Petition to City Council, Donald Wagner, Lynn Schott, Melissa Fox, Jeffrey Lalloway, Christina Shea, Anthony Kuo, Susan Emery, Sean Joyce, Planning Commission, Dustin Nirschl
Protect the Rights of Irvine Residents; Demand the City put its People *BEFORE* Developers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UPDATE 6/13/17: Thanks to our supporters, significant progress has been made! The Irvine Company has proposed to move the Safari Substation to an alternative site that is acceptable to both the City of Irvine and the Spectrum 5 community (NoSubstation.com). We are now asking Southern California Edison to agree with the proposal. Please SIGN OUR PETITION and come to the Safari Substation Public Discussion on Tuesday, 6/27/17 @ 4:00PM to show your support. For more information, please read the Petition Updates posted below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Call on the Irvine City Council to continue taking decisive action on behalf of the people of Irvine! The Spectrum 5 community originally came together to stop Southern California Edison (SCE) and The Irvine Company from dropping a high-voltage electrical substation in the middle of our fully built-out community. After nearly 1-1/2 years of petitioning the Irvine City Council and Planning Commission, we have obtained the support of the City Council. Now both The Irvine Company and SCE are speaking to us about alternatives for the Safari Substation. This is the kind of resident-city-utility-developer dialogue we have been asking for since the beginning. Please sign our petition to let the City Council and City staff know that we appreciate and support their initiative in getting the Safari Substation moved to a safe and compatible location. WEBSITE: www.NoSubstation.comFACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/NoSubstation INSTAGRAM: www.instagram.com/NoSubstation TWITTER: www.twitter.com/NoSubstationHASHTAG: #NoSubstation Original petition content...
Petition to Michael LoGrande (Director, L.A. City Planning), Mike Bonin, Eric Garcetti, VNC Board, LUPC , Tricia Keane, Kevin Jones
CALLING FOR A MORATORIUM ON MANSIONIZATION & SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS IN VENICE, CA
We the undersigned call for the following: - an immediate moratorium on the 'McMansionization' of VENICE - an immediate moratorium on Small Lot Subdivisions (SLS) in VENICE - a denial of all Small Lot Subdivisions currently pending for VENICE - no building permits to be issued for Small Lot Subdivisions prior to recordation of final map In VENICE - FULL public notification and participation, as set forth by Federal, State, and Local Law, in any and all proposed developments in VENICE. Additionally, we the undersigned call for full enforcement of the California Coastal Act, the Mello Act, and the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan, because the cumulative effect of recent development in VENICE is diminishing the quality of life for it’s residents, and negating the purpose of said protections put in place to preserve the Coastal Zone. Here are 3 consistent and repeated ways that the City is ignoring and violating Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (VCZSP):1. City Planning is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (SLSO) to trump the Specific Plan, although the law says that specific plans always trump ordinances. The City is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to allow more units on lots than the Specific Plan allows, and is not requiring any guest parking at all, and is allowing tandem parking that people often don't use, rather than side-by-side parking.2. Allowing buildings to be constructed to the maximum possible size even when the proposed building is totally out of scale with the neighborhood i.e. three story buildings that block all of the neighbors' sunlight in a one-story or two-story neighborhood. The Specific Plan requires an evaluation of the compatibility of the mass and scale of the proposed building with the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning Department does not do this, and they have set up a process where there is no appeal. If the Planning Department continues to get away with this, soon Venice will be all 3-story compounds with very little sun or air between the buildings. 3. The Planning Department is issuing illegal DIRs that blatantly violate the Specific Plan. Then the City says that there's no appeal because the 14-day deadline has passed. The community has no real notice and no opportunity to respond. The City refuses to email citizens a .pdf of the DIRs as they are issued, they only send a mailed copy.Whereas per The CA Coastal Act. Section 30116 Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas – Venice has the following characteristics:b. areas possessing significant recreational value.c. Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor designation areas.Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income-persons.The public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development.From Section 30250 Location; existing developed area:“In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.”Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities:“Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. Section 30252 (e) and enhancement of public access:Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”
Petition to Mike Bonin, Shana Bonstin, Will Salao, Kathleen Barnes, Beth Goldberg, Mike Feuer, Tricia Keane, Rocky Wiles
STOP FULL-LICENSE RESTAURANT / BAR WITH TAKE-OUT BEER AND WINE SALES AT 320 SUNSET AVENUE, VENICE
OPPOSE the liquor license application for a FULL LICENSE "restaurant" with TAKE OUT beer and wine sales at Gjusta, 320 Sunset Ave., Venice - in a small, quiet artist neighborhood -- close to Google --- with extremely limited parking and just 13 feet from people's homes!It's obvious that the developer is making this move to capitalize on being so close to Google and if he's allowed to do it, there will be others following in his path - commercializing and congesting the tiny little intersection at Sunset and 3rd Ave. Added to which, the developer has misrepresented his project from the very beginning - passing it off as a "bakery with accessory retail". If this place does anywhere near as good as Gjelina's it will create constant traffic from dawn to dusk. This is going to be a big operation with up to 110 capacity (staff + customers) with takeout food, beer & wine traffic added on.Some may think that sounds like a good idea - but not in this location which backs onto a residential area and has very little parking!From a neighborhood resident: "TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT! The applicant, who also owns Gjelina's on Abbot Kinney and next door, GTA, has caused serious/serial problems to the surrounding neighborhood for the past 8 years!He exploits the neighborhood for his own financial gain, and has no regard or concern for how to be a good neighbor...and it looks like he's planning on doing the same and possibly MUCH worse in this quiet corner of Venice at 320 Sunset Ave.He has misled the neighborhood from the start, leading them to believe he was opening a local "bakery", while ALL ALONG he was planning a fully licensed restaurant seating 90 people, with outdoor patio dining, and a staff of 30 employees per shift.He plans to open 19 hours per day, from 6AM to 1AM, with full bar AND OFF-SITE (takeout) beer & wine sales. A fact that he HID from the community until he was exposed, and which will drastically change our neighborhood FOR THE WORSE.This out of character development in this M-1 (manufacturing) zone will ruin residents' daily lives due to noise pollution from patrons, equipment and traffic.Not to mention the acute lack of parking which all the neighbors experience...and he has no intention nor obligation to provide any! If he has a massive turnover of patrons per day, it would be a huge drain on local street parking, which is already scarce, forcing us all to park several blocks from our homes. Not safe at all.Plus, Sunset Ave. would not allow for ease of traffic flow from all the added congestion to and from his business. Pedestrians, and cyclists alike would be in jeopardy safety-wise from that kind of traffic obstruction.He maintains that he would be cleaning up the area and doing "us," the neighborhood a huge service, when really we know he is just coming in to exploit our neighborhood as he did with Abbot Kinney Blvd. and the surrounding residential streets.WE NEED TO SPEAK UP NOW AND LOUDLY!