VNC Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda

05/11/2009 - 7:00pm
05/11/2009 - 9:30pm

Extra Space Storage, Presidents Row Room
658 South Venice Blvd, Venice, 90291

Note: (i) The Administrative Committee does not address or consider the merits of proposed agenda items. Its function is to determine whether a proposed agenda item will be placed on the next Board meeting agenda, postponed, referred to a specific committee for review and recommendation, treated as an announcement, or considered and resolved as a non-Board administrative matter. (ii) The Administrative Committee has the discretion to reorder consideration of matters on the agenda to accommodate stakeholders or for other reasons. (iii) Unless otherwise noted, the President abstains on all votes.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

2. Approval of the AdCom Agenda

3. Approval of any outstanding Administrative Committee minutes submitted by the Secretary

April 13, 2009 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes

4. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)

5. Old AdCom Business

A James Murez ( & Jed Pauker (310-839-9209; Presentation of a case tracking system for LUPC (15 min) – See AdCom Exhibit A [LUPC to report 60 days after Murez initiates system as pilot]

6. New AdCom Business

A Mike Newhouse ( Approve VNC co-sponsorship of WRAC Candidates Forum.

B Administrative matters:

o Set Bylaw Election date for May 19

C I.nvolved V.olunteering E.nergy
Jeffrey Allen Solomon (310) 396-1585; on behalf of Neighborhood Committee: I move to form an Ad Hoc committee to form an all volunteer group of multi-talented individuals to give various time to help the City of Los Angeles with janitorial, creative gardening, graffiti locating, and maintenance of all types to assist bringing all our neighborhoods into models of pride for all Venice stakeholders, using a creative data base with screen names for security, listing: contact info, hours available per month (and what days: example: “Mondays, from 11 am to 1 pm, first and third of month”). With homeless people, I will supply a safe place in which to report, some in-kind donation for refreshments. I will use my committee to flesh out the jobs, create the data base, and enlist the VNC to use its outreach committee for assistance. There are more details than available in this format. Example: When working in Las Vegas, Nevada in the very early 70’s, Young Electric Sign was mostly responsible for replacing every burnt out bulb every day. Vies-a vies: Las Vegas became the brightest city on the planet. Example 2: Under Mayor Giuliani’s watch, “The Broken Window Theory” was instituted using Bratton as the strategist and enforcer, bringing the subways into a safer environment, recreating the great White Way (Broadway) back to its former glory. Every window was repaired, under the premise that people would be not as likely to throw a brick though a window in a building that had no broken windows, and that this being said, poachers would be less likely to inhabit said vacant building. All graffiti was painted over daily, prostitutes, drug addicts and all manor of homeless people were taken to a newly formed system, not clogging up the standing court system. These people were helped, not treated as vermin. Many were offered residence in a safer community upstate, given an opportunity to be in programs that may change their lives. My wife says, “Everything loose, rolls west”. Venice is a catch basin for all manner of problematic situations, which we can change. Oh yes, I will request an advisory panel of senior citizens who have been through adversity and turmoil beyond anything experienced by us younger generations. I’ve already sounded out the Israel Levin Senior Citizen Center for their advice should this ad hoc committee be formed. I got a resounding YES! With more questions and hope and help. So many liked this idea, that it seem to brighten their eyes that they may give of their experience to help our and their community.

D Consideration of DRAFT May 19, 2009 Board Agenda (see below)

7. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)

8. Adjourn

Draft – Board of Officers Meeting Agenda Westminster Elementary School (Auditorium) 1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd, Venice, 90291 Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM

1. Call to Order and Roll Call.

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Approval of any outstanding minutes submitted by the Secretary

April 21, 2009 Board Meeting Minutes

Committee Reports are provided in written form when available
4. Consent Calendar


I De Minimis Projects
Challis Macpherson ( on behalf of LUPC: Challis Macpherson moves that VNC Board of Officers send a De Minimis Form Letter stating No Opinion, No Recommendation Without Prejudice to CD11 regarding entitlement applications listed in the attached exhibit. See Exhibit A

5. Treasurers Report – See Exhibit B (expenditures thru 4/30/09 & draft budget for 2009-2010) accept report as presented

The Budget Committee requests Board approval of the draft budget for 2009-2010.

6. Scheduled Announcements (no more than 1 minute per report unless otherwise stated)

A Mike Newhouse ( Vote on Bylaw amendment extending Board term to 2010.

B Governmental Reports

• DONE: Deanna Stevenson
• LAPD: Officer Peggy Thusing, Senior Lead Officer
• State Assemblyperson Ted Lieu: Melissa S. Ramoso, Field Representative (310-615-3515;
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Stephen Cheung & Jennifer Badger, West Area Representatives (310-479-3823;
• City Councilperson Bill Rosendahl: Arturo Piña, Field Deputy
• LADWP: VNC Representatives DeDe Audet & Challis McPherson

C Swine flu outbreat DO NOT PANIC take preventive steps
Yolanda Gonzalez (310-902-8690; Just got back from Mexico DF. I was actually in Cuernavaca, Morelos alll the time and was there through this outbreak of the flu. Would like to request 15 minute presentation of what we went through and learned. What measures we took AND DO NOT PANIC. Pass out some information I adquired and maybe have a Dr, do a little presentation (quick.) Request 15. mins.of the boards Time. But should be taken seriously. Interesting views of peoples reaction in Mexico.

D False Libelous Flyers Being Distributed in Venice
Stewart Oscars ( Dirty tricksters are disseminating hate flyers in Venice atacking people with cars they do not deem appropriate, people who have dogs, and also people whose yards they do not approve. These flyers contain language that could be racist and signing the flyers so as to attack one person/one group in Venice. This must be stopped.

D Introduction of the Los Angeles Parks Foundation
Judith Kieffer (310 472 1990; The Los Angeles Parks Foundation is a non profit 501© (3) that works to enhance, expand and preserve the parks of Los Angeles city. We would like to introduce ourselves as a possible tool to help your city parks.

E Presentation of Neighborhood Committee rankings of 2009-2010 CIP
Ivan Spiegel (310-821-9556; The Neighborhood Committee will present the Board with its rankings for the 2009-2010 Community Improvement Project funding according to the Standing Rules. This will be a committee report and should not require discussion. We will need appx 5-10 minutes to explain the process and announce the rankings. NOTE: please put this near the end of the agenda as it is an election day and I have to work at the polls.

7. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)
(no board member announcements permitted)

8. Old Business

A Mike Newhouse ( Need new chair of OFW Committee – Ira Koslow has stepped down.


I Challenge to City Interpretation of impact of SLSO on VCZSP See Exhibit C – SLS Discussion Questions
Challis Macpherson ( on behalf of LUPC: Regarding DIR 2008-4703 DI, Director’s (of Planning Department) Interpretation of Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance as it pertains to VCZSP; considering that LUPC unanimously disagrees with the Director’s Interpretation and wants the Director to consider VNC prior recommendations, LUPC recommends that the VNC Board of Officers recommend that this document be reconsidered in light of prior recommendations made by VNC.

9. New Business

A From Board Members

I Proliferation of Medical Marijuana Clinics in Venice
Challis Macpherson ( Boardmember Challis Macpherson requests that the VNC Board of Officers deliberate upon and move to recommend a course of action to CD11 regarding the proliferation of Medical Marijuana Clinics in Venice. Please note that the clinics open in facilities that were retail, there is (usually) no change of use; therefore, LUPC has no jurisdiction. This is a board issue.

Per a Venice resident, there is one at 812 Lincoln called Green Dot. This has been there for a few months. There is a new one being constructed at 736 Lincoln, which is just two doors down from 736. These are both a short distance from a school. They are also within 20 ft. of residences. The same landlord has rented to both of these … There is also another two blocks down at 410 Lincoln.

II Ask City Council to revisit Financial Disclosure Requirement
Linda Lucks ( Whereas the City Council adopted the requirement that Neighborhood Council’s wishing to participate in the opening of Neighborhood Council Files be required to disclose financial interests relating to the File in question, and whereas the City Ethics Commission and the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners oppose the Form 54 adopted by the City Council as being much too intrusive; and whereas Councilmembers Janice Hahn, Zine and Gargetti agreed to revisit the form in an effort to find a more appropriate form that encourages Neighborhood Council participation,

I move that the Venice Neighborhood Council support the motion of Councilmember Janice Hahn to revisit the issue of financial disclosure in relation to the NC Council File motions and recommend that the currently approved Form 54 be replaced with a more suitable form.

III Amendment to SR5A to encourage Neighbor-Neighbor dialogue on subjective land use matters
Joe Murphy (310-305-1444: Request Board adopt the following amendment to VNC SR 5A:

Standing Rule 5A. Projects Automatically Placed on Board Consent Calendar by LUPC (090120)

Projects which LUPC finds comply with the non-subjective portions of the development standards of the VCZSP or which LUPC determines to be De Minimis* shall be placed on the board consent calendar without requiring a LUPC hearing or preparation of a LUPC report.

If the Board agrees with LUPC and the affected parties (applicant & affected neighbors) negotiate an agreement on the subjective portions of the VCZSP (matters of design, taste, character & scale), the Board will approve the project and send a letter of support. Otherwise, the below form letter will be sent to the appropriate entities: if the Board agrees with LUPC.

De Minimis Nolo Contendere** Form Letter

Los Angeles City Planning Department
200 North Spring
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601

Subject: CASE NO. (Insert Here)
Project Address: (Insert Here)
Applicant: (Insert Here)

Madam/Sir…: (Note: this will probably go to the ZA or planning staff person)

Please be advised that the Venice Neighborhood Council’s Board of Officers, upon the recommendation of our Land Use and Planning Committee, has consented to takes a position of “No Opinion, No Recommendation Without Prejudice” and is therefore not sending not send a recommendation for action to Council District 11, Planning Department or any other governmental entity on the referenced planning case. However, the VNC reserves we reserve the right to take a position at a later date in the event the project, as initially presented to the hearing authority, is changed without the consent of the affected parties.

Please provide a copy of the decision letter to the Venice Neighborhood Council, Post Office Box 550, Venice, California 90294, or electronically to and

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Venice Neighborhood Council

Mike Newhouse, President

Cc: Applicant Affected Parties Applicant’s Representative CD11, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl

  • De Minimis. A latin phrase meaning “of minimum importance; trifling”.
  • Nolo Contendere. A latin phrase meaning “I am not contesting”.

B From Stakeholders

I Direct LUPC to consider issues surrounding project proposals
Jed Pauker ( on behalf of neighbors: To direct LUPC to consider the issue of projects that meet buildable envelope numeric dimensions but fail to conform with existing mass, scale and character compatibility dictated by prevailing development guidelines, with reference to an existing project proposal whose pending Planning Department approval is expected to be appealed based on these issues.

II Request City Council repeal Section 5 of LA Ordinance Number 179680
Joe Murphy (310-895-0344; Request LA City Council repeal Sec. 5. Subdivision (2) of Subsection (a) of Section 22.811 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code which it amended on February 20, 2008 to read:

(2) That neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works, owns property in the neighborhood & also to those who declare a stake in the neighborhood & affirm the factual basis for it.

Request further that LA City Council use expediting procedures if necessary to enable the City Clerk to be prepared to conduct the 2010 Neighborhood Council elections.

Comment: The above provision unnecessarily complicates the definition of a stakeholder by expanding it beyond what is required under Sec. 906 of Article IX of the Los Angeles City Charter which provides, as a condition of certification, that:

(a) By-laws. Each neighborhood council seeking official certification or recognition from the City shall submit an organization plan & by-laws to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment showing, at a minimum:

(2) neighborhood council membership will be open to everyone who lives, works or owns property in the area (stakeholders) …

Thus, the Bylaws of every currently certified Neighborhood Council contains language defining a stakeholder in conformance with this charter requirement. The Venice Neighborhood Council Bylaws, for instance, define stakeholders as individuals who live, work, or own property within the Venice Neighborhood Council boundaries.

III FILL THE FOOD BANK, ROUND 2: April 25-May 3, 2009
Alex Rose (310-409-9867; Request the VNC invite the public and its members to bring food to the meeting each month and spread the word through its eblasts and at the farmers market. I cannot manage the logistics on a monthly basis of moving the collected food from the NC meeting to St. Joseph Center – perhaps one of the committee members could be the coordinator for this project:

Venice needs your help! Can you touch base with some of your contacts and see if they will spread the word about the food drive and volunteer their stores/restaurants/homes as public drop-off locations for food donations?

St. Joseph Center does tremendous work for the community. They are providing important services to homeless, Veterans and the working poor. The demand for their food pantry items is higher than ever and our neighbors pitching in can really make the difference.

In the week leading up to President Obama’s inauguration, we did a food drive and volunteers collected enough groceries to fill a 15 foot truck. We certainly wouldn’t have had that level of success without the Council spreading the word and participating. We were touched to receive a letter from the Executive Director of the St. Joseph Center. She wrote:

“It was truly a gift last January when you filled the shelves of our pantry with food, but the need in the community is greater than ever and our shelves are again close to empty. Can we ask you to coordinate another food drive for St. Joseph Center?”

We are making fliers for each store to give to their customers and email to their lists. We can bring a nicely decorated box for food collections. We are building and will be spreading the word through twitter and facebook. Last time we had the support of Trim, Urban Escape, Other Room, Slave Boutique, Paper Scissors Rock, Causecast, Fruit Gallery, and a few other kind groups like the Venice for Change, Venice Paparazzi and Councilman Rosendahl. We hope to expand and need you to open some doors for us.


IV Motion to Create Windward Circle Park and Community/Arts Center
Erin Sullivan (310-962-8513; on behalf of Windward Circle Park Committee: That the Venice Neighborhood Council recommend to Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Rosendahl that the City purchase, through current and/or future park bond funds and/or federal grants, the Postal Annex at Windward Circle and convert it to a park with the existing structure adapted to use as an eco-friendly multi-purpose community center offering space for an art, photograph and sculpture gallery, rehearsal, performance and dance facilities, a small screening room, community meeting room(s) and related facilities such as restrooms and kitchen. The facility is to be fenced and closed at night. All per the below proposal (petitions to be distributed separately):
(See attached document below for motion and petitions)

V Motion in support to Planning & Land Use Management
Yolanda Gonzalez (310-902-8690;
On April 29,2009, Council Rp. Huizar, Zine & Labonge made a presentation on the mariguana dispensaries floating around our city and their abuse of prescriptions not being hardship, for extreme medical cases. After the big stink I made before City Council of this abuse. A motion is to be presented. Probably Arturo Pina will do a little presentation, no more that 10 mins. The motion is that the City Attorney, with the assitance of the Planning Department be requested to prepare an ordinanace to amend the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries ICO (Ordinance 179027) to strike the hardship exemtion provision from the ordinance. The admendment should not alter the expiration date of the ICO nor modify it in any other way. (This is in support to have Bill Rosendahl vote on it. at city Council).

C From Neighborhood Committee

I Motion for Letter Requesting Traffic Mitigation on Venice Blvd
Maxine Leral & Linda Lucks ( on behalf of Neighborhood Committee:

Whereas the VNC’s Neighborhood Committee is aware of the horrendous traffic gridlock occurring in the area between Pacific Avenue and Ocean Avenue on North and South Venice Boulevards on Sunday afternoons during the summer and when the weather is hot before summer.

And whereas the traffic situation on North and South Venice Boulevards has all the ingredients of a disaster waiting to happen and motorists are frustrated being caught in a traffic jam without the assistance of an official Traffic Controller to direct traffic and prevent gridlock at each of the intersections between Pacific and Ocean Avenue.

And whereas the “Left Turn Only” traffic sign at Dell Avenue and North Venice Boulevard exacerbates the situation by preventing motorists from being able to legally exit the congested area once they turn left onto Dell Avenue from South Venice Boulevard only to find that the City lot between Dell and Ocean Avenue is full.

And whereas motorists do not have the ability to leave the area by continuing on Dell Avenue and cross North Venice Boulevard and they are again forced back into the not so merry merry-go-round traffic on North Venice Boulevard, creating a mega-traffic gridlock.

And whereas the City parking lots are filled to capacity very early in the day and there is no warning to motorists approaching the beach on Venice Boulevard of the situation, the traffic snarl begins.

And whereas if an emergency response was needed, there would be no way for an emergency vehicle to get through.

And whereas this traffic gridlock jeopardizes the safety and hinders the ingress/egress traffic access of local residents in area and prevents visitor access to the beach from all parts of the County for free entertainment and to enjoy the famous Venice Beach.

Now therefore, the Venice Neighborhood Council requests Councilmember Bill Rosendahl (CD11), the LAPD, and the Department of Transportation to alleviate the untenable situation by removing the “Left Turn Only” traffic sign at Dell Avenue and North Venice Boulevard;

AND further, to assign Traffic Control personnel at each of the intersections from Pacific Avenue to Ocean Avenue on North and South Venice Boulevards – particularly at Dell Avenue where it intersects with North and South Venice Boulevards – to keep intersections free and clear of gridlock on Sunday afternoons during the summer and when hot beach weather encourages excess vehicular traffic at Venice Beach.

II Letter to keep funding of CDD Support Group
Kristopher Valentine (805-341-4577; on behalf of Neighborhood Cmtee:
It has been brought to the attention of the Venice Neighborhood Committee that AA/CS/NA Community Development Department support group meetings in Venice have had two meeting per week canceled due to budget cuts. These meetings have up to 80 people, many young, attend. The committee requests the board send the following letter to Councilman Rosenthal and Mayor Villaraigosa to keep the CDD and support group meetings funded. See letter below:

May 19, 2009

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa &
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City of Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2601

RE: Funding CDD Support Groups

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Rosendahl:

Stakeholders have brought to the attention of the Venice Neighborhood Council that funding cuts for the Community Development Department (“CDD”) has canceled support group meetings held at the Vera Davis Center.

The Vera Davis Center is a priceless resource, which provides countless services to the Venice community. One such service is providing Alcoholic and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Attendance of these meetings can reach over eighty people, and many are young. Due to budget cuts two meetings a week have been canceled.

In this economic climate it is imperative not to cut services that directly affect those who are in need of help the most. Addiction is a plague that ruins lives, destroys families, and deteriorates communities. Every minute of each meeting strengthen sobriety, reduces poverty, and prevents crime.

We urge you to reinstate the cuts made to the CDD so that the Vera Davis Center can provide this essential service to the Venice community once again.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter


The Venice Neighborhood Council

D From Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Occupation

I Motion for Creation of Single Room Occupancy Facility
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; Request that the VNC ask the Councilman of the District and the Mayor to support the creation a new Single Room Occupancy project in Venice to house the most critically at risk homeless as soon as possible, through either master leasing or purchasing an existing structure as opposed to new development, and to this end recommend that the the Council Office, the Mayor and the Los Angeles Housing Department consider the sites below as examples of appropriate sites for such housing:

585 E. Venice Boulevard (former Samy’s Camera), Zoning: M1-1
4096 South Glencoe, Zoning: CM-2D (storage use)
4230 S. Del Rey Avenue, Zoning: CM-2D (storage use)

as explained in detail in the Ad Hoc Committee’s report. See Exhibit D – available separately at….

II Motion to Create VNC Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Committee
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; Request that That the VNC establish a Committee on Affordable Housing to promote the development of affordable housing and that said committee consider the following incentives:

• voluntary inclusionary zoning to allow an additional small affordable unit(s) (400 to 600 sq. ft.) per lot where lot size is adequate (i.e., those which now are allowed two or more units by right).
• selective re-zoning along major thorough-fares to allow owners the ability to build more and smaller units per acre.
• Historical Preservation variances that create incentives to retain existing non-conforming affordable housing stock (not to include legalization of garage conversions unless code-required parking is provided.)
• the reduction – but not elimination – of required care-provider staff parking and occupant parking for facilities which house the previously homeless, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) projects, and very low to low income projects. (For example, instead of the current requirement of one parking space per unit in an SRO project, the City might only require .5 spaces per unit, recognizing that individuals at this income level frequently do not have automobiles.)

III Motion for LAPD to Create Homeless Liaison Team
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; Request that the VNC request the LAPD to develop a team of officers with special training and primary responsibility for outreach to, and liaison with, the homeless in Venice and CD 11 and local social services providers, per the report and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Living.

IV Motion for Limited Zoning Exemption for Permanent Supportive Housing
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; Request that the VNC recommend to the Councilman of the District and Mayor that, for the purpose of construction or adaptive reuse to create permanent supportive housing or transitional housing for chronic homeless individuals only, that a zoning exemption be granted to increase the number of units per acre (while maintaining height limits) beyond City code and the Venice Specific Plan, if the units created are vested in perpetuity as affordable by the project developer, whether publicly or privately developed, and located in commercial or manufacturing zones only, per the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.

V Motion for Greater City Subsidies for Affordable Housing
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; Request that the VNC recommend to the Councilman of the District and the Mayor that the City of Los Angeles factor in the high cost of land in the development of affordable housing and provide greater subsidies for areas of the City with high land costs where there are significant concentrations of homeless individuals, such as Venice, to allow the purchase of sites in, or adjacent to, these areas.

VI Motion to Create Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; Request that the VNC recommend that the City of Los Angeles establish a program, funded by the City, County and possibly private charitable sources, and operated by a non-profit social service provider, to provide first responders and off-street sites and services to assist vehicular dwellers, on a voluntary basis, find affordable housing, per the program outline and conditional use permit contained in the Ad Committee’s report and recommendations.

VII Motion to Create CD 11-wide Homeless Task Force
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; To assure that homelessness on the Westside is addressed as the regional issue that it is, request that that the VNC recommend that the Councilman of the District establish a CD 11-wide Homeless Task Force with two representatives of each neighborhood council and also representatives of residents associations to meet monthly with the Council Office, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, representatives of adjoining cities, service providers, representatives of appropriate county supervisors and county departments (County Mental Health, etc.), LA Housing Department, LAPD, LA City Attorney, etc., with the purpose of coordinating homeless services, educating the public about the solutions to homelessness, supporting increased private and public funding for services and housing for the homeless and reaching consensus on the siting of transition and permanent supportive affordable housing for the homeless.

VIII Motion to extend the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness & Vehicular Occupation to September 18, 2009
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; To continue the dialogue begun by this Committee with various agencies and officials, to advance the recommendations made by this Committee (or which will be made by this Committee), and to maintain a focus on the needs of the homeless in our community, request that the VNC confirm the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee that it continue to meet until its one-year renewal date on September 18, 2009, on the subject of Homelessness, and the related issues of development of affordable housing in and around Venice, on a once per month basis or as determined by its chair(s), and that it act as the VNC’s interlocutor with homeless serving agencies, both public and private, City agencies such as the LAPD and City Attorney and LAHD, County representatives, and LAHSA. The committee shall also hold meetings with various agencies to gauge progress in assisting Venice’s homeless population gain access to services and housing.

E From the Rules & Elections Committee

I Standing Rule mandating Ethics Training for new Board members
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; Request board adopt the following:

Any Board member who has not received a certificate of completion for the mandated ethics training will be prohibited from voting on any land use issues or financial expenditures of any city funds.

II Standing Rule limiting repeat bylaw elections following defeat
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; Request board adopt the following standing rule regarding election time limits for scheduling stakeholder ratifications of by-laws elections that do not meet minimum requirements for passage or defeat:

The Board cannot hold a stakeholder ratification for the same bylaw amendment or an amendment that addresses substantially the same issue in any six month period.

III Bylaw amendment limiting occurrence of petition elections
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; Request board adopt the following amendment to VNC Bylaw VA1:

Receipt of this completed petition by the Secretary shall trigger this item being scheduled as an action item on the Agenda at a separate Election Meeting to be held not less than thirty (30) days nor more than Delete: ninety (90) Add: two hundred and ten (210) days following receipt of the completed petition. Notice of the Initiative, including the outline paragraph of fifty (50) words or less, shall be made in all public meeting notices and announcements for the upcoming meeting at which the Initiative shall be voted on. Add: This time limit may be waived by a majority vote of the VNC Board if there is evidence of a time sensitive matter.

IV Approval of REC responses to City Clerk regarding 2010 VNC Board elections
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; Request board adopt the REC decisions reflected in the attached Exhibit E.

10. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda (15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person)
(no board member announcements permitted)

11. Adjourn (approx 10:00PM)

h1=. AdCom Exhibit A – Neighborhood Council – Case Tracking System
Pilot Overview V1.0, September 6, 2008 (Murez)

The Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC) has matured over the past several years. It has evolved from one meeting every couple of months with only one or two projects on the agenda to now responding to a Memorandum of Understanding with the City to submit a written determination report on every permit issued within the VNC geographic region. The committee has become more educated about the planning process and is now working towards a 2010 target of revising the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan.
Along with these growing responsibilities, the workload of the committee has increased from one or two projects being calendared every few months to the present level of hearing three to five projects twice a month. On average, what does this mean to each of the eight volunteer members that make up this committee, a workload that includes preparing 27 staff reports per month.

The process to analyze and prepare a project for hearing is fairly simple; contact the applicant, convince them to submit their plans for review, research the variances sought and flush out any that were not realized, organize their information and post it to the LUPC website, engage the potentially impacted neighbors and prepare a synopsis to post for Brown Act notification. Now multiply this process for one project 27 fold and the amount of information gathered and disseminated through this eight member volunteer committee becomes massive. What started out as a simple endeavor has now grown into a complex task with time sensitive details that must be accurately managed.

Automation to the rescue… with this sort of workload, managing details calls for a computerized case tracking system. What is needed is a centralized system that all committee members can access when they have volunteer time to give, that can reduce or eliminate many of the mundane tasks, and that will help engage the general public in the process. The system needs to enforce the policy rules of the VNC Board and the committee, while ensuring Brown Act laws are adhered. And, finally, the system must be available to all Venice Stakeholders and the City at large.

A pilot proof-of-concept system is being developed to address many of these needs. The system is being designed as a collaboration tool that will be managed over the internet. System access will be regulated through User Accounts that are grouped into security levels, starting with the general public then moving up the access ladder to project applicant, followed by registered stakeholder, committee staff member, committee chair, system administrator and program developers. Each higher group will be granted more access to functionality and system capabilities.

The system will track information by assigning case numbers to each project. The project or case files will be stored in a database and accessed through their respective case numbers. The routines that extract and modify the stored information will vary based on the individual access rights. The system will offer read-only reports to the general public while allowing stakeholders the rights to post feedback about issues they might have with any given project. Applicants will be assigned temporary access to upload their information and respond to feedback. LUPC staff members will be able to monitor all aspects of the cases, including being able to publish their findings, track correspondence and write recommendations (tentative motions) for the VNC Board to approve. Search and mapping functionality along with tracking key indicators will enable statistical analysis of accumulative impacts to be graphically generated. The VNC Board members, besides inheriting all the rights of the lower groups, will be able to post their final motion decisions and generate reports required by the City.

In addition, the audio meeting minutes that are digitally recorded will be divided into segments that correspond to the each project and posted into the case file along with any other archives.

In a nutshell, the LUPC Case Tracking system will automate the flow of information through the Neighborhood Council in a consistent, easy to understand format, while relieving a lot of the tedious tasks volunteers must perform at present. (follow up with PowerPoint overview and system demonstration.)

h1=. Exhibit A – LUPC De Minimis Projects (Item 4)

See attached document below.

Exhibit B – Treasurers Report (Item 5)

See attached document below.

h1=. Exhibit C – SLS Discussion Questions (Item 8BI)

Discussion Questions Index


Small Lot Subdivision Board/LUPC Review Procedure February 17, 2009 LUPC Motion


Joe Murphy Questions Arnold Springer Statement


May 23, 2008 Board Motion & Letter to Councilman Rosendahl LUPC Small Lot Subdivision (Town Home) Ordinance Summary

Small Lot Subdivision Board/LUPC Review Procedure & February 17, 2009 LUPC Motion

The Administrative Committee decided, at its March 9, 2009 meeting, to implement the following proposal for final discussion & vote at the Board’s May 19, 2009 mtg:

Joe Murphy ( I would like AdCom to consider Jed Pauker’s below suggestion & to include an invitation to Shana Bonstin to address the Board. Jed’s 02/21/2009 suggestion:

All, Given the time frame, perhaps it will be helpful for LUPC, and for the VNC Board, to schedule multiple considerations over the next two months of the effects of this ordinance. Whether you already support or oppose the SLSO as it affects Venice, the ordinance represents a very significant amount of work by Planning, with dedicated research and follow-up by LUPC. Its complexity of issues affecting day-to-day Venice life and development cannot possibly be explicated in two or three hours. I’m not entirely willing to “bet the farm” – the relationship between VNC and the City Planning Department – on an issue where due process is (finally) allowing timely public input. Knowing that it takes a lot to get Venetians out of our yards and into the chambers of civic counsel, wouldn’t some coordinated and sustained outreach effort be a “best practice” here? Understanding that this might slow down the process, what’s the hurry? Inviting Helene Bibas to answer questions in 2007 and Shana Bonstin to discuss the Director’s Interpretation last month were two of the smartest things LUPC has done during my short tenure. Why not build on these successes by giving this issue the considered forum it deserves? IMHO, Jed Pauker

Inviting Shana Bonstin to speak would broaden Board understanding of this issue. As in the selection of members to fill board & LUPC vacancies, this would provide an opportunity for Board Members to pose questions. It would also provide Shana & LUPC an opportunity to respond in writing for distribution to the Board and posting for public information before discussion at the April meeting and discussion and vote at the May meeting.

Challis Macpherson and Joe Murphy recommend the following schedule:

• On or before Friday March 27, 2009 Board & LUPC members are asked to:

1. Review the attached Venice Coastal Specific Plan Director of Planning Specific Plan Interpretation and the attached ‘VNC prior recommendations’ which LUPC indicated that it ‘wants the Director to consider’ (see below LUPC motion).

2. Prepare & email questions they may have about its impact on Venice to Joe Murphy ( and Challis Macpherson (

• On or before Friday April 3, 2009 Joe Murphy compiles & posts the questions on the web and emails them to the Board & LUPC & Shana Bonstin.

• On or before Wednesday April 8, 2009 LUPC (or individual LUPC members) & Shana Bonstin prepare responses to the Board & LUPC questions and send them to Joe Murphy ( along with any reports or other materials they deem relevant for Board & stakeholder review. Joe Murphy then posts these materials on the web and emails them to the Board & LUPC & Shana Bonstin. This process will be repeated as necessary to air and clarify all concerns.

• At the Tuesday April 21, 2009 Board Meeting LUPC (or individual LUPC members) will attend to briefly frame the issues they consider to be key and to respond to Board member and stakeholder questions.

• At the Tuesday May 19, 2009 Board Meeting Shana Bonstin will attend to briefly frame the issues she considers to be key and to respond to Board member and stakeholder questions. The Board will then consider and vote on the original motion presented by LUPC at the Board’s February 17 meeting which is:

February 17, 2009 LUPC Motion
Challis Macpherson ( on behalf of LUPC: Regarding DIR 2008-4703 DI, Director’s (of Planning Department) Interpretation of Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance as it pertains to VCZSP; considering that LUPC unanimously disagrees with the Director’s Interpretation and wants the Director to consider VNC prior recommendations, LUPC recommends that the VNC Board of Officers recommend that this document be reconsidered in light of prior recommendations made by VNC.

Joe Murphy Questions

I believe that housing & diversity are correlated ? diverse housing is key to community diversity. So my questions are:

1. Will the VSP or the Director’s Venice Interpretation of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance encourage owners to build a larger number of smaller homes in Venice?

2. Will the VSP or the Director’s Venice Interpretation of the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance encourage owners to build a larger number of affordable homes in Venice?

3. Based upon what I’ve heard & read, my understanding of the issues to date is as follows:

a. If an affordable unit on a lot is demolished, both the SLS and the VSP require that it be replaced.
b. If there is no affordable unit on a lot that permits building 3 units, the VSP would require a 3rd unit, if proposed, be affordable whereas the SLS would not. Both the VSP and the SLS would permit the construction of 2 units without requiring that either be affordable. The VSP permits the construction of 1 unit; the SLS is not relevant to a 1 unit proposal.
c. If a lot without an affordable unit on it is large enough, the VSP would limit construction to 2 units, or three units if one is affordable, whereas the SLS would permit the construction of 4 units without requiring that any be affordable – and this would hold true if the lot were large enough to be subdivided under the SLS into more than 4 units.
d. If the lot were large enough to allow 4 parcels to be created under the SLS with one unit on each lot, the SLS and the VSP would both require 2 ½ parking spaces per unit – ie, a total of 10 parking spaces. If one of the 4 is an affordable unit, the VSP would still require 10 parking spaces whereas the SLS would only require 9.
e. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in a larger number of homes (and greater density) under the Director’s Interpretation than under the VSP.
f. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in a larger number of smaller homes under the Director’s Interpretation than under the VSP.
g. A ‘build out’ of Venice would result in no difference in the number of additional (or replacement) affordable homes under either the Director’s Interpretation or the VSP.

Please correct my understandings above & add any key issue I’ve failed to include. Please provide examples to help clarify any changes & additions.

Arnold Springer Statement

——-Original Message——-
From: Arnold Springer []
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Challis Macpherson
Cc: ‘LUPC’
Subject: For Your Deliberations:

Dear Challis.

I am submitting this for the SLSO VSP reconciliation process which you and Joe Murphy are supervising. I assume this position paper will be submitted to the Board in its entirety, and not summarized by either you or Joe and that all other submissions will be treated in a similar manner.

My position is that this issue of increased density authorized by the SLSO and ‘clarified’ by the Directors Interpretation will have a decided impact on Massing and Scale. Therefore, increasing residential density should be handled carefully and deliberately by revising the Venice Specific Plan. The Board should call for the start up of hearings and workshops now, and not support rushing to a decision on the Directors Interpretation.

What’s the hurry, anyway?

I will be content to let others talk about parking, affordable housing and outline concerns in these areas. But otherwise I especially think that the impact of the Director’s Interpretation on the R-3 and C-1 zoned areas of Venice should be of very real concern to the VNC Board and to you when you make your presentation and ask questions of Shana B.

Arnold Springer



1) Venice was designated as a special beach community characterized by special design characteristics which were supposed to be protected and preserved. Coastal Commission took the lead on this and City of LA reluctantly followed.
2) The Draft Neighborhood Plans drawn up by Venice neighbors (1988-89) in a LA City sanctioned process were ignored and or omitted by L.A City planners when they issued the VSP. (1990-1991?).
3) The City never submitted the VSP to be certified by the Coastal Commission because, among other things, it had omitted a key element of the neighborhood plans which would have protected the special character of the three beach residential neighborhoods and walk streets.

The result was that, although many people who subsequently decided to build in Venice voluntarily decided to respect neighborhood character (22-27 foot buildings), others, developers who were motivated by other considerations, built 30-35 height three story, two unit boxes. These over sized and out of scale buildings dot the Venice community and anyone can pick them out. Examples of newer projects which don’t fit the neighborhood character where they were build but conform to the VSP are to be seen in all neighborhoods.


1) Overly massive and out of scale development has been a recurrent appeal issue before the VNC.
2) New 3 story development (30-37 feet) is common in existing one and two story (15-27 feet) residential areas of Venice.
3) Rooftop access sun deck/garden can add 4-5 feet for security wall.
4) Rooftop access structures add up to 10 feet by 10 ft top box above the typical roofline of 30-35 ft.

The SLSO (Director’s Interpretation) allows three units per lot, where two were allowed under the VSP.


The result will be a reduction in the size of the units. To make these smaller units more attractive, developers will seek to eliminate open space and maximize the height as well as the square footage. Common interior walls with no set backs are being proposed now. The result will be out of scale and excessively massed new boxes. No light, no air, for the three units or for the adjacent neighbors. They compensate with rooftop decks which hurt the adjacent neighbors even more.

The only way to stop this from happening is to: (a) limit the total square footage of build able on each lot, or (b) adopt design restrictions similar to those already recommended by special neighborhoods in the Draft Neighborhood Specific Plans.

The SLSO was advertised as an attempt to increase the supply of new housing while protecting the bungalow type residential construction characteristic of beach communities such as San Pedro and Venice. In the absence of massing and scale guidelines or total square footage restrictions the SLSO adds density but destroys the special neighborhood character.

The problem is that nothing but the VSP limits the heights of buildings since all the design elements in the draft neighborhood specific plans were removed by the Planning Department when it issued the VSP.

Design restrictions were in fact included in Oakwood, Milwood, and Central Venice Draft Specific Plans and these design elements would have protected the Special Character of the Neighborhoods. The VSP, as issued by the City, does not.

Consequently, with no VSP design restrictions on height and massing and scale (removed by the City but extant in the Draft Neighborhood Specific Plans) the SLSO, when it is applied, will allowed for very large boxes, of say 3 separate homes or units on a standard VSP lot.

The result will be to exacerbate the construction of large boxes which fill the build able envelope of these small lots. Thus to adopt a density increase of 2 to 3 units will undermine the neighborhood character with overly massive and out of scale new development.

The SLSO needs to recognize the legitimate concerns of neighbors who wish to maintain neighborhood character and object to out of scale new development in their neighborhoods.

The Directors Interpretation needs to recognize that the special bungalow like character of the Venice neighborhoods and especially the walk streets needs to be protected, as promised by the City and Coastal Commission, and not sacrificed to a 1/3 increase in residential density as proposed under the SLSO.

The VNC needs to defend and represent the legitimate concerns of neighbors and neighborhoods for new construction which fits in with the existing neighborhood character and does not overwhelm or destroy that character.


When the LUP and the LCP for Venice were being developed by Los Angeles Planning Department, a program of public participation was instituted by the City, a public program which was mandated by the Coastal Act and Coastal Commission. Central to this program were the creation of Draft Neighborhood Plans, which were meant to fine tune the Coastal Commission’s development guidelines and prepare the way for the adoption of the Venice Coastal Program. As a member of the Venice Town Council I helped oversee those meetings and was an active participant in the Milwood Neighborhood Draft Plan.

Most of the neighbors, in Milwood, but in other neighborhoods as well, were already concerned about over scale new developments, boxes which filled an envelope, deprived neighbors of their light, air, privacy, and horizons. At that time the height set by the Coastal Commission for buildings in Venice was 30 ft, and the density was 2 units per lot.

Most everyone in the neighborhoods accepted that two units per lot was reasonable, although some people wanted more units if these were low income.

But for the neighbors, the problem was the height and boxes filling development envelopes. So at the meetings there was much discussion about how to lower the height and reduce the massing and scale, so that new construction could fit in with the scale of the existing housing stock. Milwood, Central Venice and other neighborhoods sought to resolve this dispute by proposing more specific restrictive heights at about 25 feet, and second story setbacks. Other neighborhoods developed a volumetric approach which they thought would achieve the same result.

The result they were aiming for was to have new development in residential neighborhoods fit in with the scale of the existing developments in a specific neighborhood or area. Everyone agreed that property rights had to be guaranteed and that restricting the height of new construction to 12 or 15 feet was probably unconstitutional and confiscatory . At the same time most everyone agreed that two stories should be the height which developers and applicants aimed for in new construction, and that would be acceptable to neighbors.


When the Planning Department produced the VCZSP, it decided to leave out of it all the mechanisms which the various neighborhoods had agreed upon. They did this because, they said, it would be too hard to implement and or regulate by the City. This was before the Neighborhood Councils were created, and the City did not want to empower the Venice Town Council to regulate the development.

Venice activists were upset, but thought they would have a chance to reintroduce these elements on scale and massing at the Coastal Commission, when the VCZSP was submitted by the City to the Commission for approval. But since the City has refused for 15 years to submit this plan for Coastal Commission certification, Venice stakeholders and neighbors have never gotten the opportunity to participate fully as promised by the City and by the Coastal Act. Thus the massing and scale issues were never resolved.

At the time the City’s decision to ignore stakeholders and activists concerns on scale and massing were hailed by developers. But now the chickens have come home to roost. Scale and Massing were issues back in 1988, in 1972 (when the height was lowered by the Coastal Commission from 45 to 30 feet, against the wishes of the City of Los Angeles) and they continue to be issues today. LUPC forwarded recommendations to the VNC Board but Ad.Com refused to allow these to be heard and discussed.


‘Language urging restraint on Massing and Scale issues already exists so this policy is in fact redundant.’

Some have recently argued that both the current LUP, Community Plan, and VCZSP contain language which urges people/ applicants to respect massing and scale issues when developing new project proposals for specific neighborhoods or streets.. However, this language is often ignored by developers who give lip service to the existence of such language but then disrespect it when applying for their projects.

In fact, while this language does actually exist, it does not have the force of law, and is often just ignored by developers and by the City in favor of the specific height limits set out in the VCZSP.

The Draft Specific Plans which contain the suggestions of the various neighborhoods on how specifically to address the issue of out of scale development need to be revisited in a neighborhood process of meetings and discussions.


Project height creep has been extensive in Venice recently. If the height limit is 30 feet, then developers often seek to ‘cheat up’ to 32 feet and then add 4 feet so they can have a fence for safety purposes around their roof top deck, then install at 9-10 foot roof access structure which effectively set the building at about 35 feet and a huge rooftop access structure at 40 feet. This has resulted in serious ‘height creep’ and caused neighborhood dissatisfaction and unrest, which this Board has been hearing. The VNC should be representing the neighbors and neighborhoods and protecting same from out of character and out of scale new development.

May 23, 2008 Board Motion & Letter to Councilman Rosendahl

Venice Neighborhood Council
PO Box 550, Venice, CA 90294 /
Email: / Phone or Fax: 310.606.2015

May 23, 2008
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City Hall
200 North Spring Street, Room 415
Los Angeles, California 90012

Subject: Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance Number 176354 Enacted December 14, 2004 and
Approved December 16, 2004

Dear Bill:

The Board of Officers of the Venice Neighborhood Council at a regular meeting May 20, 2008 passed a motion by 13-1-4 as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Committee at a regular meeting May 7, 2008 to draft the following policy statement letter for distribution to reflect the following regarding Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance Number 176354:

When a parcel of land is subdivided into two or more lots, the sum of the individual lots shall not exceed the whole of the parcel as defined by the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (VCZSP). This shall be a City imposed condition of the subdivision which will require a reciprocal statement to be recorded on the Title of each lot which shall stay in effect as long as the subdivision exists.

The vote further asked the Los Angeles City Department of Housing to implement policy reflecting that replacement affordable units shall be defined as per the clarification in the new Mello Act legislation.

Background: The City of Los Angeles passed a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance which is undermining the intent of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. The SLSO is a City wide ordinance which was written after the VCZSP was adopted. The VCZSP defined maximum restriction for parcels of land within the sub areas defined by the plan. The SLSO allows a parcel of land to be divided into smaller lots providing each lot does not exceed the limits of the specific plan. However, this SLSO allowance does not take into account neighborhood and community impacts when a large parcel is divided into many smaller lots each of which inherent the governing code of the specific plan.

Example: The owner of a 3,000 square foot parcel which is zoned RD1.5 (a typical Oakwood or Walkstreets parcel) applies for a Small Lot Subdivision. They intend to divide the parcel into two 1,500 square foot lots. The VCZSP allows the owner to develop each lot based on the rules that apply for the subarea, in this case a duplex or second structure is allowed on RD1.5 parcels and a third unit is permitted so long as it is registered as a replacement affordable dwelling. Hence lies the problem, the original parcel which allowed only two units after subdividing now has four units and the requirement for any third unit to be designated as affordable is gone because each of the new lots is two small to have a third dwelling.

Impacts: The impacts to the community include; reduction in affordable housing, increased traffic, greater demands on the infrastructure and the recycling of many original and perhaps historic Venice cottage styled homes (including walk streets).



Mike Newhouse, President
Venice Neighborhood Council
CC: City of Los Angeles, Department of Housing
S. Gail Goldberg, General Manager, City of Los Angeles, Department of Planning
Betsy Weisman, Senior Planner, City of Los Angeles, Department of Planning

LUPC Small Lot Subdivision (Town Home) Ordinance Summary

A new ordinance (2005) permitting small lot, fee-simple ownership opportunities in commercial and multi-family neighborhoods has recently been adopted. The new law provides an entirely new housing option which allows people to purchase a house and the lot it sits on, just like they do in a single family neighborhood, rather than a unit in a condominium.

Properties zoned for multi-family residential use may be subdivided into much smaller lots than is required today, while complying with the density requirements established by both the zoning and the General Plan. It is anticipated that the ordinance will reduce the cost of home ownership and generate creative housing solutions, such as modern versions of bungalow courts, courtyard housing and row houses.

Documents posted to LUPC section of VNC website:

The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance
Small Lot Subdivision Design Guidelines, FYI.
The Small Lot Subdivision Advisory Policy from 2006, FYI.
Venice Community Profile
Population, Housing, Employment Projections Plan Population and Dwelling Unit Capacity

Detailed comparison between Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance and the Venice Coastal Specific Plan is contained in the Director’s Interpretation, to be released on Monday. The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance was adopted after the adoption of Venice Coastal Specific Plan and the subject interpretation clarifies the maximum number of permitted units, number of subdivided lots, number of required parking spaces, location of driveways, and minimum setback requirements relative to each zone and each subarea within the Specific Plan.

Section 11.5.7 F.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code authorizes “Interpretations of Specific Plans.” The Director of Planning has the authority to interpret specific plans when there is a lack of clarity in the meaning of their regulations. This Director’s Determination is called a “Director’s Interpretation” and is the formal way to publicly clarify a point of confusion (or differing interpretations). The process for a Director’s Interpretation requires the Decision be drafted and transmitted as done for Project Permit Compliance Decisions. The subject document, upon being published, will be reviewed by the community, including the Venice Neighborhood Council.

The City Planning Commission shall hear appeals on Director’s Interpretations which affect an entire specific plan area, as the subject Interpretation does. I do not have the authority to change this process. I wish there were a way to present to you our interpretation first, get your specific feedback, and then issue the determination.

The Section of the LAMC authorizing Director’s Interpretations is copied here:

H. Interpretations of Specific Plans. The Director shall have authority to interpret specific plans when there is a lack of clarity in the meaning of their regulations.

1. Application Procedure. To request a specific plan interpretation, an applicant shall file an application with the Department of City Planning pursuant to the application procedure set forth in Paragraph (a) of Subdivision 2 of Subsection B of this section. The application shall include a reference to the specific plan regulation(s) for which clarification is requested and a narrative description of why a clarification is necessary for the project or subject property involved. 2. Director’s Decision. Upon receipt of a deemed complete application, the Director’s written interpretation shall be subject to the same time limit to act, transmittal requirement and effective date of decision as set forth in Paragraphs (a) through© of Subdivision 4 of Subsection C. 3. Appeals. The City Planning Commission shall hear appeals on Director interpretations which affect an entire specific plan area or any of its subareas, and the Area Planning Commission shall hear appeals on Director interpretations which are applicable only on a site specific basis. The procedures for filing and processing appeals of Director interpretations shall otherwise be the same as those set forth in Subdivision 6 of Subsection C of this section. LAMC Section 11.5.7 in it’s entirety is posted. Section H is at the bottom of page 7.

h1=. Exhibit D – Ad Hoc Homelessness & Vehicular Occupation Report (Item 9DI)

Available online only at…

Exhibit E – REC Responses to City Clerk on 2010 Election (Item 9EIV)

(To be provided by IK)


090511VNCAdComAgenda.doc688.5 KB
090507AHHomeless&VecOccCmteReport&RecommendationToVNCRev.doc161.5 KB
090507AHHomeless&VecOccCmteMinorityReport.doc36 KB
090519LUPCDeMinimisProjects-ExhibitA.xls24.5 KB
090519Budget-ExhibitB.doc226.5 KB
090519SLSDiscussionQuestions&ShanaBonstinResponses.doc142 KB
090519LUPCDeMinimisProjectsRev-ExhibitA.xls23 KB
090519WindwardCirclePark&Community-ArtsCenter.pdf942.35 KB