not covered in VSP are addressed in zone code) For normal small coastal cities that may not be significant, but our zone code is over 500 pages and is updated constantly. If the VSP was certified, any change to the zone code would have to first be approved by the Coastal Commission—logistically impossible. I was an intern twice for the Coastal Commission—I believe in strongly in their objectives, and I believe it’s a shame we are not certified.
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.
Shana Bonstin: Not always—it’s dependant on the minimum lot area per dwelling unit calculation unique to each zone and each lot (it’s how density is calculated in the code). For example, in the RD1.5 zone, the minimum is 1500 square feet, so if there’s a 4500 square foot lot, three units could be located on it, or it could be divided into 3 lots since 3×1500=4500). Under the SLSO, it’s no longer one lot, its two or three.
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.
Shana Bonstin: They are required to be separate walls if they are on separate lots—a minimum of 18 inches apart, as well as maximum coverage on a lot (see below). Setbacks are mostly dictated by the Zone Code since they are silent in the VSP (except in a couple subareas that restrict setbacks such as near waterways)
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.
Shana Bonstin: I appreciate this point.
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.
Shana Bonstin: Home size is limited by the SLSO, see below. The Director’s Interpretation does not allow larger homes than would be allowed without the Director’s Interpretation.
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.
Shana Bonstin: Per the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance: All structures on a lot which includes one or more dwelling units, taken together occupy no more than 80% of the lot area, unless the tract or parcel map provides common open space equivalent to 20% of the lot area of each lot not meting this provision…. I would think with the setbacks and open space required for each unit, the overall impact would be more consistent with the traditional development patterns of Venice….more open space breaking up smaller homes. The addition of design standards could really address your concerns here.
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.
Shana Bonstin: Very legitimate concern. Wouldn’t the creation of new small lots reduce the scale of new development?
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.
Shana Bonstin: The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance is currently “on the books”—it was approved in 2005.
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.
Shana Bonstin: I’m interested in seeing these design standards that were originally envisioned. Does anyone have a copy of the original draft plans? Thanks for your insights.
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.
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.Exhibit D – REC Responses to City Clerk on 2010 Election (Item 9EIV)
2010 Neighborhood Council (NC) Election Procedures
Stipulation Language Worksheet
The 2010 Neighborhood Council Election Procedures Stipulation Language Worksheet is the means by which a Neighborhood Council Board can participate in the development of their 2010 Election Procedures. Using this worksheet, your Board will establish general voter and candidate guidelines specific to your NC election. The stipulations in this worksheet will be used by the City Clerk – Election Division to develop your NC’s Election Procedures. The deadline for the City Clerk – Election Division to have received (not postmarked) a Board approved copy of the 2010 NC Election Procedures Stipulation Language Worksheet is 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 1, 2009.
This list of stipulations is adopted by the Venice Neighborhood Council on May 19, 2009 and provides information regarding Stakeholder membership, the Board’s structure, and Stakeholder eligibility for voting and for being selected or elected to a Board seat. The provisions in this 2010 NC Election Procedures Stipulation Language Worksheet supersede any prior inconsistent provisions contained in the NC bylaws. Pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils (Plan), the Stipulation Language is incorporated by reference in the NC’s bylaws and shall be affixed to the NC bylaws.
Section 1: Administration of Elections The Neighborhood Council’s election will be conducted by the City Clerk every two years in every even-numbered year in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the City Clerk. The City Clerk will hold these elections between March and June of the even-numbered years. The rules and regulations developed by the City Clerk shall take precedence over any inconsistent language in the NC bylaws.
Section 2: Stakeholder Definition [Pursuant to Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 22.811(a)(2) and Article II, Section 1 of the Plan, the mandatory definition of Stakeholder below will apply to all Neighborhood Councils.]
Neighborhood Council membership is open to all Stakeholders. “Stakeholders” shall be defined as those who live, work, or own property in the neighborhood & also to those who declare a stake in the neighborhood & affirm the factual basis for it.
Section 3 – Method for Verifying Stakeholder Status [Option B: The following requires documentation in order to establish Stakeholder status for your Neighborhood Council election.]
Voters will verify their Stakeholder status by providing documentation acceptable to the City Clerk – Election Division. Stakeholder status may also be established by means of declaring a stake (or interest) in the neighborhood and providing documentation acceptable to the City Clerk – Election Division supporting that declaration. Factual basis Stakeholders will also be required to provide a form of documentation to substantiate their factual basis
Section 4 – Declaring a Stake in the Neighborhood Council in Districts Based on Participation/Membership in an Organization, Group or Place of Worship [Option A: This sample language establishes Stakeholder status based on the physical address of the organization or place of worship.]
Where Stakeholder status in a district is established by participation or membership in an organization, group or place of worship, the physical address for the organization or place of worship shall be used to establish the district Stakeholder status.
Section 5 – Minimum Voting Age
All Stakeholders aged 16 and above shall be entitled to vote in the Neighborhood Council Elections.
Section 6 – Board Terms All current Board terms, which end prior to your 2010 NC election, shall be extended until after the certification of election results or the resolution of all official election challenges for your 2010 NC election, whichever date is later. There are no term limits. [Option A: The following is for a two-year term:]
Beginning with the City Clerk conducted election held between March and June of 2010, a Board member’s term shall be for the duration of two years or until a successor is elected or appointed.
Section 7 – Appointed Board Seats (where applicable) [OPTION IS NOT APPLICABLE: All seats on the Neighborhood Council Board are elected.]
Section 8 – Vacancy Clause [Option A: The NC uses the vacancy clause in their bylaws.]
A vacancy on the Board shall be filled according to Article IV.G.IV of the NC Bylaws. The appointed applicant’s term shall be limited to the term for the vacated seat.
Section 9 – Governing Board Composition and Voting [All Stakeholders must have the ability to participate on your Board by having the ability to be seated as a Board member and vote. You must have at least one “at large” seat to accommodate those Stakeholders who “declare a stake in the neighborhood.” This “at large” seat can be accommodated either within one of the existing Board positions OR by adding no more than one “at large” seat to the existing Board.]
The total number of seats on the Venice Neighborhood Council Board is 21. All registered stakeholders are eligible to hold any seat per VNC Bylaws Article VI.F (the VNC Voting Model) which reads as follows:
Voting for election of Officers shall be by ballot. Each Voting Member shall be entitled to cast votes as follows:
• One (1) vote for President
• One (1) vote for Vice President
• One (1) vote for Secretary
• One (1) vote for Treasurer
• One (1) vote for Communications Officer
• One (1) vote for Community Outreach Officer
• One (1) vote for Land Use and Planning Committee Chair
• One (1) vote for only one (1) Community Officer. The Community Officer candidates with the fourteen (14) highest vote totals shall be elected.
If more than two (2) candidates are running for an Executive Officer position, a plurality shall be sufficient to elect unless the election procedures direct otherwise. No voting by proxy is allowed.
Section 10 – Voting Model (see Section 9 above)
Section 11 – Declaring Candidacy for Positions on the Board [Option A: Below find sample language requiring that candidates can only seek candidacy in no more than one Board position at a time.]
A candidate shall declare their candidacy for no more than one position on the Neighborhood Council Board during a single election cycle.
Location(s)
- Calendar
- 2203 reads