web analytics

Venice Update

News of Venice, CA and Marina del Rey CA

Venice is No.1 Provider Per Capita of Low Income, Supportive Housing in WLA; No. 8 in All of Los Angeles Community Plan Areas

The Venice community Plan Area (CPA) is the No.1 provider per capita of low income and supportive housing units on the west side of Los Angeles as defined by the borders of the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission, according to Planning Urbanism, a research organization paid for by Frank Murphy, builder in Venice.

Furthermore, the Venice Community Plan Area (CPA) is the 8th largest provider per capita of low income and supportive housing units out of all 37 CPA in the City of Los Angeles

Within the West Los Angeles community Plan Areas

1) Venice provides 2.5 times the amount of the No.2 provider Palms – Mar Vista.
2) Venice provides 25 times the amount of the least provider Brentwood – Pacific Palisades.
3) Bel Air – Beverly Crest provides 0 units; therefore, they cannot be considered as a provider.

Santa Monica and Culver City are separate Cities but West Los Angeles neighbors.

!) Venice provides 5 times the number of units as does Culver City.
2) Venice provides 50 percent more units than Santa Monica

These figures do not consider the units planned for Venice:

98 units — the Thatcher Yard
140 units — Venice Median
34 units — 720 Rose project
46 units — the Lincoln project
154 Beds of Bridge Housing

“By any measure with which you would equate parity on the west side of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, Venice is the most densely populated with low income and supportive housing units,” said Murphy.

The spread sheet is the ranking of affordable units per 100 residents of all Community Plan Area’s in the City of LA. These numbers reflect the current and near past, so stated because categories are fluid such as HUD and subsidized housing terming out, vouchers moving around and etc.

This next spread sheet shows the source for the figures.

Appeal of 718 – 720 Rose to be Heard by Planning Commission in Van Nuys, Thursday

Note: The Venice Community Housing Corporation claims this is the last time this will be heard.  This is a housing project on fast track. Few people know what that means. This is an appeal to try to make corrections. If these corrections are not obtained, the property will be built as is, setting many precedents for Venice.

City Planning Commission will hear appeal of 718 – 720 Rose 24 January at 8:30 am at the Van Nuys Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 14410 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, 91401.

Appellants are John Reed, Jim Murez, and Marie Hammond.

1. The appeal is to appeal the Advisory Agency’s approval of a Tentative Tract Map for a merger and re-subdivision of Block A, Lots 5 and 6 of Tract 4372 including land previously quitclaim/deeded to the City for future street purposes, and of the Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332 (Class 32):

2. A Conditional Use for a Housing Development Project with a density bonus in excess of that permitted.

3. A 35 percent density bonus (with 10 percent affordable rental special needs projects with unobstructed access and/or paratransit service) with parking provided pursuant to AB744, and pursuant to three Off-Menu Waivers as follows:

a. Height increase of 18 feet, 8 inches for a total of 43 feet, eight inches in lieu of permitted 25 feet.

b. Waiver of the stepback provisions of the Venice Coastal Specific Plan and associated with the increased height and

c. waiver of loading space requirements.

4. Project permit compliance for a project within the Venice Coastal Specific Plan

5. A coastal development permit for a project within the single permit jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone and

6. A Mello Act Compliance Review for a project in the California Coastal Zone.

Address all comments and questions to Oliver Netburn, City Planner, 200 North Spring Street, Room 763, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or Oliver.Netburn@lacity.org; 213-978-1382.

Appeal of 718 – 720 Rose to be Heard by Planning Commission in Van Nuys, 24 January

City Planning Commission will hear appeal of 718 – 720 Rose 24 January at 8:30 am at the Van Nuys Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 14410 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, 91401.

Appellants are John Reed, Jim Murez, and Marie Hammond.

1. The appeal is to appeal the Advisory Agency’s approval of a Tentative Tract Map for a merger and re-subdivision of Block A, Lots 5 and 6 of Tract 4372 including land previously quitclaim/deeded to the City for future street purposes, and of the Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332 (Class 32):

2. A Conditional Use for a Housing Development Project with a density bonus in excess of that permitted.

3. A 35 percent density bonus (with 10 percent affordable rental special needs projects with unobstructed access and/or paratransit service) with parking provided pursuant to AB744, and pursuant to three Off-Menu Waivers as follows:

a. Height increase of 18 feet, 8 inches for a total of 43 feet, eight inches in lieu of permitted 25 feet.
b. Waiver of the stepback provisions of the Venice Coastal Specific Plan and associated with the increased height and
c. waiver of loading space requirements.

4. Project permit compliance for a project within the Venice Coastal Specific Plan

5. A coastal development permit for a project within the single permit jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone and

6. A Mello Act Compliance Review for a project in the California Coastal Zone.

Address all comments and questions to Oliver Netburn, City Planner, 200 North Spring Street, Room 763, Los Angeles, CA 90012 or Oliver.Netburn@lacity.org; 213-978-1382.

DuFay Says Rose Apartment Project Not Compatible with Community

rose

Top: South side. Far left. The gas station at Lincoln. 720 Rose is in the middle.
Bottom: North side. For comparison, Whole Foods is the wide building

Note: Darryl DuFay was the first chair of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC). This is a letter he wrote to the VNC board regarding 720 Rose Ave Project.

By Darryl DuFay

Venice faces another crisis brought about by a lack of openness and information. That crisis is the proposed project at 720 Rose Ave, which the VNC will consider on Monday, Sept. 17th., Agenda Item 10A.

There is a crisis of civility drowned in chaos. The chaos is so frequent and repetitive that it is disastrous to all business. Meetings that should be a place for asking and answering question did not happen. The community is again being placed in the dark. Documents lacked sensitivity to the effects of the project on the surrounding community. Proposals are made that fracture the Venice Specific Plan (VSP).

As to the project itself. 720 Rose Ave will cost $18,220,401. (Source for Development Costs: “HHH” Citizen’s Oversight Committee Report for February 2018. Table 1: HHH Project List – General Information, p.4, Table 2: HHH Project List – Development Costs, p. 5. Committee Chair: Miguel Santana.) It will have 35 units at $520,583 per unit.

Of special interest is the “Project Description” available from the VNC’s LUPC committee. Other than mentioning that the project is located in the “Venice Coastal Specific Plan” area there is no other reference to the VSP, which is the guide for construction in Venice. The entire section in the VSP on Oakwood where the project is located is missing.

The allowable height in Oakwood for this flat roof structure is twenty-five feet. It is proposed at forty-five feet. If “mechanicals” such as air conditioning on the roof are added it would be fifty-feet high, which would be a 100% increase. The height is not even mentioned in the “Project Description.” What you have instead is a vague, hidden, statement: Height Increase of 20’ 0” in lieu of that otherwise allowed by code.

The VSP clearly states that it is to be used to “regulate all development, including use, height, density, setback, buffer zone and other factors in order that it be compatible in character with the existing community and to provide for the consideration of aesthetics and scenic preservation and enhancement, and to protect environmentally sensitive areas.

If the VSP differs from provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) regarding density, lot area, floor area ratio, height of buildings, parking, design standards, and other issues, the VSP shall supersede those other regulations.

720 Rose, as presented, is not compatible in character with the existing community.

Rose Ave Apartments Passes LUPC 7 to 2

LUPC

The controversial Rose Ave project passed the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Land Use and Planning Community (LUPC) 7 to 2 Tuesday night. Next step is the Venice Neighborhood Council meet, Monday, 17 September.

The Oakwood Recreation Center was standing room only as an emotionally charged crowd waited for their turn of 45 seconds to speak. Matt Royce, chair of LUPC, made the statement that it was the largest crowd he had ever had.

Becky Dennison, director of Venice Community Housing (VCH), did a presentation with John Lonnel, consultant, assisting with questions.

Height and parking seemed to be the main objections to the project. Height for the project is 43 feet and the Venice Specific Plan calls for 25 to 30, depending on the roof structure. Parking is not in compliance with the Venice Specific Plan either. Parking provides for 15 places on site and seven on whole Foods parking lot based on an agreement with Whole Foods which is located across the street. There will be 2750 square feet of commercial and 35 apartments. Also there was some controversy over having/not having a loading zone. The four story building consists of three stories of residential and a ground floor of commercial.

Most of the comments consisted of “we need housing” and testimonies of how “housing changed my life.”

Both Jim Murez and John Reed members of the VNC board and former members of LUPC talked about the parking and height of the building as precedent setting features. John Reed, an architect, said that first of all the parking covenant states that it has to be signed by the owner of the property and Whole Foods is not the owner, nor was Safeway the owner. That would leave 15 spaces for 2750 square feet of commercial and 35 residential units. The video talks of side yard and front setbacks, no windows in front and more as well as the height and lack of parking.