July 8, 2010
Loren - This article on Patch states the owners were paid $10 for the corner plot by the city, perhaps it wasn't imminent domain, but at $10 it sure sounds like it. http://venice.patch.com/articl.....nc-meeting That article also stated that all setbacks are legal. Where is this blind corner you are talking about? I drive, bike and walk that area all the time and I just don't see it, particularly since S. Venice is one way. And we do not need a pocket park at that location, Centennial is right across the street and what does it draw? Transients.
mr sanjuan - The article states the low income house will rent for $613, and yes you are correct, it's elsewhere in Venice, something I didn't glean from the article on the first read-thru.
you don't see the blind corner because the city made them take down the ILLEGAL 8' tall fence that tracked the sidewalk! when it was up you could not see the around that corner you were taking a right at- therefore blind. also did i mention that the remainder of the fence that is still up is STILL illegal as it is right up to the sidewalk and and covered with a painted tarp and chain link? are you ok with that as well?
lastly, your patch link was didn't work. but from what i have read in the patch it is most likely either religion or homeless mafia driven so suspect. and if they said that the fence was legal then they really are a joke. the city councilman's office checked on this and has confirmed that the fence that is still up and it is NOT legal. if you want to confirm this you can call cecilia castillo (bill rosendahl office) (310) 568-8772 as i did and she will tell you the findings. i have alsocontacted arturo pena and he is finding out the answer about this $10 city takeover. whatever the answer is i will report here. BUT i find it surprising that after all this time this is the first time that Len has mentioned this.
June 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at the Oakwood Recreation Center, 767 California Ave, Venice, CA 90291
522 Venice Blvd; 12-UNIT CONDO COMPLEX, WITH 2 AFFORDABLE UNITS, NO VARIANCES REQUESTED; VTT-70870 & ENV-2009-2489-EAF; LUPC will rehear this case, or hear the changes to the project that the VNC has already voted to “not support”.
i. Staff Presentation, Sarah Dennison (up to 5 minutes)
ii. Applicant Presentation, (up to 10 minutes)
iii. Public Comment
iv. LUPC Review
v. Consideration of Motion to VNC
Most Users Ever Online: wp_sferrorlog
Currently Online: Witchdoctor
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 32
Newest Members: RonnieArmstrong
Moderators: ModBot: 11, CanalsAdjacent: 0
Administrators: Bret: 8421, EmilGH: 108, eric: 263, Mick: 281, Brenton: 18, Parimal Rohit: 12, Corina Mun: 5, Yo Venice Staff: 77