Pioneer Bakery Project (512 Rose Avenue, Venice, CA 90291)

Case No: CPC-2003-9340-SPE-CDP-CU-ZAA-SPR-SPP-MEL

November 30, 2004

The GRVNC LUPC supports the Project as proposed with (7) on-site, for-sale very-low-income units, subject to the following conditions, offered by developers as conditions of approval:

1. The (5) live/work units fronting Rose shall be designed in a retail-friendly manner, with transparent glass storefronts, no curtains or blinds, and ground-level entries with no barriers from the public right-of-way.
2. To moderate the impact of the building mass and height, plans shall be revised to incorporate significant vertical articulation to the rooflines.
3. The "1% for Art" funds mandated by ordinance shall be used for art on-site or elsewhere in Venice.

We find that the Project offers a number of benefits to the community:

2. The mixed-use project contributes to the commercial viability and pedestrian-friendliness of Rose Avenue by including a 5,200 square foot restaurant and bakery as part of the otherwise primarily residential project. Furthermore the project incorporates 20’ wide sidewalks on Rose, and the (5) live/work units fronting Rose Avenue are designed to accommodate retail/commercial uses on the ground level. These features will make Rose a more vibrant street and contribute to the walkability of the neighborhood. Developers have offered as a condition of approval that, whether retail or live/work occupy the 5 spaces, the glazing will be retail-like, and pedestrians on Rose Avenue will during all business hours be able to gaze into the ground floor windows.The Project provides needed new quality housing stock and includes (7) condominiums on-site to be offered for-sale to very low income individuals (as defined by the Los Angeles Department of Housing). Sale prices for qualifying individuals/families are anticipated to be in the $50,000 - $89,000 range.
3. The site is an unusually large site within the Venice community (approximately 1.5 acres) and therefore the requested exception to the Venice Specific Plan for height (5’ higher than permitted under the Venice Specific Plan) will not set a precedent for future projects requesting height variances for small multi-family projects or single-family dwellings. The project is surrounded by streets on three sides and therefore does not have immediate neighbors to the north, east, or west who would be impacted by the 40’ height. On the south side of the project, the large size of the site allows for a large setback of a 15’ landscaped buffer from the southern property line. Furthermore the Applicant will revise the project plans to vary the rooflines, reducing the mass and average height of the buildings.
4. There was some discussion and concern expressed by the public and committee members that the main residential portion of the project (including the interior courtyards) were planned to be restricted from public access, effectively creating a "gated community" within Venice. Venice is a community renowned for its unique interaction of public and private space, most particularly as expressed in the walk street neighborhoods and the Venice canals. The Applicant stated that LAPD guidelines would likely disallow the concept of having the interior courtyards open to public access, and compared the interior courtyards to private backyards. Committee members noted differences between this site and the 100 Sunset Ave. (MTA) site, which is significantly larger and is immediately adjacent to the walk streets located between Pacific Avenue and Speedway.
5. It was suggested by committee member David Hertz that air-conditioning (cited by developers as a cause of the requested height exceptions to the Venice Specific Plan) could be eliminated as unnecessary considering the off-shore breezes and the temperate climate of the site, just several blocks from the ocean.

The developer and architects presented the Proposed Project on three separate occasions to the Land Use and Planning Committee, beginning in December 2002, and held an open house earlier this year at Westminster Elementary answering questions and concerns from the public and the committee and signaling a desire to incorporate community suggestions into the project. At its November 9, 2004 meeting, the LUPC voted 3-2 with 4 abstentions to recommend approval of the project to the GRVNC Board of Officers with the above noted conditions.