City Foils Coastal Commission
By John
Davis
The California Coastal Commission
Staff has rejected the Venice Specific and the Oxford Specific Plans as
incomplete. Completed plans are needed to qualify for a certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP) for Venice.
Many communities in
the California Coastal Zone already have LCPs that allow the local entities more
jurisdiction over development and management of coastal resources.
Venice already has a Land Use Plan (LUP)
that was certified in 2001. Now the City is supposed to provide the Coastal
Commission Staff with all information to prove that the Venice Specific Plan
(VSP) is in conformance with Chapter Three of the California Coastal Act.
Chapter Three Policies are stringent so that a balance between development and
preservation of valuable coastal resources can be
achieved.
The City has failed to submit
even enough information for the Commission staff to begin the evaluation
process. Deputy Director Debra Lee of the Commission has endorsed a request for
further data from the City of Los
Angeles.
Here in order are some of
those materials requested by the State Coastal Commission in a letter of
February 13 and City Planning Director Con Howe’s responses of April 28,
some of which are
summarized:
RESOLUTION OF
SUBMITTAL
• CCC REQUEST- State in
City whereas resolution that the LCP is intended to be carried out in a manner
fully in conformity with the Coastal Act. Note the start
date.
• CITY RESPONSE - An
amended resolution will be submitted to the City Council and this should not
slow the process.
LAMC SECTIONS AND
ISSUANCE ORDINANCE
• CCC REQUEST
– Submit Los Angeles Municipal Codes (LAMC) referred to in the VSP
required by the California Code of Regulations as well as “all policies,
plans, standards, objectives, diagrams, drawings, maps, photographs and
supplementary data in sufficient detail to allow review of the LCP for
conformity with the Coastal Act requirements.” Note: The City failed to
submit 10 sections of the LAMC and a section of the City
Charter.
• CITY RESPONSE –
The City will submit the Municipal Codes but “not for
certification”! The reason stated by the City Director of Planning is
that it would put a “tremendous and unmanageable workload on City
staff… There is no need to additionally certify these other
procedures”. State Laws, the California Coastal Act, and other applicable
laws require the City to comply with the Coastal Commission request to certify
the LCP. City Planning Director Howe fails to even respond to the other
requests.
OTHER LAMC
SECTIONS
• CCC REQUEST - Submit
“all parts of the LAMC that could be used to implement the LCP, including
the procedures that the City could use for approving variances or exceptions
from LCP standards.”
• CITY
RESPONSE – The City will submit this information. The Director argues by
implication that this request is valid whereas others are
not.
COASTAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLAN
• CCC REQUEST
– Submit the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan (CTCSP)
referenced in the VSP and the Oxford Triangle Specific
Plan.
CITY RESPONSE – The CTCSP
is not submitted for certification! Again, Director Howe blatantly disregards
the Commissions valid requests. Without this vital information a Local Coastal
Plan cannot be legally
certified.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
SET FORTH IN THE CERTIFIED LUP
•
CCC REQUEST – Submit “City regulations, ordinances and standards
that are necessary to carry out all the Implementation Strategies as set forth
by the certified LUP (e.g. replacement housing criteria, housing enforcement
procedures, in lieu fees for affordable housing, maximum number of youth hostel
units, designation of historic districts, standards for the Windward Historic
Arcade District, cultural resources search requirements, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program, Beach Parking Signage Program, Venice Intercept
Parking Shuttle Program, ordinance amending Standard Plan D – 22459 to
create a standard category for walk streets, inventory of vacant land suitable
for acquisition as public open space, Storm Water Management Program, Water
Conservation Ordinance, Recycling Program, Venice Streetscape Plan,
etc.).”
• CITY RESPONSE
– Director Howe states, “This is not feasible.”
LARGE SCALE ZONE DISTRICT MAPS AND
TABLES
• CCC REQUEST –
“Please submit legible zoning maps for the entire Venice LCP area, as well
as the LAMC Sections that regulate land uses and building standards within each
zone district. Please also submit the Artcraft Overlay District map and
regulations referenced in the certified Venice LUP (Policy 1.B.9), and any other
overlay zones and/or special districts that could be applicable in the Venice
LCP area (e.g. Historic Preservation Overlay, Windward Historic Arcade District,
Business Improvement District,
etc.).”
• CITY RESPONSE –
They will not be submitted for certification, look on the
internet.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
REQUEST
• CCC REQUEST –
“Please submit a map of the area proposed for exclusion that also
identifies statutorily non-excludable areas (i.e. tide and submerged lands and
beaches, lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of the beach or of the
mean high tide line of the sea, all lands and waters subject to public trust and
riparian areas and freshwater wetlands. The “Dual Jurisdiction” area
identified on the map submitted with the categorical exclusion request would not
be relevant if the Commission grants the categorical exclusion
request.”
CITY RESPONSE –
Director mis-characterizes and disregards the specific requests made by the
Coastal Commission.
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
• CCC REQUEST
– “Please submit a complete list of all public hearings, Planning
Commission meetings and City Council meetings during which the proposed LIP was
agendized and copies of all staff reports, minutes, mailing lists, public
hearing notices, and notices of actions taken for each of those meetings. The
submittal is currently incomplete in this regard as public hearing notices were
not included for each meeting and no meeting minutes have been submitted.”
• CITY RESPONSE –
“We did not duplicate all this information as this would be extremely
wasteful…No meeting minutes were taken and our limited resources and
current budget constraints do not permit us to transcribe audio
tapes.”
GOVERNMENT
PARTICIPATION
• CCC REQUEST
– “Please submit a summary of the measures taken to consult and
coordinate with contiguous local governments and to provide other affected
agencies (including other City Departments) and districts and the public maximum
opportunity to participate in the LCP
process.”
• CITY RESPONSE
– Planning Director Con Howe says they were notified. But again he fails
to show that the City really engaged these governmental entities in meaningful
dialogue because he only has included a list of contacts with no responses
whatsoever from other governmental
entities.
Sandy Keivman, Venice Deputy
for Councilperson Cindy Miscikowski, stated to me that she had not seen the
letter from Director of Planning Con Howe nor did she know if the Councilperson
had seen it or if she supports it. I was then referred to Kevin Keller, the
Councilperson’s Planning Deputy who also failed to admit seeing the
letter. When asked if the Councilperson supported Director of Planning he
stated, “The Councilperson generally supports decisions of the Director of
Planning.”
All of this begs an
enormous question for Venetians, does Councilperson Miscikowski support the
decisions of what appears to be a rouge City Director of Planning or is she so
entirely out of touch with her duties and is not aware of this major
development? The Venice Neighborhood Council Conservation Committee at its
meeting, May 27, voted to recommend that Councilperson Cindy Miscikowski state
to the City Council that the Venice Council concurs with the Coastal Commission
and that the she advocate for this position. The Neighborhood Council Board must
first approve this recommendation for
ratification.
It is highly probable
that both the Coastal Commission and the City of Los Angeles have already
prejudiced the City’s ability to prepare a Local Coastal Program
consistent with Chapter Three of the Coastal Act by allowing two very large
structures to be built in Venice in the early nineties. The photograph, above,
shows the massive scale of just one of the buildings in question. Is this what
the City has planned for downtown Venice?
Posted: Tue - June 1, 2004 at 08:51 PM