Land Use Planning Committee Special Meeting Wednesday, October 17, 2005.
Westminster Elementary School Auditorium
1010 Abbot Kinney Avenue
Venice, California
---------------------------------
Subject: MTA Lot Development on 100 Sunset, at Main
Land Use Planning Committee Members
Michael King
Challis McPherson, co-chair
Inge Mueller, co-chair
Ingrid Mueller
Phil Raider
Ann Giagni
Stan Mohammad
Representing RAD Development
Bill Christopher – Urban Concepts
Ian McDuff – Koning-Eisenberg Architects
Ian McDuff gave a presentation of the project and Bill Christopher outlined changes made based on community concerns.
Public Comment:
35-40 Venice stakeholders attended.
27 gave testimony
1 -- Don Geagan:
90% of the community that attended the August 22, 2005 zoning public hearing, Hearing Officer Jon Foreman, we opposed to this project as presented. Addition of walk street is significant. Developer to define the green aspect of the development such as solar heating, water recovery, etc. Also define traffic mitigation and parking for this project.
2 -- Christine Rogers:
Asked for clarification on the number of residential units and how many of them are low income.
3 -- C.V. Beck:
Project is still too big and does not have enough green space. It is unfriendly to the community. Is in favor of moratorium and is concerned about traffic.
4 -- Carmel Beaumont:
Lives 100 feet south of the project and is concerned about impact of traffic on the narrow alleys south of the ally. Also opposes density and height.
5 -- Collette Bailey:
Appreciates addition of the walk street
Is concerned that height exemption will set precedent.
How many affordable units are included?
How many parking spaces are provided?
Are jobs going to be provided to local at risk youth?
Must contain LA urban sprawl.
6 -- Curtis Hoekzema:
Very little land is dedicated to parks. Suggested to extend the existing walk streets across Pacific and dedicate the “left over” parcel to the north into parkland.
Need more community space.
Does not agree with the walk street extension off the alley. – wants walk streets to continue from the beach. Feels that the developer is rather cavalier about this.
7 -- Marta Evry:
The overwriting consideration for this project has to be that the community comes first, not the developer and not MTA. Overriding consideration is that this must be good for the community. Glad it is mixed use and green.
Exemptions have to stop. We need retail all along Main Street
We need low and moderate income housing. Firefighters, teachers, police can’t afford to live here any more.
She highlighted traffic problems and concerns about building massing.
We also need to consider the cumulative effect of other large development such as Lincoln Center and Glencoe with 800 proposed units.
8 -- Rebecca Tafoya
Seen lot of changes in Venice zoning.Wanted to know who is overseeing affordable housing?
Parking and traffic are ridiculous. We need public parking structures.
Too much development is going on around here.
9 -- Jim Smith
It’s the wrong project in the wrong place.
Written conditions don’t mean anything – see Lincoln Place
There was no public input in the deal with MTA & RAD.
Urged LUPC board to formulate motion to deny zoning change and quickly add moratorium to future agenda.
10 -- Suzanne Thompson
Questioned Mr. Christopher’s role in representing RAD Development while at the same time being a BONC Commissioner.
Wanted guarantees for smart cross-walks (difficult to implement)
Traffic mitigation
Green building – what does that mean?
Supports building moratorium in Venice.
11 -- Steve Freedman
Changes made to the proposal are not adequate. Revised proposal is still too tall and too dense.
Height is concentrated on the east side on Main and not in the middle of the project as the developer claims. Proposal downplays the impact on Main Street even though most residents see the project from Main Street.
Set backs are not sufficient.
Wants to clarify if height measured from side walk on Main would exceed 60 feet.
Not enough commercial space.
Proposal should view the project as if Main Street was the front.
12 -- Cassandra Smith – declined to comment
13 -- Jim Murez
Thornton / Sunset side streets should keep in the character with the opposite side of the street. Residents opposite the project look onto rear yards.
No community interaction possible – people park underground and take elevator to their units. Units on the perimeter should have parking at their units and access units from the street. Concerned about the character of the entire proposal.
More commercial space needed on Main.
Roof top structure should be kept within the 35 feet height restriction.
All walk streets in Venice should be permanently designated as such and should fall under the protection of the Venice Specific Plan.
Concern about trash – this developer has shown very little interest in adequate trash arrangements.
Trees – plant them outside the development as well as inside.
14 -- Lori Leboy
Too many condo projects – we are inundated with construction.
Need moratorium on multi-residential projects – need to study combined impact.
Want special consideration given to a project that benefits the community. Why should we give special treatment to something that benefits the developer only? Find it odd that we can’t find an alternative location for the bus yard unless we get in bed with the developer.
Traffic concerns
Bio study has not been done – Playa Vista reference
Is completely opposed to the project.
15 -- David Ewing
Has issues with the process. We have a public policy problem here. This is not a planning process but an arm twisting process.
Developer’s deal with MTA is contingent (apparently) on that he gets what he needs in terms of exemptions to the Venice Specific Plan. The MTA and the county are twisting the city’s arm.
Wants GRVNC to recommend to the city of Los Angeles that business should be done as usual: Land deal first and then the developer takes requests to the city.
Suspects that the developer profit is very high.
Wants to know if traffic issues are going to be resolved before 10/27. We have traffic merging from Little Main onto Main and unsafe traffic crossing. Cars merge unsafely.
16 -- Naomi Nightingale
Lives on 415 Sunsets. Sunset is used as spill off from Rose and problems will only increase Wants to know about traffic mitigation plan.
Supports all other previously stated opposition (density, size, etc.)
Made the community aware of other projects in the area, i.e. requested height variance for cell phone tower.
Cumulative effect of all these projects needs to be considered. We need to stick to our Venice Specific Plan and not allow any variances.
17 -- Helen Hood Scheer
Loading dock is not considered in the plan for people to park moving trucks. Trucks now park in front of our homes, allies and streets and block off residential access and ingress.
Rendering are misleading (8 foot tall people) unfair to present renderings to the community that are out of scale.
Fences are too high.
Traffic situation at Main / Little Main is dangerous.
Increased traffic from Sunset onto Pacific. Lanes change from two lanes to one lane.
Wants definition of low income housing.
Absolutely opposed to any variances on that property.
18 -- Naomi Glauberman
Lives on Breeze Avenue and in Venice for 30 years. Likes the walk street and wants it made permanent so Venice Specific Plan applies and the walk streets do not revert back to the developer.
Is against the requested variances.
MTA lot serves the public and development removes the lot from public use. Developer needs to address concerns of the public.
19 -- Anja Rudnick
Developer must publicize hearings. 500’ radius is inadequate considering the scope of this development.
Height variance will set precedent.
We need good growth in Venice. Adhere to Venice Specific Plan.
Asked for low income housing definition.
Not enough retail. Need pedestrian traffic – there is no pedestrian traffic there.
Just having 5 or 6 stores is not going to increase pedestrian traffic.
Yard below street level does not allow for community interaction – looking at someone’s roof.
20 -- Chris Plaurde
Higher density housing is needed but we need smart development – not just big blocks.
Cites examples of Playa Vista and Redondo Beach.
Live / work space is a scam – no artist can afford them. No one is going to pay off a million dollar mortgage by selling handicrafts out of their living room. This is hokum for a bunch of yuppies to live in “artist lofts” – they are lawyer lofts, and CEO lofts.
Venice has to stay open – no 6 foot fences.
Recess: 8:25pm to 8:35pm
21 -- Gail Rogers
Zev Yaroslawsky approved land swap in March meeting at MTA to which Venice residents were not invited. Found out from Baldwin Hills community activists.
Organized other activists and sent many letters to Councilman Rosendahl’s office
Planning Commission meeting is scheduled on 10/27/05 in Van Nuys.
We have power. Inglewood activists fought back and a WalMart was NOT built in Inglewood.
Zev Yaroslowsky refuses to talk to her.
Have copies of letters to distribute for people to send to government officials.
Developer, D’Alia, is not great. He was cited for insider trading.
22 -- Todd Flournoy
Lives on Rose Avenue. Agree with a lot of what has already been said.
How does this gigantic lot relate to the community?
Venice Specific Plan restricts lot consolidations to a maximum of 3 lots – approx. 120 ft across. This project is much larger than that and is violating the intent of the Venice Specific Plan. Renderings show a building that is the same on all sides – over 120’.
Wants more commercial space.
23 -- Jason Teague
Developer engaged in inconsistent outreach – some people did not receive e-mails.
Housing project is too massive. Doesn’t have to be this large – break down into smaller masses.
Wants more commercial development on commercial corridors.
Biggest issues are traffic and housing – mixed use development addresses both.
We need small commercial along Main.
Walk street is great idea but in the wrong place. Nobody walks on the Sunset alley and they are not going to walk a half a block to get across Main.
24 -- Doug Morris
6th Avenue, Venice. Project is like a battle ship dropped on a city block This is a ploy. Everybody protests, developer brings it down 20%, they community protests, developer reduces project. We end up with what the developer wanted in the first place.
Another example of where the county gets the benefit and Venice has the burden, just like beach parking (revenue goes to the county) and Venice deals with the traffic.
Walk streets need to continue from the beach. Left over small parcels could be developed with small Venice style cottages and provide low income housing.
Wants the zoning change clarified and wants to know what all the variances are.
Also wants to know about the traffic plan.
25 -- Daryl DuFay
Venice Specific Plan does not include rules and regulations for mixed use development, Consequences of mixed use - how much commercial and how much residential.
All along Main Street needs to be commercial.
Low income housing needed. Live/work spaces are million dollar places.
Putting street down the center is an affront to people.
Be engaged with the process – folks something is going to be built there.
Widen the street on each side and add commercial along walk streets.
26 – Junny Tomblin
Lives within 100 feet of the project and has for 30 years. Royal Court which is parallel to Pacific and Main is the only access to our homes. Dumps out onto Thornton and Main where there is no crosswalk. Sewer access closes their access. Requests that law on height and density is upheld.
Has been to all RAD meetings. One thing that these developers has never heard and never addressed is the height and the density.
Why do we make laws that are never upheld by anybody.
Also wants signals for safety.
27 -- Richard Myers
Height is ridiculous. Requests that this project should comply to Venice Specific Plan similar to other large projects in Venice, like Pioneer Bakery which has also been here for 100 years. Requested FAR of 2 is too high, Venice Specific Plan stipulates 1.5
Wants to know how many low income units are required by law. First promised 17 low income units, now up to 56. This is just the Mello Act – this is what they are required to do.
28 -- Arnold Springer
Was impressed by unanimity of opposition from all different elements of our community. He was one of the group that worked on the North Venice Plan, Venice Specific Plan. We really worked on that lot. What we really wanted to see was a continuation of the development program of walk streets from Speedway and Main Street. Supports continuation of walk streets.
County should not expect that the people of Venice have to pay for a new bus yard.
Project inhibits coastal access and violates Venice Specific Plan.
Wish the board would recommend denial and list the reasons why. Cumulative impact has to be considered. Public has not been sufficiently informed by the developer.
Bill Christopher Rebuttal
8:55pm to 9:05pm
We cannot say tonight that we will reduce the height, density and provide additional walk streets and that everything would be great. I don’t think we can get to that point tonight. We need to continue with the dialogue with the community and try to deal with the issues as best we can. And hopefully come to a solution that serves the community best. I want to come back to Marta’s comment that I put the community third and the developer and the project first. That wasn’t intentional and clearly shouldn’t be the case. Anything that happens to this piece of property is important to the community of Venice.
Green aspect of the project – diesel bus removal.
Affordable housing units: 17 (10% of 172 units) as defined by city and state laws – guaranteed for 30 years only. We have asked the appropriate governmental departments as to the current definition of low and very low income housing. We have the option under the Mello Act of 20% low income housing or 10% very low income housing.
The question of over development and moratoriums is one that we will encounter when we are developing any property in Venice or anywhere else in Los Angeles. Also urban sprawl – that is a policy question all over the region. I can’t foresee that the bus yard will go away and a project of similar scale will not be proposed for this project site.
The question of precedent regarding this unique site. The Venice Specific Plan prohibits the accumulation into one lot of more than 3 lots - this site is one lot which is bigger than any other 3 Venice lots. There is, in fact, uniqueness to this site. One of the ways to look at it is that when the State of California wants to do something unique in the City of Los Angeles, they define the Los Angeles as a city of more than 3 million people governed by a charter. There are ways of finding that you can draw for exceptions to specific plans which make it unique for this piece of property for this situation that don’t have to set precedents for the rest of Venice.
Wrong project in the wrong place. Yes, there were excluded negotiations with the MTA for this site. This was only granted after the MTA had a public hearing which was noticed in this community as well as the community in Baldwin Hills area. There was adequate notification.
Roof top access and roof top structures. The Venice Specific Plan and the building code will allow 100 by 100 roof top structures in excess of the height. One of the things I think we should discuss tonight is the prohibition of the conditions that would allow the 100 square foot structures on the building and that we only allow roof terraces in an open situation where one could use the roof.
Total units: 208
245,000 square feet of residential space
10,000 square feet of commercial
FAR 1.88
Does not have the information what “low income” means
Main / Sunset – wants to explore traffic signal. Traffic impacts in Venice is one thing that we all deal with on a daily basis.
Artist lofts – does not want to exclude live/work spaces.
Van Nuys hearing location – Applicants do not have control over location. The planning commission meets every other week in Van Nuys, alternate week in downtown Los Angeles and they set their own agenda.
Architectural diversity – project does not have to have a uniform scale of appeal from one side to the other. This should be explored by the development team. We will attempt to explore those diversity issues in the in 14 building break-down.
Could not give precise information about the future address of the project. Currently 100 Sunset, addresses for each section of the project will evolve.
Height is measured as the average height across the middle of the lot (north/south, east/west)
Public Comment section closed. Land Use Planning Committee members discuss the issue.
Several significant issues not brought up in the public comment section:
Toxic hydrocarbon bloom from decades of diesel/regular gas being spilled in the bus yard. Who cleans this up and what are the “teeth” in any ordnance to enforce this cleanup.
Bill Christopher:
“MTA is the agency responsible for cleaning up the site. It must be done before the site is developed. Enforcement – the EPA will have to certify that the site is clean relative to the MTA before they can transfer title. The MTA board will have to review and approve the clean up.”
LUPC Co-chair C. Macpherson: “Will we have access to these meetings?”
B. Christopher: “I believe that that can be arranged.”
LUPC Co-chair I. Mueller: “Question re zoning change. All around the project it is zoned RD 1.5 restricted density. Developer is seeking a CM1, commercial/manufacturing. Elaborate please on what that means exactly. What are the limitations in terms of height and density. Also, does the Venice Specific Plan apply to that zoning as well even if the developer was going to scrap the current plans and apply for something completely different”
B. Christopher: “The Venice Specific Plan would not change and does, in fact, supersede any zoning changes. The reason we are requesting exceptions to the plan is because the plan supersedes any zoning on the property. The CI zone is a reflection of the general plan which provides for CM uses. The CM zone allows for the development of commercial/residential housing in excess of what the RD 1.5 allows.
10/27/05 Hearing
8:30 AM
www.Cityplanning.lacity.org (West LA - hearings & notices)
(213) 978-1300
Motion by LUPC (click here)