Directive on this address triggered the outpouring of frustrations from members of LUPC with the City Planning department.

Yesterday it was a big win for community regarding 522 Venice Blvd and a setback for City Planning. Today, members of LUPC (Land Use and Planning Committee) are saying the system is broken and “We’re mad as the ‘dickens’ and can’t take it anymore. Fix it!” Venice Neighborhood Council says “We’re with you.”

Abbreviations, acronyms are: SLSO is small lot subdivision ordinance; CUP is conditional use permit; CUB is conditional use permit, beverage; DIR is a directive from Department of Planning; LUPC is Land Use and Planning Committee of Venice Neighborhood Council; VCSP, VSP is Venice Coastal Specific Plan.

Planning feels the SLSO supersedes the Venice Coastal Specific Plan. LUPC says “no” to that. LUPC also says they can’t appeal a directive if the directive is received past the appeal date, as one pictured was, which triggered this. Below are other unworkable situations, conditions not appropriate.

Challis Macpherson, former chair of Land Use and Planning said: “What Robert said in paragraph ‘1’ is gorgeous, absolutely right on.”

Robert Aronson of LUPC
Folks, the system has failed again. On December 7th, we received a Planning Department notice that a DIR has been issued with an appeal deadline of December 5th, 34 Ave 24. The deadline to appeal passed before we knew about it.

I have asked that we put a procedure in place for all Planning Department notices mailed to the VNC with a “DIR” in the case number. These must be handled expeditiously so that we do not miss the short deadline for filing an appeal. Yet it has happened again.

We need to determine the date that the Planning Department mailed out the DIR to the VNC post office box. We need to determine if the cause is the Planning Department or the VNC mail sorting process.

The Planning Department is issuing illegal DIRs that blatantly violate the Specific Plan. I can name a half dozen of them. Then the City says that there’s no appeal because the 14-day deadline has passed. I am not saying that the attached DIR for 34 24th Street is problematic – I am saying that the community has no real notice and no opportunity to respond. The City refuses to send us a .pdf of the DIRs as they are issued, only a mailed copy.

Not First Time

Many months ago, I brought 4 illegal DIRs to the attention of Shana Bonstin, supervisor of Greg Shoop, the person signing these DIRs, and Shana Bonstin has refused to respond, despite a reminder. The Planning Department is violating our Specific Plan with impunity, and our only hope is to expeditiously process the mailed notice of the DIRs so that there is at least an opportunity for the community to consider an appeal.

Violating VSP

My observation is that there are 3 consistent and repeated ways that the City is ignoring and violating our Specific Plan:

1. interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to trump the Specific Plan, although the law says that specific plans always trump ordinances. The City is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to allow more units on lots than the Specific Plan allows, and is not requiring any guest parking at all, and is allowing tandem parking that people often don’t use, rather than side-by-side parking.

2. allowing buildings to be constructed to the maximum possible size even when the proposed building is waaaay out of scale with the neighborhood, meaning three story buildings that block all of the neighbors’ sunlight in a one-story or two-story neighborhood. My interpretation of the Specific Plan (not shared by everyone) is that the Specific Plan requires an evaluation of the compatibility of the mass and scale of the proposed building with the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning Department does not do this, and they have set up a process where there is no appeal. If the Planning Department continues to get away with this, soon Venice will be all 3-story compounds with very little sun or air between the buildings. Maybe that is okay, but we should at least have a say in the outcome, as I interpret our Specific Plan.

3. the illegal DIRs I mentioned above. For example, the Rose Cafe was allowed to add over 100 new seats and the parking requirement was actually decreased. If anyone looked at this DIR, and about a half-dozen others, you would be absolutely certain that the Planning Department was on the take. I don’t believe that the Planning Department is on the take, but the violation of the law and the Specific Plan is so blatant that it appears that way.

Robin Rudisill of LUPC
To Tricia Keane, Council Planning Director, and Debbie Dyner, District Director

I too have noted an alarming number of seemingly purposeful irregularities coming out of City Planning, which I am in the process of summarizing for the Council Office, as you know.

One example, along the lines of Robert’s DIR concern, relates to the 37 Washington Blvd. project. City Planning approved DIR-2013-1952-VSO on June 27, 2013, shortly after the related CUB was upheld on appeal. This DIR added floor area and therefore triggered a change in intensity of use, which would have negatively affected the CUB approval (sustained on June 14, 2013, just 13 days prior to the DIR’s approval) and which requires a coastal development permit. Yet, ON THE SAME DATE, June 27, 2013, City Planning approved a Coastal Exemption (ZA-2013-1962-CEX) for the project.

We have also expressed to City Planning our serious concern regarding the Chief Zoning Administrator’s sudden, unannounced change to prohibit alcohol-related conditions in CUB’s, effective with the 37 Washington Blvd. project. The VNC Board has sent City Planning a letter insisting on clarification on this issue, which has thus far been ignored. Several other inquiries have been made/reported in the last few months, with no response.

Besides these examples, I have heard numerous concerns expressed by community members that their phone calls and emails expressing concerns and questions to City Planning are not being returned.

Frankly, this is a huge red flag, and the situation should be investigated ASAP.

Need City Attorney to Check Some Decisions?
The issues that Robert is raising below are very concerning and MUST be corrected immediately, along with the apparent impunity. We will also need the City Attorney to look into whether decisions made and/or permits/approvals granted are invalid and need to be redone, in the cases where procedures, policies, ethics, codes and/or laws were violated by City Planning.

Besides the fact that this behavior by City Planning is undermining the entire planning process, including the role of the VNC and all of our hard work, the related illegitimate and probably illegal approvals and actions are resulting in significant, permanent, detrimental changes to Venice and the quality of life of its communities.

Please do whatever you can to look into these issues as soon as possible. We appreciate your help on this and trust that Councilperson Bonin will support you in making this one of your highest priorities.

Linda Lucks, president of Venice Neighborhood Council
Thank you so much Robin and Robert for articulating what many in Venice are feeling and talking about.

Venice needs the Council Office to immediately intercede regarding DIR’s and SLSO’s which are, in long- time residents opinions, ruining the character of our unique Coastal community. The pace of development is so fast that many of projects which normally get a thorough and stringent review by the community, are sliding by with no review, or recourse and many are rightfully upset.

Venice has always been actively involved in development decisions and it is a travesty when people feel their rights are ignored. Insufficient notice and the Director’s Sign off are two of the most egregious problems at the Planning Department. A third travesty is the proliferation of SLSO’ on tiny Venice lots with little or no recourse, unless certain Venice neighborhoods can “opt out.” Also the issuing of CUB’s that ignore the VSP and our ability to impose conditions.

Please help us. We need to work with you to fix a broken system.

Arnold Spring, long-time resident, concerned citizen, former member of LUPC
Finally! At last!——

The VNC leadership should threaten to RESIGN IMMEDIATELY. The Planning Depart must be reigned in, OR ELSE!
In my opinion a threat like this is the only thing that will turn things around. WE ARE ALL BEING USED.

2.The Neighborhood Council empowerment movement was and is A FARCE. DON’T RUN COVER FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ANYMORE! REFUSE TO BE USED.

3. The city is in league with developer interests. Everyone knows this to be true. Especially long time activists like local VNC pols and good people like Robert Aronson and a complacent, complicit, and docile LUPC.

4 Stop issuing SLSO projects approvals in Venice immediately. Two units maximum per lot until the priority of Venice Specific Plan regs over SLSO is agreed to by Planning Department.

5. In the interim – A MORITORIUM ON A SLSO PROJECTS IN VENICE WOULD DO THE TRICK. It is in order!!!!

6. Demand that massing and scale be applied to all projects, whether they are VNC ‘kosher’ (height and setbacks acceptable OR NOT)! Hearings for all projects on an informal basis in neighborhoods in which projects are proposed on massing and scale. STOP THE TRAVESTY.

7. If you don’t get these restrictions immediately, resign from the VNC and bring the Neighborhood Council apparatus down. It only provides a fig leaf for rapacious city politicians and their developer cohort.

8. GET THE MESSAGE!! THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US. NEITHER DOES THE CITY COUNCIL. DOES THE VNC?