Community Impact Statement

Grassroots Venice Neighborhood Council

Lincoln Center Redevelopment

Case Nr: CPC 1999-0210-ZC CU YV

February 27, 2004

SUMMARY [99 words]

The GRVNC opposes the Lincoln Center Redevelopment (“Project”) as submitted to the Planning Department and opposes any exceptions or variances from the applicable Los Angeles ordinances and Venice Community Plan at this time for this project. As it relates to this Project, the GRVNC endorses and adopts the Envision Venice Report, Appendices 2 and 3 (attached). Further, the GRVNC requests that the Planning Department refer the case back to the GRVNC to allow developers and stakeholders to work together in a timely fashion to define a mutually acceptable project which incorporates community desires reflected in the Envision Venice Report.

FULL COMMENT

Background

The Land Use and Planning Committee (“LUPC”) is a standing committee of the Grassroots Venice Neighborhood Council (“GRVNC”). There are 9 members on the LUPC; 7 are LUPC district representatives who are appointed by each of the 7 GRVNC Board District representatives. 2 are LUPC “at large” representatives from the GRVNC Board who are appointed by majority vote of the entire GRVNC Board.

In January, the LUPC commenced public meetings at which the Lincoln Center project was considered. At the fifth meeting where the project was considered (April 21, 2003), over 200 people attended the meeting and overwhelmingly protested the Project. Over 200 signatures were collected on petitions opposing the Project. LUPC voted to oppose the project by a vote of 7-1-0.

On October 6, 2003, the LUPC again considered the proposed Project at its monthly public meeting. The Project had by then undergone some minor revisions. Over 100 people attended the meeting, The developer presented revised plans at the meeting, without providing them to the committee in advance as is customary for the project. At this meeting, the developers represented to the committee and the public that, following changes to the commercial corner ordinance in July 2003, they could erect a structure “by-right” to 61 feet. 20 people spoke during public comment on the matter and all were in opposition to the Project. The LUPC voted to support the Project by a vote of 6-0-1 with conditions.

The LUPC sent this recommendation to the full GRVNC Board for approval

At its November 6, 2003 public meeting, the GRVNC Board considered the LUPC recommendation. The Board declined to approve or deny the LUPC recommendation and instead passed a resolution stating that the Board would wait until after the November 15, 2003 “Envision Venice” event to deliberate on the LUPC recommendation. (From minutes: 7.l. Lincoln Center – Executive Committee: Motion to table any further consideration of the Lincoln Center development until after the Envision Venice event on November 15, 2005. Friendly amendment to correct the date to 2003. Friendly amendment to add "and until proponent (developer) submits the final plan and the Conservation Committee reviews the final environmental documents.")

Over 150 people attended the November 15^th Envision Venice community workshop. The Project developer, Samuel Adams and architect Jai Paul Khalsa, had been invited to the Envision Venice event. While both did attend the event, they attended only as “observers,” per their request. At the end of the day’s activities, Doug Kruschke, the event’s professional facilitator, asked Mr. Adams whether he would be willing to meet with members of the community to try and integrate into their Project some of the consensus-based ideas expressed at the Envision Venice workshop. Mr. Kruschke presented several rationales as to why such a meeting would benefit both Mr. Adams and the community. Mr. Adams rejected the suggestion.

At the January, 2004 LUPC public meeting, the LUPC considered the final report on the Envision Venice workshop which had been published on January 15, 2004 by the Venice Community Coalition. The LUPC voted unanimously to endorse the Envision Venice Report and to appoint an ad-hoc subcommittee of the LUPC to carry the Envision Venice Plan forward to the City Planning Department, Council and Mayor’s office.

At the end of January, 2004, LUPC was informed by Councilwoman Miscikowski’s office that the Lincoln Center Project was now before the City Planning Department, and that a hearing was scheduled for March 1^st. As a result, LUPC agendized the matter on its February 3, 2004 public meeting agenda. Mr. Adams and Jai Paul were invited to attend the meeting but they did not show up. LUPC Co-Chair, Laura Burns, reported on discussions with Frank Quon and Jon Foreman of the Planning Department and provided detailed information on the Project. At that meeting, all of the approximately 20 members of the public present indicated their opposition to the Project. No one indicated their support of the Project. The LUPC voted to reject the Project outright. The vote was unanimous 8-0 - l absent.

On February 12, 2004, at a special public meeting held by the Board, the GRVNC voted to support, with modifications, the LUPC’s recommendation to oppose the Project. Hence, the GRVNC opposes the Project as submitted to the Planning Department.

Major Issues and Concerns

Following are some of the GRVNC’s major concerns about the proposed Project:

1) The Project would increase density by more than doubling the buildable area. This would detrimentally affect the Venice community by fundamentally changing the character of the community. In addition, it would set a very bad precedent for future development along Lincoln Boulevard. Future developers could also point to the project to argue the necessary finding that:

Such relief is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied the property in question.

2) The zone change would remove the special conditions that restrict access onto Fredrick Street and thus would significantly increase traffic on surrounding residential streets. This would detrimentally impact residential neighborhoods. It would further make possible the replacement structure on the South Block to be located anywhere on the block. Under current zoning only the western part of the lot is zoned C-2, and the buildings accordingly front Lincoln Blvd, the desired location as expressed by community members in the Envision Venice Report for development along Lincoln Blvd. A zone change furthermore would remove the special height (30 feet) and number of stories (1) restrictions attached to the properties’ zoning.

3) A variance for a commercial corner (which limits height) would create a bad precedent, negatively impacting the community by allowing buildings well in excess of the height of the buildings currently in place and what is allowable under the ordinance governing commercial corners. Such height limits were created to protect communities from impacts associated with loss of light and increase of shadow effect by very tall buildings.

4) The proposed height increase is also more than twice the height of what is allowable on the west side of the street (Lincoln Boulevard). Thus, the east side of Lincoln would be substantially out of character with the west side of Lincoln, which conflicts with the Venice Community Plan.

5) The Project is not pedestrian friendly. A pedestrian friendly community, especially along Lincoln Boulevard which is the main North-South thoroughfare through Venice, was one of the main desires communicated by Envision Venice participants. Pedestrian friendly development is defined in the Envision Venice Report as:

Buildings fronting the street with parking in the rear so that pedestrians can easily access businesses from the street.
Buildings that are in scale with pedestrians (i.e., no more than 40 feet in height, which is the height of the tallest building on Lincoln in Venice – the Venice Boys and Girls Club)
Development which is not car oriented, but rather pedestrian oriented, such as wide sidewalks, traffic calming measures, and bike lanes.

6) The Project must include a low income housing component. Many new housing projects recently developed and/or proposed on Lincoln Boulevard (such as the Trammel Crow project) provide housing for the upper middle class and wealthy. In Venice, 70% of the population rent. 64% of Venice residents live in households with incomes below the Los Angeles County median level and 40% live in households with incomes that are less than 80% of the median or just over $43,000 per year. Without taking into account the fact that rent is less affordable for larger households which include dependents, and that such households require larger units, the above figures indicate that between 40% and 60% of the current Venice population cannot afford the current rental rates for a two-bedroom unit in Venice The proposed Project must include a significant low-income housing component so as to avoid increasing the disparity between available housing units and affordability to Venice residents. For example, 20% of the units should be for low and very low income households, earning 30 to 50 per cent of the Area Median Income as defined by HUD. This affordability should be mandated for a period of at least 55 years.

7) The Project proposes allowing 24 hour operation and delivery. This would not only establish bad precedent, but would negatively impact the Venice community by increasing noise and light pollution from all night operations as well as air pollution from increased truck traffic.

8) The Project deviates from the Venice Community Plan in many ways. (Attached is the Venice Community Plan which indicates in yellow highlight areas that the Project deviates from the Plan).

9) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it appears that the Project requires preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).