Statement of Ed Martin, to the Venice City Planning Commission, April 3, 2007

Good afternoon. I am Ed Martin, a citizen of Venice with an interest in preserving the qualities of Venice as exemplified by the Nolen city plan that surrounds us, and which has become a national model of good urban design.

I am recommending that the Planning Commission deny the petition for conditional use for height identified as No. 06-1CU. I base this recommendation on several factors: 1). The essential nature of the project; 2).failure to satisfy the criteria for conditional use, e.g., criteria No. 2, General compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district, and criteria No. 3, scale of the development. 3) I also find the project inconsistent with parts of the city’s Evaluation and Appraisal Report and finally, 4) the road traffic burden appears to be inconsistent with existing  or confirmed road infrastructure plans.

Factor 1. This project is primarily a residential project rather than a commercial one. More than twice the acreage, 50 of the 73 acres is given over to 699 residential units. In the 23 acres dedicated to commercial use another 31 residential units are included. A minority of the project involves other uses including a hotel, recreational, office and commercial structures.

The general criterion for “commercial,” as this property is zoned, is that no portion of the structure shall exceed 35 feet in height” without special approval of the planning commission, according to the city’s presentation before you. Although not noted, I believe conditional use for height must also be approved by city council.

New development projects are supposed to be consistent with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, (EAR), a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. I believe the Petition does not demonstrate that it meets Part H of the EAR, titled Master Planning and Neighborhood Development. That provision states that planning practices the city employs should guarantee that expected population growth and development do not alter Venice’s character and diminish its quality of life.

The provision goes on to state that neighborhood development should, “consider issues of affordable housing and alternative housing options” so that those who work in the community may live there. I find no statements in this petition that describe provisions for affordable housing. The developer could conceivably have such intentions, but this request does not spell them out. The application mentions 731 units of housing. Estimating two persons per unit one can expect almost 1500 people; just less than 10 percent of the current population of Venice will reside there, so this is a very significant change to the existing city.

The applicant is asking for 20 buildings with heights greater than 40 feet, including one at 62 feet and two at 60 feet. In addition, staff has determined that 10 more buildings may be 45 feet including 10 feet of parking underneath so, in all, there will be 30 buildings of 45 or more feet in an area that is now, for the most part, undeveloped. It is clear that this project alters Venice’s character and that the extra height, rather than being a limited exception, will be the rule. There are no other buildings of comparable height in the surrounding areas of Venice or the County.

Approval of this project would have enormous precedent value and should not precede the city council’s deciding on an overall vision of the area the city is calling North Venice

If approvals go forward for this project and others in this area, there will be thousands of units of housing, and many thousands of new residents, yet the City has not developed an overall “form-based” plan, (or any other conceptual plan other than the generic comprehensive plan), for what it would like to see as the final outcome. Instead you and the council will be faced with piecemeal approvals like this one.

I want to make clear that I am not against the developer developing this area, or its mixed use nature as the first petition requests. I would, however, like it to comply with the underlying zoning and planning principles. I might note, in addition to my earlier comments,  the project will require 2449 parking spaces, creating  road traffic in the area that appears to be excessive and inconsistent with the capacity of planned (or unplanned) infrastructure.