VNC 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 (written only) [MN to announce policy substituting written for verbal Committee reports]

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

A DONE, LAPD, and other Governmental Reports

B Mike Newhouse (310-305-9660; president@venicenc.org): An Ad Hoc Homeless Committee and an Ad Hoc RV Parking Committee have been formed with the chair/co-chairs and members to be chosen and ratified at the July 15 Board meeting from solicited applicants. [Requested announcement tabled & above announcement approved – Placed on Agenda 4-0-1]

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.
[Placed on Agenda]

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

8. Treasurers Report (accept report as presented)

9. New Business

A From President

I Confirmation of Ira Koslow as chair of Rules & Elections Committee. [Placed on Agenda]

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 (8-0-0): [Placed on Agenda 3-2-0]

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 (5-2-1):
[Placed on Agenda 3-2-0]

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 & recommendation re 2812 – 2819 South Grand Canal, as follows: [Placed on Agenda]

The Venice Neighborhood Council’s Land Use and Planning Committee made and passed the following motion by 4-3-1 regarding 2812 -2818 S Grand CL, Cases 2007-743, 624, and 625.

The Land Use and Planning Committee recommends that the Board of Officers recommend approval of this project as presented with the condition that any additional change (defined as enlargement, reconstruction or condo conversation or otherwise) shall not be allowed under this permit/variance. Any future changes to any structures on either parcel would have to fully comply with the rules/setbacks/parking requirements and RW1-1 zoning of the property, i.e. any new structure would have to be a single family home adhering to the required setbacks and parking requirements, and further we request that this condition be recorded as a covenant on the property.

The Venice Neighborhood Council’s Land Use and Planning Committee made and passed the following motion by 5-2-1 regarding 2812 -2818 S Grand CL, Cases 2007-743, 624, and 625.

The Land Use and Planning Committee recommends that the Board of Officers recommend that the interior side yard (between the two parcels) fence/hedge/wall be limited to 3 ½ feet in height as long as a duplex exists on either parcel.

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:

Community Impact Statement [Placed on Agenda for discussion only 4-1-0]
Re: Council File 05-1345.
The Venice Neighborhood Council recommends that the city of Los Angeles adopt a resolution requesting that the state of California exempt the city from the SB1818 density bonus statute. Pending action on such exemption, we ask the city to amend Ordinance #179681 implementing SB1818 to:

• Disallow any density bonus incentives for a proposed development project that results in a net reduction in the number of affordable housing units.
• Classify all requests under the density bonus program as discretionary and subject to environmental review.
• Remove any density bonus incentives beyond those required by the state statute.

The city of Los Angeles recently passed an ordinance implementing state law SB1818, which requires cities and other governmental jurisdictions to grant increased density and other bonuses to development projects that designate as little as 5% of their units as affordable to persons earning less than a specified income.

Why is SB1818 bad for Los Angeles?

• It undermines General, Community, and Specific Plans by imposing new standards that disregard planning documents.

• It is unlikely to achieve its stated goal of creating more affordable housing, but could well result in a net loss of affordable units in L.A. since it creates economic incentives for owners to tear down rent-controlled housing and replace it with fewer “affordable” units then were there before. Currently, 70% of rental housing in L.A.—that which was built before 1978—is under rent control.

• It limits the time a unit is “affordable” for 30 years for rental housing and 10 years for condos, after which time these units revert to market rate. But the bonuses given to developers—added density, height, reduced parking, reduced setbacks, etc.—last for the life of the building.

• The increase in density—allowing more units in a particular project than now permitted—will put a burden on infrastructure- water, power, sewer, storm drains.

• It will increase traffic without any mitigation measures or mandates for and infrastructure and transit improvements to deal with density increases. It also designates “transit corridors” as preferred locations for density bonus projects even though many of those corridors are not equipped to deal with increased traffic.

• It provides no criteria for selecting specific areas of the city where density would make the most sense.

• It allows developers for use the argument that density bonuses are needed to make a project financially feasible, which is contrary to a city charter provision that excludes financial feasibility or hardship as grounds for granting variances and specific plan exceptions. It also puts the burden of proof on the city to disprove a developer’s contention that bonuses are needed to make a project financially feasible. If the city fails to prove this, it is liable for court costs and attorney’s fees.

The City’s Implementation of SB1818 actually goes beyond what is required by state law by designating many projects that seek density and other bonuses as “ministerial” and thus exempt from environmental review and public hearings before zoning administrators, planning department officers, and area planning commissions. For example, a project seeking the maximum density increase of 35% as well as a significant reduction in required parking would not be subject to any public hearings or review of its impact on parking, traffic, and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This completely undermines the city’s General, Community, and Specific Plans that were written and adopted AFTER extensive public hearings and input from affected communities.

V Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of LUPC: That VNC Board approve LUPC report and recommendation re Billboards, as follows: [Placed on Agenda – text to be provided]

C From Outreach

I Marc Saltzberg (310-305-9660; outreach@VeniceNC.org): The Board will be asked to approve an expenditure of $1000 for t-shirts that will be sold to the public at cost. [Placed on Agenda 4-0-2]

D From Budget & Finance

I Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org) on behalf of Budget Committee: That the Board adopt as a Standing Rule that the Venice Neighborhood Council does not fund refreshments at committee and sub-committee meetings. [Placed on Agenda]

E 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 adopt the following resolution regarding the proposed Woodside Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal off the Coast of LAX: [Placed on Agenda]

A RESOLUTION OF THE VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES 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 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 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES’S COMMITMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, SECURITY, SAFETY, AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

Dated this ___ day of ______ 2008, by:

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

F From Board Member/Parliamentarian

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

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 Transit Shelters
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

G 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. [Placed on Agenda]

II Rand Denny (310-951-4505; icare@lovenice.org): Request for following letter of support to keep the level of funding for graffiti removal: [Placed on Agenda]

Dear Mayor and City Council:

It has come to the attention of the Venice Neighborhood Council that funding for graffiti removal efforts and the oversight of the Venice Graffiti Walls is currently threatened. We are writing to urge you to fully fund these efforts.

Over the past year, through the joint efforts of countless neighborhood volunteers, the Venice Neighborhood Council Graffiti Committee, the Office of Beautification, Parks and Recreations, the LAPD, and Pacific Graffiti Solutions, we have seen a great reduction in the amount and frequency of graffiti in Venice neighborhoods. And not surprising, while graffiti and tagging has been reduced, feelings of security and community pride (along with involvement) have dramatically risen.

We believe that graffiti is much more than just the destruction of our neighborhood and property. We believe graffiti is an invitation to crime, and a message that “nobody cares.” We see on the news, all too frequently, reminders of the violence that graffiti brings to our city.

We also urge you to fully fund the oversight of the Venice Graffiti walls. We believe that having a city sponsored graffiti area without also adequately supporting efforts for removal and beautification is unacceptable.

As you know Venice is a top tourist attraction, and revenue generator in the City of L.A. Please know that we will continue to do all we can to present our guests (and residents) with a clean and beautiful environment. We urge you to help us do just that.

Most Sincerely,

The Venice Neighborhood Council
The Venice Neighborhood Council Graffiti Committee
Countless Venice Residents

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

11. Adjourn (approx 10:00PM)

Location(s)

See map: Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps

Attachment	Size
080520VNCBoardAgenda.doc	139.5 KB