Sabrina Venskus called the meeting to order at 7:15pm

Present: Sabrina Venskus, Lydia Ponce (left 9:30pm), Ann Giagni (left 9:30pm), David Hertz, Richard Carter, Zoe Garaway (left 9:00pm), Laura Burns, Greg Fitchitt, Geofery Collins (arrived 9:00pm)

Absent: None

1. Approval of Minutes (July 13, August 3, September 7)

Moved Ann Giagni, Second Lydia Ponce, Substitute David Hertz for Michael McGuffin in August minutes, Approved as amended by unanimous consent.

2. Appointment of Secretary

Greg Fitchitt taking minutes tonight.

Motion by Lydia Ponce to present to GRVNC EC that someone be hired to take minutes of LUPC meetings, second by Sabrina Venskus, passed by unanimous consent.

3. Update on Planning Activities

Planning Deputy not present to provide update.

4. Public Comment

Inga Mueller: Announcement of public hearing tomorrow on Pioneer Bakery project at City Hall, Room 1020, 9:30am 213-978-1343 (fax). Large project, 75 condos + some commercial. Developer is asking for exemptions: height exemption, setback exemptions, others.

Sabrina Venskus agendizing Pioneer project for next monthís meeting. Greg Fitchitt to contact developer.

Emily Winters: Wants to investigate high-rise fences going up around Venice ó 6-8 foot fences going up; wants moratorium on anything over 42" going up. Says anything over $500,000 is required to provide 1% for art. Wants LUPC to ask developers what they are doing with the 1%, and to keep it in Venice as part of the project. Also supports community garden

DeDe McCrary: When development happens, where do the jobs go? Need to keep jobs in community. Senior citizen prom 10/23, everyoneís invited 6pm-11pm.

Jim Smith: Says Pioneer Bakery has reduced number of jobs from 200 to 25 in Venice. Opposed to any exceptions for project. Opposed to art-lofts as part of project.

Suzanne Thompson: Thanks Emily Winters for starting Arts Committee. Reporting that GRVNC has its funding again and has prepared a draft budget, to be considered at the next GRVNC board meeting. Also, BONC has appointed an election arbiter to rule on GRVNC June elections. Wants LUPC representative to attend GRVNC EC meetings to make sure their items get on the agenda.

5. Oakwood Park Redvelopment

Sandy Kievman (presentation)

Childrenís play area is small, on California, old. At meeting 2 years ago, Oakwood residents suggested moving the play area. LA Rec & Parks prepared plans to move it, presented it to Oakwood Park Advisory Board. Would require moving tennis court, new play area would be where existing tennis court is. Community recommended two tennis courts which would allow Park & Rec to provide free lessons, but would require removal of trees. Another community meeting, decided to reduce to one tennis court, Robert (Oakwood Rec Mgr) would provide the free lessons. Baseball fields will not be affected.

Carol Beck: Wants to keep green space, doesnít want to change.

Cynthia Fenton: Member of Oakwood Park Advisory Board. Has voted for this project to go forward 3 times, wants the project to happen.

Jay Griffith: Existing trees are healthy. Existing tennis court does not get used according to his observation.

Zoe James: 60 years resident. Community has had 5 meetings on this project, voted for it 2 years ago. Says people do use the tennis courts. Says there was plenty of notice for the meetings that were held.

HL Jones: Question about Pioneer Bakery.

Todd: 10 year resident, excited about the redevelopment of the park for new play area, plays tennis, opposed to removal of existing trees.

Jataun Valentine: Has July 20 sign-in sheet, everyone supported the new plan. Has letter from Laddie Williams, says current play area location is dangerous, could be drive-by shootings, kidnappings, says there are 4 diseased trees that would be cut down per forest department, says the current plan was approved unanimously.

Sarah Bullion: Supports moving the play area, but wants to keep the trees, says no one plays tennis.

Amber: Lives on Broadway, says her community was not notified, and that they were "closed, clandestine" meeting, she and no-one around her was flyered. Says there is no need for the tennis court, no one plays, says the tree area (where the tennis court would go) is heavily used for parties, etc. Says it did not go through the correct process.

Denise Reedie: 3 year resident on Broadway, wants more green space, not enough trees, canít the tennis court be re-oriented to keep the trees.

Tom Macomas: Lives in neighborhood. Park redevelopment will be an improvement for the kids. Wants the tennis court, says there have been plenty of open meetings on the subject. Taking out 4 trees, replacing them with 12 trees. This is a good compromise.

Tommy Walker: Says Cindy Miscikowskiís office did notify the people who come to the park about the meetings. Says Robert (park mgr) reminds the people who come here regularly about community meetings, including these.

Jim Smith: This issue should be decided by people who use the park, and if there needs to be more meetings, there should be more meetings. Everyone thinks the playground should be moved. The question is, should the trees be taken out in order to put in a replacement tennis court. The playground should be moved now, consensus should be built about tennis court.

Michael McGuffin: Agrees with Jim. The question is about the tennis court vs. the existing tree area.

Karen: The tennis court is used frequently, she sees it used more than the baseball diamonds.

Suzanne Thompson: What are the replacement trees that are going in? Why are the trees being taken out?

Robert (park mgr): Only 4 of eleven trees will be removed. Other 7 will remain, along with picnic area, plus new picnic area.

Sandy: Contractor has been hired, this is moving ahead, this has all been discussed before.

Lydia Ponce: Many times she does not get notice about meetings. She is going to go to Pioneer bakery meeting.

Robert (park mgr): There will be plenty of additional benches for the picnic areas (in both areas). Tennis court is used more than the baseball fields and basketball combined. Giving up tennis court would be short sighted.

Greg Fitchitt: Is it feasible to phase project, move playground and consider tennis court later? Sandy: No.

David Hertz: These trees will grow quickly. Should take advantage of opportunity for City funds.

Laura Burns: Could trees be moved? Robert: Dept. of Park & Rec says they would be unlikely to survive. Laura Burns: Park & Rec should do better job notifying the community about projects.

No motion on this item.

7. Community Gardens (taken out of order)

Sandy

There are 2 pieces of surplus land in Venice owned by City. There is currently a moratorium on use of surplus property citywide. Dept of General Services is looking at selling property to put into Venice Affordable Housing trust fund.

Michael McGuffin: How big is the parcel? Sandy: several hundred sf, maybe too small for other uses. Michael: Has community garden (private) in his neighborhood ó itís a great community asset. Thinks we should do it.

Suzanne Thompson: Says property is too small to build on. Wants LUPC to take action on community garden.

Sandy: Sale of property funds would go to affordable housing funds. Property itself is too small for anything more than 1-2 units.

Jataun: Affordable housing is critical.

Todd: Could parcel be used in the meantime for garden, as temporary use? Sandy: Maybe, she will look into it.

Zoe Jones: You can garden in containers.

Ann Giagni: Does Dept. of GS handle all surplus property, including proprietary departments (i.e. DWP, LAWA)? Sandy: No, doesnít handle proprietary departmentsí property.

David Hertz: Is property being used for storage now? Sandy: doesnít know.

Laura Burns: How much is it worth? Sandy: Unknown

David Hertz: Motion ó LUPC investigate use of property for community garden, Richard Carter second.

Lydia Ponce wants Sandyís help to investigate 23 city-owned lots in Venice.

Sandy offers to look into if property can be taken off the table for sale to be used for community garden.

Sabrina Venskus amends motion to read "LUPC supports the use of this parcel for a community garden". Passed unanimous consent.

6. 741 E. Broadway

No representative present to discuss project.

Richard Carter: Developer was at the last meeting. Condo project. Developer claimed project is compliant with Venice Specific Plan. Community concern is that project is out of character with surrounding development.

Amber: opposed to 3 story building, much larger than other buildings in the area. Out of character with neighborhood.

Marzan: Lives next door. 3 story building will block her breezes and the sunsets.

Inga Miller: Went to hearing. Staff report is being prepared, should be ready (determination) in about 2 weeks. Daniel Green is planner writing determination. 200 N. Spring St. (City Hall). Decision can be appealed.

Jim Smith: Wants LUPC to take strong position against project. Says developer is taking old houses, buying and turning them into large condo boxes. Turning Venice into Manhattan Beach.

Bruce Birch: If this is in compliance with the Specific Plan, what is opposition? Is it in compliance with Specific Plan or not?

Geoffery Collins joins the meeting. (9:00pm)

Christina Rogers: How can we stop this kind of development? What can we do?

Denise Reedie: Has seen similar development in this area, they are doing damage to the community, no green space, no air, no light. What can be done to stop it?

Sarah: Lives 2 doors down, new development will overlook her dwelling space. What can be done?

Lydia Ponce: Out of character. Attended hearing. The project is within the VSP, but it is not in character with the rest of the area.

David Hertz: Community can have an impact on planning department decisions, and can appeal the decision for subdivision. "Character of community" is part of Local Coastal Program, can be used to challenge at Coastal Commission level.

Geoffery Collins: Says there is something in the VSP about "character of community" which could be used as a tool. Will do research into this.

Sabrina Venskus: Wants LUPC to investigate VSP and develop report to City and Coastal Commission.

Denise Reedie: Wants help with logistics of appeal.

No motion on this item.

10. Lincoln Center (taken out of order)

Open house held Oct. 2. Ann Giagni passes out motion and attachments (9 pages total). Motion calls for full EIR for project.

Ann Giagni moves motion, second by Laura Burns. Passed 5-1-1 (Sabrina Venskus, Laura Burns, Ann Giagni, Richard Carter, Lydia Ponce in favor, Greg Fitchitt opposed, David Hertz abstains, Zoe Garaway, Geoffery Collins not present)

Motion language:

"The Land Use and Planning Committee urges the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council to adopt the following regarding the new application to be filed for the Lincoln Center project, and to transmit this motion to Councilmember Miscikowski, members of the City Council Planning Committee and Planning Department staff.

In the matter of the Lincoln Center Projectís second application the Venice community strongly urges the City to:

1. oppose the use of a mitigated negative declaration, and
2. find that a full environmental impact report is required for the reasons stated in attachment A and B, and
3. ensure that all anticipated conditional uses are considered in the environmental review to avoid the danger of a "piecemeal" application which can obscure the scope and scale of adverse impacts."

Laura Burns presents motion. Modifications discussed and accepted as friendly amendments. Amended motion passed 6-0 (Laura Burns, Sabrina Venskus, David Hertz, Geoffery Collins, Richard Carter, Greg Fitchitt in favor, none opposed, Zoe Garaway, Lydia Ponce, Ann Giagni not present)

Motion language:

Whereas Lincoln Place has been found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the California Historic Resources Commission with support from the foremost preservation organizations in California and the United States; and
 
 

Whereas Lincoln Place has been praised by experts nationwide for its superb design and open-space site plan; and
 
 

Whereas Lincoln Place testifies to what the post-WWII generation did to solve its acute housing shortage; and
 
 

Whereas Lincoln Place embodies the values of a generation that believed all people deserve quality housing with aesthetic value; and
 
 

Whereas the historic neighborhoods of Venice should be protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy and learn from; and
 
 

Whereas Lincoln Place and its residents have been an integral part of the fabric, community and history of Venice for over five decades; and
 
 

Whereas Lincoln Place provides significant open space which has traditionally been enjoyed by both neighbors and residents of Lincoln Place; and
 
 

Whereas locally elected neighborhood councils were created under the Los Angeles City charter reform to advise other city entities on all issues impacting their neighborhoods; and
 
 

Whereas the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council, as Venice's most local

elected body, is uniquely situated to determine the existence of a significant local historical resource; and
 
 

Whereas the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council strongly condemns the demolition of seven of the historic apartment buildings in 2003 by owners AIMCO and Los Angeles Lincoln Place Investors; and
 
 

Whereas the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council likewise condemns the lack of maintenance of the buildings and gardens; and
 
 

Whereas AIMCO in March of 2004 misrepresented to the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council's Co-Chair of the Land Use and Planning Committee that it had no plans to demolish vacant buildings at Lincoln Place and had in fact already initiated demolition notices and permit applications; and
 
 

Whereas Lincoln Place residents in a Sept 23, 2004 letter from AIMCO have been told they will have to relocate out of the complex and in conversations have said that if tenants do not relocate "voluntarily" waiving all rights by February 1, 2004 they will be subject to Ellis Act evictions; and
 
 

Whereas AIMCO has no project approval nor project application nor valid demolition permits; and
 
 

Whereas it is unlikely that AIMCO can proceed with formulating any plans until sometime in 2005 when the appellate court will rule in two lawsuits before it, thus clarifying what historic preservation protections Lincoln Place currently has under the LA Municipal Code and under the California Environmental Quality Act; and
 
 

Whereas the continued emptying out of the Lincoln Place units threatens the entire community with the risk of blight and crime; and
 
 

Whereas the displacement of our long-time residents and neighbors represents a cruelty to them which the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council soundly rejects and would as well represent a loss to our community as a whole; and
 
 

Whereas the Grass Roots Venice Council is well aware of and supports the Lincoln Place Tenants Association's ongoing efforts to provide AIMCO with a willing buyer of sufficient resources whose goal it is to preserve the historic buildings and site plan, protect the tenancies of its residents and, potentially, to offer residents the opportunity to buy their units;
 

Therefore be it resolved, that the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council wholeheartedly supports the listing of Lincoln Place on the National or California Register of Historical Places and urges the City to name Lincoln Place a City Cultural Heritage Monument; and
 
 

That the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council strenuously oppose and continue to oppose any demolition or project which does not preserve the integrity of the Lincoln Place Historic Buildings and open-space site plan; and
 
 

That the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council strenuously oppose and continue to oppose any plan which involves the displacement of Lincoln Place tenants; and
 
 

That AIMCO be admonished that it is in its interest and ours to mend its ways and become a proper and good neighbor; and
 
 

That AIMCO be encouraged to work with the Tenants Association in the pursuit of a win/win for all which provides for:

Items #8 (process for transmitting LUPC motions), #11 (November agenda items) postponed due to lack of time.

12. Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm.

Minutes prepared by Greg Fitchitt