Mark Kleiman
Ref: 8 September Update, LUPC report regarding 1620 Electric
You wrote:
“The project was within the Venice Coastal Specific Plan ordinance.”
And yes, the project was geographically within the geographical boundaries of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. Especially in light of your quoting Ramsey’s claim that “the project follows the plan” you might have accidentally confused people into thinking that you are reporting, as a fact, that the project complied with the plan.
I think you know from the debate which went on before your eyes that the other members of the committee disagreed with Ramsey’s claim, and found that the project violated VCZSP Section 8(c)(1) for not being in scale or character with the existing neighborhood and being materially detrimental to adjoining lots or to the immediate neighborhood.
That is not “within” the VCZSP.
Amy Alcon
Can one power wash during drought?
Mike Bravo
Note: Must read 2 Sept issue regarding Jay Adams.
Thank you for your updates but am disappointed that Jay Adams (an undisputed Venice legend) was not given his due respect . Even more bothersome because this newsletter is supposed to be the “Venice Update.” It has been well noted that sexual orientation had nothing to do with his brief participation in that tragic event. Like any other human he’s made mistakes and was not perfect. It’s fine to acknowledge and hold him accountable but the linked article attempts miserably to paint that unfortunate event as being definitive of Jay Adams identity & character. It’s the Venice way to do our best to love our friends & family despite their shortcomings. The person who wrote that article is obviously not from here as their ignorance of our city culture is pretty evident, not to mention the article coming off as very opportunistic. When a presumptive opinion by a non-native is given precedence over respecting a legend who was instrumental in shaping the character of Venice which so many now usurp their fame and notoriety from, that disregard for a Venice native discredits this newsletter as being representative of Venice.
Second, LUPC relative, it is also disappointing to read about people’s genuine quality of life concerns being downplayed and implied as mere emotional and trivial concerns. The laws of the land are centered around capitalizing and profit and as such have a ways to catch up with human welfare, values, and respect. I feel the LUPC should be commended for actually having some regard for the collective community instead of blatant favoritism for financially affluent individuals who can afford the privilege.
There is more on my mind but that is all for now. Even though I feel many your perspectives suffer from tunnel vision. I know this newsletter takes a lot of dedication and work. Thank you for stirring up good attention and dialogue for important Venice topics.
Nick Antonicello
Why does Santa Monica offer residents the emergency poles along the beach, but not on OFW in Venice?
Why weren’t these safety tools part of the recommendations by Recreation & Parks or the 11th CD office?
Just another example of how woefully mismanaged the boardwalk continues to be under the current city leadership and why Venice city hood is the only viable alternative.
Arnold Springer
Re: 1620 Electric and Venice Specific Plan:
The Coastal Commission has finally and vigorously objected to 30 foot high boxes that although they meet the residential height limit of the Venice Specific Plan DO NOT MEET the requirement that they observe the existing ‘massing and scale’ of the neighborhood street on which they are proposed to be built. No more permits can be issued without a coastal development permit attached because the massing and scale provision has been consistently ignored by the city for many years and that ‘prejudices the city’s ability to prepare and submit’ an unbiased and fair Local Coastal Program for Venice to the Commission.
The Venice Specific Plan was only meant to be a temporary stop gap measure until the Venice LCP, with massing and scale criteria included, was submitted to the Coastal Commission. The aim of massing and scale was to help preserve Venice’s unique coastal neighborhoods and the architectural ensembles which existed in them, for the edification of visitors and residents alike. Ironically, it was professional architects (and of course ‘developers’) who led the fight against massing and scale limitations on 30 foot boxes because they naturally preferred to support fellow architects and developers of new projects, the bread and butter of the architectural profession.
Finally, after a myriad of complaints and appeals over the past twenty odd years (yes its true – twenty years!!!) to the Commission about the gross violations of massing and scale of new projects all over Venice, the Coastal Commission has said enough— and ordered the city to stop issuing de minimus permits to 30 foot high boxes. The city, Councilman Bonin, and the new Planning Director have decided to comply.
This is welcome news for all residents and property owners and was supported by the vote of a newly appointed LUPC on the 1620 Electric proposal by a vote of 5 to 2. The previous LUPC had refused to support the myriad of complaints from residents and property owners from all parts of Venice and its neighborhoods, in spite of the fact that it was supposed to represent the interests of Venice first and speculative capital second. They claimed they had no mandate and no quantitative objective yardstick. The Commission finally sent a message that could not be ignored either by City Planning or the Venice Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC). Assess every project, even those that meet the height limit of the Venice Specific Plan, for massing and scale, before approving it.
Readers of the Triangle who are interested in the protections of massing and scale for their neighborhood need to prepare a ‘Streetscape Profile’ of own their street and await the inevitable request for a 30 foot high box. The problem is you may not be notified of the pending application and so you need to contact Sue Kaplan of the VNC about how to get notified for sure. The ‘Streetscape Profile’ should be organized by street, by street address, and list the height of each existing structure, the number of units on that lot, and whether it has a peaked or flat roof. There also needs to be a comparative square footage chart but this is a bit more complicated to create.
Together, such a ‘Streetscape Profile’ should be enough to make a compelling and legitimate case for denial of a new project at 30 feet if most of the already existing structures on the street are one or two stories, that is between 13 and 26 feet. It is the three story projects that threaten neighborhood residential character and these should be stopped until the Local Coastal Program (LCP) is submitted to the Coastal Commission and achieves its approval. If you want to stop this nonsense and waste of time in its tracks and eliminate all the hanky panky of community politics –(had enough already!) — suggest to Councilman Bonin that he support a temporary moratorium on all projects proposed for residentially zoned lots to 26 feet until the Venice LCP is finalized and submitted. This will eliminate the third story which is creating all the problems since the VSP was adopted, and save a lot of time for everyone involved in community governance here as well as heartache for neighbors of such projects.
When the Venice Specific Plan was adopted, it was without massing and scale provisions for neighborhoods despite the many prophesized problems and conflicts that this omission would cause and the troubles which we now see. The LUPC and the VNC Board have been swamped by land use appeals against new projects which although conforming to the VSP height limit undermine and destroy the neighborhood character. There is plenty of documentation about this and those LUPC members and VNC Board members who object to massing and scale criteria being applied to new projects must now re-think their position, which is (to my mind at least) anti Venice and clearly undermines the architectural character and thus the neighborhood character of this community.
503
Comments–11 September 2014
Mark Kleiman
Ref: 8 September Update, LUPC report regarding 1620 Electric
You wrote:
And yes, the project was geographically within the geographical boundaries of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. Especially in light of your quoting Ramsey’s claim that “the project follows the plan” you might have accidentally confused people into thinking that you are reporting, as a fact, that the project complied with the plan.
I think you know from the debate which went on before your eyes that the other members of the committee disagreed with Ramsey’s claim, and found that the project violated VCZSP Section 8(c)(1) for not being in scale or character with the existing neighborhood and being materially detrimental to adjoining lots or to the immediate neighborhood.
That is not “within” the VCZSP.
Amy Alcon
Can one power wash during drought?
Mike Bravo
Note: Must read 2 Sept issue regarding Jay Adams.
Thank you for your updates but am disappointed that Jay Adams (an undisputed Venice legend) was not given his due respect . Even more bothersome because this newsletter is supposed to be the “Venice Update.” It has been well noted that sexual orientation had nothing to do with his brief participation in that tragic event. Like any other human he’s made mistakes and was not perfect. It’s fine to acknowledge and hold him accountable but the linked article attempts miserably to paint that unfortunate event as being definitive of Jay Adams identity & character. It’s the Venice way to do our best to love our friends & family despite their shortcomings. The person who wrote that article is obviously not from here as their ignorance of our city culture is pretty evident, not to mention the article coming off as very opportunistic. When a presumptive opinion by a non-native is given precedence over respecting a legend who was instrumental in shaping the character of Venice which so many now usurp their fame and notoriety from, that disregard for a Venice native discredits this newsletter as being representative of Venice.
Second, LUPC relative, it is also disappointing to read about people’s genuine quality of life concerns being downplayed and implied as mere emotional and trivial concerns. The laws of the land are centered around capitalizing and profit and as such have a ways to catch up with human welfare, values, and respect. I feel the LUPC should be commended for actually having some regard for the collective community instead of blatant favoritism for financially affluent individuals who can afford the privilege.
There is more on my mind but that is all for now. Even though I feel many your perspectives suffer from tunnel vision. I know this newsletter takes a lot of dedication and work. Thank you for stirring up good attention and dialogue for important Venice topics.
Nick Antonicello
Why does Santa Monica offer residents the emergency poles along the beach, but not on OFW in Venice?
Why weren’t these safety tools part of the recommendations by Recreation & Parks or the 11th CD office?
Just another example of how woefully mismanaged the boardwalk continues to be under the current city leadership and why Venice city hood is the only viable alternative.
Arnold Springer
Re: 1620 Electric and Venice Specific Plan:
The Coastal Commission has finally and vigorously objected to 30 foot high boxes that although they meet the residential height limit of the Venice Specific Plan DO NOT MEET the requirement that they observe the existing ‘massing and scale’ of the neighborhood street on which they are proposed to be built. No more permits can be issued without a coastal development permit attached because the massing and scale provision has been consistently ignored by the city for many years and that ‘prejudices the city’s ability to prepare and submit’ an unbiased and fair Local Coastal Program for Venice to the Commission.
The Venice Specific Plan was only meant to be a temporary stop gap measure until the Venice LCP, with massing and scale criteria included, was submitted to the Coastal Commission. The aim of massing and scale was to help preserve Venice’s unique coastal neighborhoods and the architectural ensembles which existed in them, for the edification of visitors and residents alike. Ironically, it was professional architects (and of course ‘developers’) who led the fight against massing and scale limitations on 30 foot boxes because they naturally preferred to support fellow architects and developers of new projects, the bread and butter of the architectural profession.
Finally, after a myriad of complaints and appeals over the past twenty odd years (yes its true – twenty years!!!) to the Commission about the gross violations of massing and scale of new projects all over Venice, the Coastal Commission has said enough— and ordered the city to stop issuing de minimus permits to 30 foot high boxes. The city, Councilman Bonin, and the new Planning Director have decided to comply.
This is welcome news for all residents and property owners and was supported by the vote of a newly appointed LUPC on the 1620 Electric proposal by a vote of 5 to 2. The previous LUPC had refused to support the myriad of complaints from residents and property owners from all parts of Venice and its neighborhoods, in spite of the fact that it was supposed to represent the interests of Venice first and speculative capital second. They claimed they had no mandate and no quantitative objective yardstick. The Commission finally sent a message that could not be ignored either by City Planning or the Venice Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC). Assess every project, even those that meet the height limit of the Venice Specific Plan, for massing and scale, before approving it.
Readers of the Triangle who are interested in the protections of massing and scale for their neighborhood need to prepare a ‘Streetscape Profile’ of own their street and await the inevitable request for a 30 foot high box. The problem is you may not be notified of the pending application and so you need to contact Sue Kaplan of the VNC about how to get notified for sure. The ‘Streetscape Profile’ should be organized by street, by street address, and list the height of each existing structure, the number of units on that lot, and whether it has a peaked or flat roof. There also needs to be a comparative square footage chart but this is a bit more complicated to create.
Together, such a ‘Streetscape Profile’ should be enough to make a compelling and legitimate case for denial of a new project at 30 feet if most of the already existing structures on the street are one or two stories, that is between 13 and 26 feet. It is the three story projects that threaten neighborhood residential character and these should be stopped until the Local Coastal Program (LCP) is submitted to the Coastal Commission and achieves its approval. If you want to stop this nonsense and waste of time in its tracks and eliminate all the hanky panky of community politics –(had enough already!) — suggest to Councilman Bonin that he support a temporary moratorium on all projects proposed for residentially zoned lots to 26 feet until the Venice LCP is finalized and submitted. This will eliminate the third story which is creating all the problems since the VSP was adopted, and save a lot of time for everyone involved in community governance here as well as heartache for neighbors of such projects.
When the Venice Specific Plan was adopted, it was without massing and scale provisions for neighborhoods despite the many prophesized problems and conflicts that this omission would cause and the troubles which we now see. The LUPC and the VNC Board have been swamped by land use appeals against new projects which although conforming to the VSP height limit undermine and destroy the neighborhood character. There is plenty of documentation about this and those LUPC members and VNC Board members who object to massing and scale criteria being applied to new projects must now re-think their position, which is (to my mind at least) anti Venice and clearly undermines the architectural character and thus the neighborhood character of this community.
Previous Post
MDR Faces Major Changes
Next Post
Venice Sings It Out!