web analytics

Rss

Venice News Updates

News of Venice, CA and Marina del Rey CA

LA Planning Commission Passes PSH Ordinance 14 December; Venice Median and Thatcher Yard not Applicable

Posted by :reta On : December 14, 2017
0

Category: Permanent Supportive Housing, Uncategorized

Tags:

PSH
People lined up to speak on PSH Ordinance at City Hall

By Angela McGregor

The Los Angeles City Planning Commission passed the Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Ordinance December 14th.

There were upwards of 90 public speakers both in favor of and opposed to the Ordinance. Members of both the Oxford Triangle Association and Venice Vision were present to express their opposition to the measure. Most of those favoring the measure spoke in favor of Permanent Supportive Housing generally. Speakers included Becky Dennison, from Venice Community Housing Corporation, who stated that the Ordinance would not apply to either the Venice & Dell Project or the Thatcher Yard Project; Linda Lucks, who introduced herself as a former President of the Venice Neighborhood Council and stated her approval of the ordinance; two representatives of the League of Women Voters, who demanded that PSH be built “as soon as possible”.

Comments of those opposed to the measure generally pointed out that thorough CEQA review and public input with regard to density and parking (which this ordinance would limit or eliminate) are essential to good public planning and the long term success of any development.

Because there were so many speakers present, the Planning Commission waived the use of speaker cards and instead went with a first-come, first-serve format, giving each speaker 1 minute. Public Commentary lasted almost two hours.

Planning Staff then spoke in rebuttal to the comments. They stated that 72 percent of public comments favored the ordinance, and made no mention of the written comments that had been submitted, which according to the Staff Report numbered in the hundreds and were overwhelmingly opposed to the measure. In response to the many Venice residents who spoke against the measure, Planning Staff stated that neither of the projects could “utilize the PSH Ordinance” in order to increase density or eliminate parking.

The Planning Commission’s questions and comments to staff primarily focussed on whether or not, under the ordinance, projects could be even more dense — 450 sf units as opposed to 500 sf. They also praised the staff for what they felt was a “careful” and “well thought out” ordinance, which they ultimately approved.

The ordinance will now go to the City Council for final approval.

 

TSA Unveils 98-Unit Homeless Complex for Thatcher Yard

Posted by :reta On : December 12, 2017
8

Category: PSH Ordinance, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Uncategorized

Tags:, ,

TSA4
Rendering of entrance to Thomas Safran Associates’ Thatcher Yard Project that will have both senior (69) and family housing (29) for a total of 98 units with 50 percent being permanent supportive housing.

TSA (Thomas Safran Associates) was shy a couple units for a full R1.5 zone with two 35 percent density bonuses when associates and Thomas Safran discussed their proposed project to the members of the Oxford Triangle Association (OTA) Monday night in the Woods at Playa  Vista.

TSA proposed 98 units.  The Venice Update had an article 15 August 2016 showing the number that could be put on the 93,000 square foot lot when rezoned to R1.5.  The number was 104 – 106.  Councilman Mike Bonin said no way would he let that happen.  Thomas Safran said he was told by Bonin to work it out with the OTA.  Mark Shockley, president of the Oxford Triangle Association made the statement that TSA started with 150 units and he had asked TSA for less than a hundred.

TSA complied by two less of a hundred at 98 and a little less than what could have been with two 35 percent bonuses totally implemented at 104 – 106. 

The Oxford Triangle single-family area consists of approximately 350 single-family homes so an increase of 100 would be almost a 30 percent increase. 

Vehicles will be restricted access into the Triangle but pedestrian access will be allowed. Vehicle ingress/egress will be via Marina Point Drive.

The project will be for seniors and families.  How the PSH will be divided is not known.

It will consist of 98 units, 50 percent of which will be permanent supportive housing (PSH).  People who qualify for PSH have a disability as well as are homeless.  It was asked if being a senior constituted having a disability and a social worker said it did.  A senior is one 62-1/2 years old and older.   Safran further defined the tenant housing makeup as 69 for seniors and 29 for families. 

A coordinated entry system  (CES) implemented by County, City, Community (C3) will be used at least for the PSH selection.   Selection is supposedly based on worst case first and this writer was not familiar with selection by category, such as a senior.

Breakdowns for the senior building bedrooms and the family building bedrooms are shown in photo.

Many residents wanted the density reduced but that was never discussed in detail and they wanted more parking.  Safran said he had complied with parking and that these people did not have vehicles.  One resident mentioned that many were sleeping in cars.  

One resident brought up the fact that Coeur d’Alene school was just maxed out.  He asked if taxes for schools from the project could be directed directly to the Coeur d’ Alene system.  TSA said they would look into that.

Security was mentioned and Safran explained he would have lighting and many cameras and then he added spinklers.

One resident wanted both pedestrians and vehicles restricted from the single-family homes as are the five high-rise buildings on the southern tip of the Triangle.   TSA said that was impossible and most homeowners wanted their exercise path.  One said he would like to have the pedestrian turnstiles that are used for the Jefferson-Marina apartments repeated in the project; otherwise, motorcycles could enter the Triangle.  

Many wanted the project fenced and wrought-iron fencing was mentioned.  One asked how high but a figure was not presented.  One brought up the fact that there was insufficient setback from the sidewalk to put up a fence.

One mentioned that some agenda he had did not list another meeting prior to going to planning for this project.   Thomas Safran said there would be other community meetings.

TSA6
Unit Breakdown

TSA1
Complex from Thatcher.

TSA2
Complex at corner of Princeton (west) and Oxford.

TSA5
Plot plan view.

 

Planning Commission’s Staff Report on PSH Ordinance Debunks VCHC Falsehoods

Posted by :reta On : December 8, 2017
2

Category: City Ordinance, Planning

Tags:, ,

By Fight Back Venice (FBV)

For months, the Venice Community Housing Corporation has been leading Venice residents to believe that the PSH Ordinance does not apply to the Venice Median Project; that space will be reserved in the Venice Median Project for “local” artists and homeless; and that, at 140 units, the size of the Venice Median Projects is appropriate. As set forth below, the Recommendation Report prepared by the Planning Department Staff in connection with the PSH Ordinance proves none of that is true.

• The PSH Ordinance Does Apply to the Venice Median Project: As set forth on A-8 of the Staff Report and in the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PSH Ordinance, the PSH Ordinance affects “all parcels in the City of Los Angeles zoned for multifamily residential use and located within High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA).” As unbelievable as it may seem, virtually all of Venice falls in an HQTA (see Staff Report at A-8) and the Venice Community Housing Corporation has already indicated that it intends to rezone the Venice Median from “open space” to RAS3, a high-density, mixed-used designation that allows for “multifamily residential use.” Thus, the PSH Ordinance does apply to the Venice Median Project. Indeed, page A-11 of the Staff Report admits as much, stating disingenuously that “[i]t is not clear the extent to which the proposed ordinance may apply to any projects proposed for [the Venice Median or Thatcher Yard] sites,” without denying that, depending on the parameters of each project, the PSH Ordinance could very well apply to both. Indeed, the one and only reason provided in the Staff Report as to why the PSH Ordinance would not apply to the Venice Median Project is that the Venice Median’s current “open space” zoning does not allow for residential development, but as noted above, that zoning is going to be changed.

• By Law, No Space in the Venice Median Project Can Be Reserved for Venice “Locals”—Homeless, Artists or Otherwise: The Venice Community Housing Corporation talks about setting “POSH” lofts aside for “local artists” and reserving (smaller and less hip) apartments for members of the local homeless community, but page P-6 of the Staff Report expressly states that space cannot lawfully be reserved for Venice residents to the exclusion of people who reside elsewhere and that supportive housing developments, like the Venice Median Project, that receive “funding from local government will be required to utilize the Coordinated Entry System” to ensure “centralized intake” from “all service providers and outreach teams in the County.”

• Even in New York City, the Median Size of PSH Projects Is Just 48 Units: The only evidence cited in the Staff Report to show that permanent supportive housing does not adversely affect property values is a 2008 study of housing projects in New York City. As set forth in that study, however, the average size of the 123 supportive housing projects that opened in ultra-high-density New York City between 1985 and 2003 is just 48 units—slightly larger than public housing projects in Santa Monica (35 units) but just one third the size of the Venice Median Project (140 units), the Thatcher Yard Project (150 units), and, most likely, the MTA Lot Project (which will sit on 3.5 acres and is likely to be 100% affordable/PSH Housing). Needless to say, the study provides no meaningful information at all as to Venice property values, but it shows, yet again, that despite assurances from the Venice Community Housing Corporation, all of the projects planned for Venice are way, way too big.

FBV calls on the Venice Community Housing Corporation to come clean on all three of these crucial issues so the free people of Venice can make informed decisions about the future of their community.

THE FBV “BE HEARD” EMAIL PLATFORM IS WORKING…BUT WE ARE OUTNUMBERED AT HEARINGS

According to the Staff Report, the Planning Department “received more than 670 public comment letters” in connection with the PSH Ordinance—80% of which were opposed to the ordinance and the “vast majority” of which pertained specifically to the Venice Median and Thatcher Yard Projects.

So the good news is that our “Be Heard” email platform—through which more than 250 emails in opposition to the PSH Ordinance were delivered to the City—is working. Our friends at the Oxford Triangle Association submitted a similar number of emails through their platform, bringing the Venice total to more than 500 emails in opposition to the PSH Ordinance. Thank you, again, to all who participated in this important effort.

The bad news, though, is that opponents of the PSH Ordinance have apparently been outnumbered by supporters—largely paid activists with lots of free time during the day— at hearings by more than 2 to 1.

We can’t let paid activists dictate the future of our communities! Please join us on December 14!

THEN WHY IS VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE PSH HOUSING IN DISTRICT 11 IN VENICE?

“It is important that all areas of the City provide a fair share of PSH.”

Department of City Planning, Recommendation Report, Case No. CPC-2017-3136-CA, page A-9.

City Planning Commission to Hear PSH Ordinance, 14 December

Posted by :reta On : December 8, 2017
0

Category: Planning, PSH Ordinance

Tags:,

Los Angeles City Planning Commission will hear the Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Ordinance 14 December at City Hall, Council Chambers Room 340, 200 North Spring Street.

It has been stated that the ordinance will not be heard until noon but it is recommended by groups to arrive before 8:30 am to find a place to park, to fill out speaker cards, to get a seat etc.

Both the Fight Back Venice (FBV) and the Oxford Triangle Association want as many people as possible there to represent Venice’s opposition to the ordinance.

The Commission will not consider the PSH Ordinance until after 12:00 noon, but those who wish to comment must arrive before to submit speaker cards and secure seats. For the complete agenda https://planning.lacity.org/InternetCalendar/pdf.aspx?Id=59215.

“The Planning Department has reported that 80% of the 670 emails and letters it received on this issue were opposed to the PSH Ordinance—and that the vast majority of those pertained specifically to the Venice Median and Thatcher Yard Projects—so our “Be Heard” platform is working as planned,” according to a spokesperson for FBV. “Unfortunately, we working stiffs have been outnumbered by professional activists 2 to 1 at hearings, so we hope as many Venice residents as possible will find time to show up and speak out on behalf of our community at this crucial meeting.”

If one needs transportation, email fightbackvenice.org by 12 noon, Sunday, December 10 and FBV will try to assist with arrangements. Also, “Venice Says No on the PSH Ordinance” placards are available.

The PSH Ordinance would allow some combination of a reduction in parking, a 20 percent decrease in required setbacks, a 20 percent reduction in required open space, a 20 percent increase in lot coverage limits, a 35 percent increase in density, and up to a 35 percent increase in height or one additional story for housing projects on City land, while also creating a streamlined “ministerial review” process that would give the Director of the City Planning Department the power to approve PSH projects with no appeal, no environmental review and no public input.

Dennison Takes Issue With Wrede Article; Wrede and Venice Update Answer Dennison

Posted by :reta On : November 15, 2017
1

Category: Councilman

Tags:, , , , ,

Becky Dennison, director of Venice Community Housing, takes issue with the article Christian Wrede wrote for Venice Update recently, and accuses Venice Update of not checking the facts and printing misinformation.   Both Christian Wrede and the Venice Update have answered Becky Dennison.  Perhaps, all will benefit from the questions and the answers.

Note that opinion pieces are printed in the Update frequently, and they are usually by lined and explain that person’s  view.    Perhaps, we need more people expressing their views regarding the projects proposed for the Venice Median and the Thatcher Yard.

By Christian Wrede

Yesterday, the Executive Director of Venice Community Housing
Corporation (“VCHC”) – which is poised to become the largest developer
in Venice since Abbot Kinney – posted an article on Venice Update
asserting that there were “glaring factual errors” in my recent piece
stating that the “law doesn’t allow” for the use of public funds to
build affordable housing that is reserved exclusively for artists.

VCHC correctly points out that Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code
was revised in 2008 (under pressure from real estate developers) to
create a so-called “artist preference,” allowing (to use VCHC’s words)
for “preferential treatment of several groups of people, including
artists” in affordable housing financed by federal tax credits.

Such tax credits, however, have to be combined with other sources of public or private funding. In Los Angeles, the primary source of municipal funding for affordable housing projects is the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (“AHTF”), which is administered by the Housing and Community Investment Department of LosAngeles (“HCIDLA”) (see City of Los Angeles Affordable Housing Trust Fund Pipeline Regulations, Policies and Procedures, August 1, 2016), whose “Fair Housing Policy” (http://hcidla.lacity.org/fair-housing-policy-regard-disability) expressly states that “applicants for any and all units shall be considered for occupancy without prejudice in regard to race, color, religion, sex … [or] source of income,” even while expressly recognizing that protection based on “source of income” is not provided by federal law.

Thus, the City Council Motion at issue in my article, in which Councilman Huizar – and our very own Councilman Bonin – call on HCIDLA (which currently prohibits preferences based on “source of income”) to work with the City Attorney “to report back on the feasibility of an artists’ affordable housing program, and the steps and department needs required to establish such a program.” No such program currently exists.

VCHC has already admitted that the Venice Median Project will be a financial Frankenstein with more sources of funding than you can shake a stick at – Section 8, Prop HHH, private investors and so on – so it may be that they have found a way to skirt the HCIDLA “Fair Housing Policy,” but that leaves valid questions about the changes Bonin and others are making to city law in the fields of housing and development and the effect that those changes will have on small and vulnerable communities like Venice.

By Venice Update

“There are some glaring factual errors in this week’s article in Update about Venice Community Housing (VCH), ” wrote Dennison.     “I understand there is disagreement about our work and planned expansion of affordable housing in Venice, but I would hope that some basic fact-checking would be done before publishing misinformation about us and our plans.

1. ” The article published on Monday claims that the low-income artist housing that VCH is proposing at Venice-Dell-Pacific (Venice Update refers to this as the Venice Median)  “is not allowed under the law.'”  “This is not true.   No City law or program needs to be created or changed for us to move forward with our plans.   The federal tax credit program, located in Section 42 of the federal tax code and the main source of funding for affordable housing, currently allows preferential treatment for several groups of people, including artists.   H.R. 3221 specifically created the artist preference in 2008.   Therefore, there are affordable artist communities similar to the proposal at Venice-Dell-Pacific already operating in Los Angeles and other Southern California cities.   There is no “VCHC scam”.   Beyond being allowed by law, VCH heard from many community residents that they’d like to see low-income artists included and prioritized for housing at Venice-Dell-Pacific and we are looking forward to doing so.   Please see examples of other low-income artist communities here:      http://www.wavartists.com/ and https://www.bisnow.com/los-angeles/news/affordable-housing/housing-for-las-starving-artists-opens-in-san-pedro-45561.”

Answer:  Question from Venice Update.  Then why did Councilmen Jose Huizar and Mike Bonin create a motion coming before the City Council to allow artists to reside in low-cost affordable housing.  If the law is already there, isn’t the effort by Huizar and Bonin redundant?   Why?

2)  “The same article claimed that the City’s proposed Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Ordinance will “exempt Bonin’s housing projects from zoning restrictions, size and density limitations, environmental review and community input,”  wrote Dennison.  “Again, this simply isn’t true.   The implication in the article is that “Bonin’s housing projects” are the communities being proposed on city-owned land, including Venice-Dell-Pacific.   Venice-Dell-Pacific is not covered by the proposed ordinance due to its current zoning.   Therefore, none of the PSH Ordinance’s possible streamlining processes apply to the site or VCH’s project.   The Venice-Dell-Pacific development process includes a full Environmental Impact Report, the highest level of environmental review, and will follow all regular public approval process with the City and Coastal Commission.”

Answer:  Zoning restrictions, size and density have changed as a result of the PSH Ordinance.   There  is no parking  requirement for PSH (It is possible there is a PSH zoning of no car requirement in existence now.) and the ordinance says that one has to provide at least 50 percent PSH for a project.   These are just two differences.   The properties in question are now zoned Open Space for Venice Median and for the Thatcher Yard, Public Facility.  The Venice Median will be rezoned to a zoning similar to R-3 that allows for commercial also.  I believe it is RS-3.  Property will be rezoned to fit the project.

Thatcher Yard.  The PSH ordinance changes completely the rezoning restrictions for any PF property.  Prior to PSH ordinance approval, PF zoned property would be rezoned in accordance with LAMC 12.04.09.B.9 which states:  “Any joint public and private development uses permitted in the most restrictive adjoining zones if approved by the Director utilizing the procedures described in Section 16.05E to H. The phrase “adjoining zones” refers to the zones on properties abutting, across the street or alley from or having a common corner with the subject property. If there are two or more different adjoining zones, then only the uses permitted by the most restrictive zone shall be permitted.”  In this case for the Thatcher Yard, two of the sides are zoned R-1 (most restrictive) and the other side is C4-OX.  

The PSH ordinance comes along and says completely the opposite by stating:

If the joint public and private development is a Qualified Permanent Supportive Housing Project developed pursuant to Section 14.00 A.11 of this Code, the uses and standards permitted by the least restrictive zone within a 1,320 foot radius shall be permitted utilizing the procedures described therein.  The “least” restrictive would be C4-OX, which is 19 stories.

David Graham-Caso, Bonin’s Chief of Staff,  stated in an email to the Venice Update last week  that the PSH ordinance would have no bearing on the PF zoning or development of the Thatcher Yard, even if approved.  Yet, the developers during site inspection, made the statements regarding the site of upward of 3 stories, 150 units, 50 percent PSH–all qualifiers for the PSH ordinance.  There are two contracts to be considered  — the “get together with the community” and then the development contract.  Will both exclude the PSH ordinance?  Graham-Caso says yes.

Thatcher yard, if rezoned in accordance with existing LA municipal codes, would be rezoned R-1 and based on a 5000-sq foot lot, would have approximately 18 houses.

If rezoned to RD-1.5 as the RFQ/P stated and Councilman Mike Bonin stated in the Town Hall, the property would yield 62 units and two 35 percent bonuses of 21.7 each, which would be 62 to 104 or 106.   That is approximately one third the size of the total R-1 Oxford Triangle population.

If rezoned to C4-OX, it is one of the City’s densest.

Note:  Yes, Becky Dennison is concerned about the accuracy of her project and rightly so.  Venetians see the big picture of three large projects in Venice –the Thatcher Yard, the Venice Median, the MTA lot.  These are community changing plans .  The Venice Specific Plan, if followed, doesn’t allow more than two lots being combined. The Venice Median is combining many lots.  The Thatcher Yard will be rezoned what?  One of three options.

 

Local Architect Urges Defeat of PSH Ordinance and Explains Why; Comment Time Over 31 Oct

Posted by :reta On : October 7, 2017
6

Category: PSH Ordinance, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Uncategorized

Tags:, ,

size
The white structure under the tree is a two-story house with a covered deck.  The 19-story building is the Waterside condominium, a C4-OX zoned project.

Dan Whalen, local architect, says new PSH ordinance is written specifically to put high-rise (C4-0x) zoning project next to single-family residences at Thatcher Yard.

Previously, the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), in order to protect surrounding properties to a PF (public facility) zoned property, stated that the PF zoned property, when rezoned, would comply with the “‘most restrictive” zoning of the prevailing surrounding properties, which would be R-1.

The new PSH ordinance says  new zoning will comply with the “least restrictive” meaning the highest zoning in the area within 1320 feet.That would be C4-OX, which has an adjoining building 19 stories. Venice doesn’t get higher than that.

Dan Whalen urges all Venetians to write letters to defeat this proposed PSH ordinance.

By Dan Whalen

Background
The City has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Thomas Safran and Associates to develop the former Thatcher Maintenance Yard into a high-density multi- family Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) project.

The Thatcher Maintenance Yard site is currently zoned “Public Facility” (PF) and would need to be re-zoned prior to any PSH development. To ensure that the future use of a PF-zoned lot is compatible with adjoining properties, the Los Angeles City Municipal Code (LAMC) includes mandates to protect adjoining lower-density properties whenever PF- zoned sites are redeveloped.

The Municipal Code states that only those uses allowed by the most restrictive adjoining zones shall be permitted. Therefore, because the Thatcher Yard site is bordered on three sides by R1-1 single-family residences, any zoning other than R1-1 is not allowed under the current Municipal Code.

New PSH Ordinance
To bypass this long-standing code requirement, Councilman Bonin is supporting a new City Ordinance. This new Ordinance would eliminate the Municipal Code protections for adjoining properties if the PF-zoned property is specifically redeveloped as a PSH project (such as the one proposed for Thatcher Yard). In this case, instead of being limited by the most restrictive adjoining zoning, PSH projects on PF-zoned lots could be re-zoned with the least restrictive zoning within a quarter mile radius.

For the Thatcher Yard, that would mean the allowable new zoning would be the same as for the three high-rise residential towers located at the south end of the Oxford Triangle. This new zoning would be C4-OX-2D, one of the densest allowed for any residential project.

Of all the proposed PSH sites within the City, the Thatcher Yard is the only one located on a PF-zoned site with adjoining single-family homes. The new Ordinance appears to be specifically written for the Thatcher Yard project alone.

In addition to the zoning change for PSH projects, the new Ordinance would also allow 35% increases in the allowable height, 35% increases in the allowable floor area, and decreases in both the minimum required setbacks and minimum amount of open space.

At least one-half of all PSH units will be reserved for the formerly homeless. The new Ordinance does not require any parking for these units. The Ordinance allows additional parking reductions for the remaining PSH units, as well as reductions in the required guest parking.

Impact of New Ordinance
This Ordinance attempts to override the Coastal Act, the certified Venice Land Use Plan and the Oxford Triangle Specific Plan.

The Ordinance allows for high-density zoning that will overwhelm adjoining single-family homes and our residential streets. The allowable increases in the mass, scale and character of the new PSH projects will negatively impact all adjoining single-family homes.

The new Ordinance eases parking requirements and will force at least half the PSH residents to park on adjacent residential streets. With the existing parking shortage in Venice, this Ordinance would only make a bad situation much worse.

The decisions made today for new PSH projects will be contractually fixed for the next
55 years. If the new Ordinance is allowed to pass, it will have a profound and long-lasting negative impact on our neighborhood and a very small positive impact on the homeless crisis.

Call to Action
Councilman Bonin assured our neighborhood that the “planning process would be followed”. Let’s make sure he honors that commitment and is not allowed to remove essential Municipal Code protections.

Changes to the Municipal Code should not be taken lightly, and certainly not because of single project. I urge you to tell Councilman Bonin, Mayor Garcetti, the Planning Department, other City Council members, your Venice Neighborhood Council, and the California Coastal Commission that this Ordinance is short-sighted and not in the best interests of our community.

The proposed PSH Ordinance is seriously flawed and needs to be defeated in its current form. However, the City is on the fast-track to get it approved. The public comment period ends on October 31 with a City Council vote for approval in November.

LA City Planning PSH Ordinance Point of Contact
cally.hardy@lacity.org

LA City Officials:
mayor.garcetti@lacity.org
councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org
councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org
councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org
david.ryu@lacity.org paul.koretz@lacity.org
councilmember.martinez@lacity.org
councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org
councilmember.price@lacity.org
councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
councilmember.englander@lacity.org
councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org
councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org
councilmember.Rodriguez@lacity.org
vince.bertoni@lacity.org
tricia.keane@lacity.org
ezra.gale@lacity.org
debbie.dynerharris@lacity.org

Venice Neighborhood Council
president@venicenc.org

California Coastal Commission Official:
Chuck.Posner@coastal.ca.gov