July 13, 2004
Boys & Girls Club
Minutes
Sabrina Venskus called the meeting to order at 7:05pm
Present: Sabrina Venskus, Laura Burns, Emily Winters, Lydia Ponce, Anne Giagni, Michael McGuffin, Greg Fitchitt
Absent: Zoe Garaway, District #3 Representative
Minutes tabled pending copies being brought and distributed.
Update on Planning Activities (Laura Burns)
Cheryl Walker: N of Rose neighborhood ó concerned about 213 S. 6th Ave. proposed development. Opposed to size of development (3 story), precedent it would set, unlike anything else in the neighborhood, may reduce property values, everything else is single-story. Wants GRVNC to oppose construction and subdivision. There are two other proposals for similar developments by the same developer (Frank Murphy) pending in Venice (202 S. 5th Ave. and 741 E. Broadway).
Michael Sohigian: Lives adjacent to another of the Frank Murphy projects (5th and Dewey). Opposes projects also.
Greg Fitchitt to follow up with Michael, Cheryl and developer and request developer to present at the next LUPC meeting. Michael and Cheryl will attend hearing tomorrow.
Lydia Ponce and Laura Burns brought up issue of new tennis courts at Oakwood Recreation Center. Concerned about replacement of existing tennis court with two new tennis courts.
Sabrina Venskus requested that all LUPC members list two places to post the agenda each month.
Formula Retail discussion
Jim Smith presented proposal opposing "formula retail" in Venice.
Public comment
Laura Silagi: Wonders about if this covers Lincoln Blvd (which has existing formula retail, would they be grandfathered, also, is Ralphís included as a grocery store or is this not "formula retail"?)
Jim: Yes, grandfathering would be necessary, but an ordinance could prevent further chain invasion. Yes, Ralphís is formula retail.
Dave Moring: Could be recipe for economic disaster ó drive out tax-producing stores (high revenue stores) that attract customers that support other businesses. Could we plan more proactively to be inclusive, rather than excluding businesses? Letís talk to businesses that exist in the areas we are talking about before we take action in a vacuum. Retail areas need anchors, and "formula retail" may serve a useful purpose for that.
Dennis Hathaway: This proposal may paint things with too broad a brush. Would this exclude Trader Joeís from Lincoln Center, for example? This is a complex issue. This proposal may be the wrong instrument. Anything should be taken slowly and well considered.
Robert Radin: We donít need large corporations in Venice.
Kevin Jensen: What have other communities done? How have they drawn the line? Also, Lincoln Blvd. is not Abbot KinneyÖwould formula ban apply to both? Might be appropriate for one but not another.
Carol Beck: Big difference between Trader Joeís and Wal-Mart. Doesnít want big stores.
Lydia Ponce: Use other cities as a framework. Wants a formula ban, but wants Trader Joeís as well.
Laura Burns: Be careful ó donít do something that will backfire. Ordinance should be very carefully crafted, shouldnít be on next monthís agenda as action item. Need sufficient outreach to businesses and others who would be affected.
Michael McGuffin: Agrees with Laura. What have impacts been on other cities? Lincoln is different than Abbot Kinney.
Emily Winters: Likes Trader Joes, good policies on profit and toward employees. Tax revenue generated in Venice goes to City of LA and doesnít come directly back to Venice, only goes in to City general fund.
Anne Giagni: Wants to explore this with a committee.
Greg: Also supports committee.
Sabrina: Wants to establish a working group on formula retail to do research and outreach to businesses, then maybe a larger public meeting in October. Working group can start its work now and can be formally created by the LUPC (or not) at the next meeting.
Vacant Lots for Community Gardens (Lydia Ponce)
List of 10 vacant lots in community.
Has not yet been successful in identifying one that could be turned in to a community garden so far. Sheís still working on it. Dennis has a list of city-owned properties as well.
UrbanRock Design ó Neighborhood Beautification
Not present
Proposed rehabilitation center at 2432 Walnut (George Turski)
George Turski: Homeowner near to proposed Drug and Alcohol Rehab Center. Brought neighbors from his block. Disturbed by this proposal in the middle of the residential neighborhood. 2-story proposal. Want GRVNC/LUPCís support against this proposal, limiting the number of potential patients, wants it classified as commercial facility.
Vince Hartung: Lives 3-4 houses down from proposed site. This use is considered a single-family development, although it is a for-profit business. Should not be in residential neighborhood.
Elinor Crawford: Detox center is a medical facility, in a residential neighborhood. Concerned about visitorsí parking, high turnover of patients, minimal supervision of patients.
Michael Roy: Executive Director of Clearview Treatment Programs, representing the rehab center. Clearview Juniors program will be operating out of 2432 Walnut. Says some neighbors are supportive. Describes proposal and operations.
John Jones: Lives 6 houses away. Says 2432 Walnut was always a 2-story resident. Does not object to the proposal ó serves a community need. Protective of neighborhood, wants to see how it goes, will be quick to object if there are problems.
Robert Radin: Wants to preserve the tranquility of the neighborhood.
Sabrina: There is a rehab house between 6th and 7th on Broadway.
Robert Crawford: What about limit of 6 patients? It would be like a motel with constant changing persons.
Jerry Small: Lives on Walnut. Senator Bowenís office says City has nothing to do with this. All under jurisdiction of state law. License is pending. A second step (post-detox) facility. 6 people in big house, 3 people in cottage behind. Only 4 parking spaces on site.
Anne G: Proponent submitted 2 applications on May 17, for 2432 and 2432 1/2. "Facilities" are limited to 6 people. Those are completely under state authority, not local authorities. Under 6 patients, facilities do have a right to come in to residential area w/o City jurisdiction, subject to state licensing facilities only. Unclear if 9 patient proposal would still have this right to open w/o City jurisdiction. Is this 1 "facility" or 2 "facilities"? If it is one "facility", may be subject to city requirements and planning procedures.
Michael McGuffin: Asking Mr. Roy: # of people? MR: 6 + 3. MM: Parking? MR: There are 4 spaces in driveway (at least), + 2 spaces in garage. MM: Will persons in treatment have cars? MR: Maybe, depends on what stage of treatment. MM: How many staff people? MR: Up to 4.
Lydia: 24 hour supervision? Mr: Roy: Yes. LP: Are you applying for non-profit status? Mr. Roy: No. LP: How do people get admitted? Mr. Roy: Come from other programs, detoxs, interventions, doctor references.
Anne: Suggests putting this on next agenda that LUPC supports 6 but not 9 patients.
Laura: What is normal day at this facility? Mr. Roy: Up at 7:30, breakfast, counseling session, lunch, group sessions, dinner, evening meeting. After theyíve been there for a while, they may be able to go out off-site more often. Not a locked facility.
Playa Vista Phase II (Sabrina Venskus)
Sabrina Venskus: Planning commission unanimously approved project despite opposition by approx. 2/3 of public speakers. Staff report was issued with too little time to review and comment. Numerous items will go to PLUM committee in August/Sept and to City Council in Sept/October (estimated timeline). Cindy Miscikowski has supported project, but SV is unclear how conditional/unconditional her support is.
Public Comment:
Carol Beck: Concerned that we are not getting enough time to review these projects.
Anne: Motion that LUPC delegates authority to working group of Sabrina, LP, and Laura to i) either bring back a motion to LUPC with a position and analysis if time permits, or if there is not time, then ii) the subcommittee will bring itís position directly to the GRVNC board (without itís coming back to the LUPC and without LUPCís having adopted it). Seconded by LP, Michael. Unanimous (chair abstains).
Abbot Lofts (Laura Burns)
Laura: MND Comment period is now open until August 2.
Presentation by Patrick Tooley, developer
Architect: Brian Lane, Koening-Eisenberg
Jim Reis, Craig Lawson company (Land Use Consultant)
Gateway site, open space along Venice Blvd, 22 units over 5,000 sf retail, mixed use project, fully parked on site (4 surplus parking stalls over required number), 2 affordable units on site, will be provided for very-low income tenants. Compliant with Mello Act.
Not 100% compliant with VSP, looking for height variance (80% of project is in compliance on height but portion at corner of VB and AK is not), asking for height variance at corner, corner element addressing gateway and accommodating additional 2 Mello units. Additional height required to add extra 2 affordable units.
True mixed use project, real retail at ground level, 4-5 businesses (1000 ó 1200 sf each), local, community-serving businesses, units will be for-rent, not for-sale.
Discretionary requests: 3 exceptions to VSP, 3 conditional use, 2 variances.
MND
SV: Why looking for height variance? PT: Needed to fit affordable units on site.
BL: Hearings Examiner will be first public hearing, write report, then public hearing at APC.
SV: Wants to agendize it as action item for next meeting.
Minutes
Moved by Lydia, seconded by Laura, passed 2-0 with 5 abstentions.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15pm.
Minutes prepared by Greg Fitchitt