Wednesday, August 24, 2016

LA Times Opinion: The wrong way to fix homelessness in L.A

The wrong way to fix homelessness in L.A.


By Mark Ryavec, Jack Humphreville and Jay Handal


PROPOSITION H, on the November ballot in Los Angeles, is a well-intentioned but flawed $1.2-billion bond measure to fund the development of new housing for the homeless.

   When interest on the bond is figured in, the proposition will cost residents almost $2 billion, to be paid for in new taxes. Despite that massive expenditure, the region's homeless will not see new apartments for at least three years and the crucial services required to truly solve their problems will not be part of the deal.

   Although polls conducted in the spring indicate that more than 75% of voters support Proposition H, we suspect this reflects a lack of understanding that the bond will be paid for through an increase in the property tax.

   Because the tax increase is based on Proposition 13 reassessments, which differ dramatically by year of purchase, it will be   inherently unfair. The bulk of the burden will fall on those who purchased property in recent years or who have made recent additions to their homes. And because city rent control law prohibits passing on property tax increases, renters — even wealthy renters — will pay nothing.

   The inequities in the bond funding mechanism are just one reason to oppose Proposition H. Because bond money can only be used for land and buildings, the measure cannot and does not provide funding for the operation of homeless shelters, counseling domestic violence victims, or mental health and substance abuse treatment — the kinds of supportive services necessary to truly attack the problem of people sleeping in the streets.  

   Los Angeles County — not the city — is legally responsible for providing these kinds of services for the homeless.

   But so far, the county remains largely AWOL when it comes to finding a means to pay for the programs required to make Proposition H's “permanent supportive housing” functional.  

   Proposition H is also inadequate when it comes to oversight. The measure calls for a citizen committee to watch over the project, but the committee members will be appointed by the mayor and the City Council, which won't ensure the committee's independence. Nor are the members required to have specific expertise, such as construction management experience, and nothing in the measure would prevent representatives of the developers and nonprofits who stand to benefit from Proposition H from sitting on the committee.

   Instead of pushing Proposition H, the city should respond to the homelessness crisis with a rapid rehousing effort. It should create its own rent-voucher program to augment the tapped-out federal Section 8 program. And it could quickly convert existing structures such as motels, run-down apartments   and even commercial buildings to homeless housing.

   These efforts could be paid for without recourse to a bond and a property tax increase. The city’s special tax counsel estimates Los Angeles' revenue will increase by almost $600 million over the next four   years. If only a portion of those increases were earmarked for housing the homeless, existing buildings could be converted, rent vouchers could be supplemented and no new taxes would be necessary.

   Los Angeles could also attack homelessness by once again making use of its law against sleeping on sidewalks. A legal settlement — the Jones settlement — prevents the LAPD from moving people off the streets at night until the city increases its stock of permanent supportive homeless housing by 1,250 units. According to a report issued in November by the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, L.A. has more than met that requirement.  

   Now, to avoid a new legal challenge, police must simply offer a shelter bed before handing out a citation. But the law isn’t being put to use. Until it is, how will the city persuade the thousands of “service resistant” homeless to accept any new housing?

   Voters should reject Proposition H. It reflects a panicked rather than a reasonable response to the increase in homelessness in the city. It requires an unequal tax   increase, and without county funding for services, it won't solve the roots of the problem. City Hall and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors must in tandem commit to a better, fairer plan that can be implemented more quickly.

   MARK RYAVEC served as chief deputy assessor for Los Angeles County and is president of Venice Stakeholders Assn. JACK HUMPHREVILLE is the budget advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. JAY HANDAL is co-chair of the citywide association of Neighborhood Council budget advocates.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

ALERT: Send Message to Support VSA Resolution to Return to Enforcement of LAMC 41.18

Congratulations. We did it!  

We produced over 90 signatures on our petition to have the Resolution to return to enforcement of the City's "no lying, sitting or sleeping on a sidewalk" ordinance placed directly on the VNC agenda.

Now, we have to support the VNC in voting to approve this ground-breaking resolution.  The Board has to hear from all of you.

Please do three things:

1.  Send an email to that says:  I support the VSA Resolution to reinstate LAMC 41.18.

2.  It is absolutely critical to its passage that you attend the meeting at the Westminster Elementary School auditorium on Tuesday, August 16th.  The resolution will be heard later in the evening, probably after 9 PM.  I know this is a late hour, but if we ever have a chance to turn the clock back to having safe neighborhoods here in Venice, this is it.  We must get this passed by the VNC Board.

3.  Send this request for emails and attendance to all your friends and neighbors in Venice.

If possible, please make a $100 contribution to the VSA.  I have had to retain the counsel of attorney John Henning to prepare a letter to the VNC refuting a position paper submitted to the VNC by Councilman Bonin's deputy Taylor Bazley that gives an erroneous analysis of the Jones Settlement and the question of whether it will be satisfied if the City submits the list of 1,250 units of new permanent supportive housing units to the court. 

The VNC needs the guidance of our legal counsel to support an affirmative vote on the resolution - and the VSA has to pay for this legal counsel. You can donate using PayPal on the right of this page.

And join us at our hosted party on Sunday, August 14, 5-8 pm, to get to know your neighbors and talk more about improving Venice.  If you have not received the invitation send me your name and email address to

Call me if you have any questions at 310 871 6265. 

Many thanks,


Wednesday, August 3, 2016

VSA Gathering to Discuss Venice Issues on Sunday, August 14, 5-8 PM

Neighbors Getting Together to Improve Venice....

The VSA is hosting a summer gathering to discuss the following issues we are working on:

We will hear brief presentations on efforts to:

1. Preserve the residential zoning of the Oxford Triangle

2. Assure that any development on the Venice Blvd. Median lot is sensitive to the concerns of this residential neighborhood and that residents are involved in the process from the very beginning.

3. Clean up the the Boardwalk, walk streets, behind Ralph's, and 3rd and Rose, Hampton and Sunset.

4. Remove RVs and campers from around elementary schools.

5. Return the LAPD's ability to enforce the City's "no lying, sitting, sleeping on a sidewalk" ordinance 24 hours a day along with getting homeless into housing - if they want it.

Thanks to an anonymous donor who is underwriting the event, it will be catered by Oscar and Norma Hermocillo of Oscar's Cerveteca and Clutch.

If you support the initiatives above and have not yet received an invitation, please send your name, address and email address to:

or subscribe to the VSA by clicking on the subscribe button on the right.

This is an opportunity for neighbors to meet neighbors from other parts of Venice and to connect around shared concerns about our community.  

Please join us to meet other residents working to improve Venice.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Tests Ahead for New Venice Neighborhood Council

From Yo Venice:
Over the spring residents and business people formed a coalition to elect a resident-friendly slate of officers to the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC).  We were more successful than we could have imagined, sweeping 17 of 21 seats.

Residents are now watching to see if the new team will honor their election 
promises to address the serious public safety and quality-of-life issues which have for so long been a serious burden to residents.  They are also looking for the new council to oppose Councilman Bonin’s unilateral moves to impose new projects on residents all over Venice without consulting with residents or with the Neighborhood Council.

In the next month or two at least three major matters will come before the Council:
  1. Councilman Bonin’s proposal to build homeless housing on the City’s Thatcher maintenance yard versus the desire of Oxford Triangle residents for single family homes if the City chooses to sell the property.
  2. Bonin’s effort, now underway, to convert the large parking lot in the Venice Blvd. median between Pacific to Dell to 90 units of housing for the chronically homeless.
  3. An initiative from residents to break up the encampments in Venice by returning to enforcing the City’s “no sitting, lying or sleeping on sidewalk” ordinance (LAMC 41.18).
Oxford Triangle  Oxford residents Steve Freedman, Judy Wyluda and others have already submitted a Resolution with a couple hundred signatures to the Neighborhood Council that calls upon the City to rezone the yard to R1-1, the City’s lowest density, if the City does not landbank the property for a new maintenance facility.  The residents’ goal is to maintain the low density, low noise and low traffic of the Triangle.  They have history on their side.  The City’s 1988 Oxford Triangle Neighborhood Study concluded:  “The City Maintenance Yard and other City owned lots must be zoned for single-family homes if the City decides to abandon operations at the site.”

In an odd decision, the VNC’s Administrative Committee sent the Thatcher Yard Resolution to its Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC) though there is no history of that committee ever hearing such neighborhood-wide zoning issues.  LUPC has traditionally offered opinions only on applications for project permits, variances and coastal development permits for individual houses, commercial buildings, etc.  The committee is also over-subscribed with pending applications, so it may be some time before the residents’ Resolution can be heard.  On the other hand, this move may presage a role for the LUPC on other Venice-wide land use questions, such as ways to facilitate the development of more affordable housing – with smaller units, for example – in other areas of Venice that already have a history of four and six unit buildings, such as Oakwood and the Venice Boulevard corridor.  To support the residents write to  I support the resolution to rezone Thatcher Yard to R1 zoning.

Venice Boulevard Median  Residents in the Canals and along the western end of the Venice Boulevard corridor are incensed that Councilman Bonin has ordered the City bureaucracy, without any public hearings, to move ahead with preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop 90 units of housing for the chronically homeless on the Venice Blvd. median lot.  This would include scores of those who are still in the grips of mental illness and drug addiction and pose a serious threat to this residential neighborhood.  Residents have also voiced opposition to the use of this gateway site for homeless housing when it could be redeveloped with over a 1,000 subterranean automated parking spaces for residents and visitors alike.  They also point out that sale of the property – even with the City’s retention of the right to build subterranean parking – would generate between $55 and $95 million, which would build three to four times as much homeless housing at an inland location.  If you would like to support their petition calling for the City to abandon the preparation of an RFP and instead hold a hearing to consider all possible uses of the site visit the Canals Association website at and add your name to the resolution.

Return to Enforcement of “No sitting, lying, sleeping” Ordinance  We all know the homeless situation has gotten completely out of control in Venice.  To address it Venice Stakeholders has submitted to the VNC the Resolution shown here urging the City to return to enforcement of the “no sitting, lying or sleeping on sidewalk” ordinance, which is still on the books.  All the City has to do to be able to use it again is to show the court that over the last eight years the City has built, or funded the building of, 1,250 units of permanent supportive housing.  The City’s Housing Department predicted that number would be reached last October.  We are asking the Neighborhood Council to support residents on this issue, adopt the Resolution and send it to Councilman Bonin and Mayor Garcetti.

If you support the Resolution below please send an email to and tell the VNC that you support the VSA Resolution to reinstate LAMC 41.18.  Please send a copy to the VSA at

We’ll keep you posted on where the new council stands on these issues.

Resolution Calling for the City of Los Angeles to Conclude the Jones Settlement and Return to Enforcement of the “No sitting, lying or sleeping on a sidewalk” Ordinance (LAMC 41.18 (d)) within 300 Feet of a Residentially Zoned Property

Whereas, the current City practice of allowing encampments of transients to exist right next to residences is intolerable and uncivilized, depriving residents of sleep, free use of sidewalks and a zone of safety and quiet next to their homes, and

Whereas, individuals in these encampments frequently trespass on the property of nearby residents, to defecate and urinate, to engage in theft and vandalism and burglary, or to store their possessions; and 

Whereas, tents allowed in such encampments routinely entirely block sidewalks and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and force both the able and disabled into the street to pass; and 

Whereas, the City fails to enforce the requirement that no tent be erected before 9 PM and all tents be dissembled by 6 AM; and

Whereas, the City fails to enforce the existing bar on sitting, lying or sleeping between 6 AM and 9 PM; and

Whereas, the City fails to enforce LAMC 56.11 banning bulky items, attachments to fences and walls, and limiting possessions stored on sidewalks to that which can be contained in a 60 gallon City trash receptacle; and 

Whereas, encampments are breeding grounds for disease, rats and insects and produce tons of trash which in Venice is driven in the rainy season directly to storm drains and then into Santa Monica Bay; and

Whereas, LAMC 41.18 is still in effect and the only impediment to its enforcement is the 2007 Jones Settlement, in which the City agreed in  a civil lawsuit to refrain from enforcing 41.18 until it had built or caused to be built 1,250 units of permanent, supportive housing; and

Whereas, the Los Angeles Housing & Community Investment Department produced a report in early 2015 that anticipated that the City would meet the requirements of the Jones Settlement by October of 2015; and

Whereas, eight months have elapsed since October of 2015 and it can be reasonably assumed that the City has now more than met the target of 1,250 units of permanent, supportive housing; and 

Whereas, Captain Nicole Alberca, Commander of the LAPD Pacific Division, has recently stated that officers who are making daily contacts with campers in Venice report an increase in out of state youth 18-26 years of age, both males and females, who refer to themselves as “drifters” or “travelers” and do not see themselves as homeless and as such, they have not accepted outreach for housing placement; and 

Whereas, Tim Pardue, the former director of the Teen Project P.A.D. on Market Street, has reported that approximately 70 percent of their 16-24 year old clients are from out-of- state; now

Therefore, be it resolved that the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer and the Housing & Community Investment Department to immediately present to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, a list of the permanent, supportive units built over the last nine years in satisfaction of the settlement and that the City Attorney petition for the settlement to be declared satisfied and null and void; and 

Be it further resolved that the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon the Councilman Mike Bonin, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti to immediately amend LAMC 56.11 (the ordinance limiting storage on sidewalks) to bar any storage of personal possessions (other than a bicycle for 24 hours or less) on a sidewalk, parkway, alley or street within 300 feet of any residentially zoned property for more than one hour; and 

Be it further resolved that upon the vacation of the Jones Settlement the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon the Los Angeles Police Department to begin warning anyone sitting, lying or sleeping within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property that they are in violation of LAMC 41.18; and

Be it further resolved that the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon Councilman Mike Bonin and Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (or social agencies acting on their behalf) to offer shelter beds, shared housing, Section 8 housing, transitional housing or transportation to safe family members at the same time and in conjunction with the LAMC 41.18 warnings by the LAPD; and 

Be it further resolved that in instances when an individual acting in violation of LAMC 41.18 refuses to either leave the area within 300 feet of residences, or to accept housing or transportation to a safe family member, the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon Los Angeles Police Department to cite the individual for violating LAMC 41.18 and if future violations occur, to secure a stay-away order to prevent that individual from returning to camp out in Venice.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

L.A. City Hall wants to correct L.A. County’s failures by asking property owners to pick up the tab


Westside homeowners would bear the brunt of the housing bond
 Westside homeowners would bear the brunt of the $1.2 billion homeless housing bond

By Mark Ryavec
The author is president of the Venice Stakeholders Association and the former chief deputy assessor for Los Angeles County.

When it comes to the City of Los Angeles’ proposed $1.2-billion bond for homeless housing, residents should look past the obvious question of whether this will really get the 27,000 people living on our sidewalks into housing.

Instead they should focus on more fundamental questions:

Is this the city’s responsibility?

Is a new tax really needed?

Will the tax burden be spread fairly?

Is an adequate process in place to avoid mismanagement and corruption?

The answer to all four questions: No.

Under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000, counties — not cities — are the government entities primarily responsible for taking care of mentally incompetent, poor, indigent and incapacitated persons.

Yet Los Angeles County provides only $221 per month in general relief (which jumps to a grant of $877 from Social Security if a person is totally disabled). As an old saying goes, the only problem with poor people is that they don’t have any money. If the county had regularly indexed the $221 figure to account for decades of inflation, a significant number of the homeless would be able to afford to live in shared apartments and houses.

In the face of the county shirking its duty, the goodhearted folks at L.A. City Hall have volunteered to help — as long as someone else pays for it.

Before residents let City Hall again put its hand into their wallet, they might consider that the City Administrative Officer is projecting the city’s budget will grow from $5.55 billion to $6.20 billion in just the next four years, with about $650 million in new revenues each year by 2020. If the city simply committed 10% of its planned budget increase over the next 20 years, it could easily pay off the $63 million needed each year to service the bond without a tax increase.

If adopted in November, the bond’s tax burden will fall unevenly, with most of the cost being covered by those who have more recently purchased property, whether houses and condos, apartments, or commercial and industrial buildings. This is due to the operation of Proposition 13, which reassesses properties to market value upon sale (or new construction).

Renters — including those who are quite wealthy — will pay nothing, and those who have owned their property since 1978, when Proposition 13 passed, will pay very little.

While city officials say the average yearly increase would be $44.31 per year for a home assessed at $327,900 (the current median in Los Angeles), the tax on the Westside and other places with more expensive real estate will be far higher.

My duplex, purchased in 1989, is assessed at about $800,000. Over the expected 28 year life of the bond, I would pay an average of about $106 a year (on top of the $1,470 I already pay each year to retire school and community college construction bonds). However, a new buyer of my property, at about a $3.5 million sales price, would pay an average of $473 per year, with a spike in the 11th year to about $800.

These effects play out much differently between apartments and commercial property. The city’s rent control ordinance does not allow apartment owners to pass on property tax increases to renters, so the apartment owners will have to absorb all the increase. But commercial property is frequently under a triple net lease, which requires the lessee to pay the property taxes — meaning lots of mom-and-pop businesses will have to pick up the bill.

With more than $1 billion at play, the potential is high for mismanagement, favoritism and corruption.  However, the oversight committee designed by the City Council has the foxes guarding the hen house. Four are appointed by the mayor; three by the City Council. And there are no qualifications required — such as 10 years or more of multimillion-dollar construction management experience, or being a certified public accountant. There also is no funding for the committee to hire independent staff or retain experts. Nothing in the bond ordinance prevents the appointment of political cronies or individuals from the affordable housing industry who have a financial interest in which projects are funded.

This all suggests the county, with funding from Sacramento, should finally step up and assume its legal requirement to take care of the homeless. If the city still feels it wants to help, it can fund a housing bond from future revenues. Even without a new tax, strengthening the independence and qualifications of the oversight committee would be prudent.

WIC 17000 reads: Every county and every city and county (i.e.; San Francisco) shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions.

Neighborhood Council Fails to Act on Resolution Opposing Storage and Homeless Services at Westminster Center

For the third time in two weeks the president of the Venice Neighborhood Council, Ira Koslow, has led an effort to derail resolutions properly presented for action by the VNC Board.  Unfortunately, a majority of the Board has gone along with his lead despite the urgency of all three matters.

Last night Mr. Koslow used the receipt of a letter from our attorneys, Luna and Glushon, providing a copy of the deed restriction on the Westminster/Dog Park property that limits the property's use to park and playground as the pretext to refer the stakeholders' resolution to the new Homeless Committee, chaired by Will Hawkins.  The existence of the deed restriction had been widely reported in social media and was discussed at the VNC Administrative Committee last week.  Mr. Koslow announced then that he would have the City Attorney's Office represented at last night's meeting to discuss the deed restriction and so it made sense that the Board members should have a copy of the deed restriction to review beforehand. It should not have come as a surprise nor been the cause for referral of the item to committee.  

The surprise was that so many of the new VNC members deferred to Koslow and delayed the resolution by sending it to committee.  A request for the public to comment on the removal of the item from the agenda was also opposed by Koslow.

Several members of the public, including several parents of students attending Westminster Elementary School, were prepared to wait all evening to speak in favor of the resolution out of their concern that placing storage and services right across from the school will act as a magnet and draw scores of transients to the area on a daily basis.

The urgency for VNC action is seen in the City's continued pursuit of permits to allow the storage and social services uses at the site despite the deed restriction.  

Without informing the community, in early June Councilman Bonin had the City Planning Department file an application with the Coastal Commission for an exemption for the change-of-use from senior center (which has only been used sporadically over the last five years for community meetings) to homeless storage and services.  It has also recently been reported by a nearby resident that construction work has been underway on the center to prepare for the new use.

Our attorneys will be filing a letter with Coastal Commission today calling for a complete environmental review, including traffic, noise, trash, etc.

Community Officer Will Hawkins assured this writer today that his committee will consider the opposition resolution in an expeditious manner, possibly as early as next week.

Last week at the VNC's Administrative Committee meeting Koslow derailed the Oxford Triangle residents' resolution calling for low density residential zoning, not dense, homeless housing on the Thatcher Yard site by sending it to the VNC Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC), which has not historically addressed such neighborhood-wide planning issues despite its name.  LUPC is backed up with many pending applications and it is unclear when it can consider the Oxford residents request.  In the meantime, Councilman Bonin has directed city staff to pre-qualify developers of low income, homeless housing for the Thatcher Yard project, even though there has not been a public hearing on the project.

Koslow also refused to place before the VNC Board another resolution calling for "No Oversize Vehicle 2-6 AM" signs around Westminster Elementary School, Westminster Park, and the paths of travel along Lincoln of young students attending Broadway Elementary School.  He mistakenly concluded that the Council Office had requested the signage be installed.  However, Taylor Bazley of the Council Office has confirmed to the parents who requested the signage due to verbal abuse, obscene language, harassment and bottles thrown at students by those living in RVs and campers near the schools, that the Council Office has only requested the signage for the curb side next to the school and park, not for paths of travel or the opposite sides of the street across from the school. Bazley told one parent that they would have to obtain the signatures of all the residents on the opposite sides of the street even though this is not legally required by the city ordinance.  With school starting August 16th, parents are reasonably concerned about the safety of their children.

In light of Mr. Koslow's thrice refusing to allow stakeholder matters to come before the VNC Board for public discussion and a vote, some stakeholders are preparing a recall petition to remove Mr. Koslow from his position.  If you are interested in obtaining a copy of the petition please contact me at

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Resolution Opposing Use of Westminster Center for Storage Up Before Neighborhood Coucil Tuesday the 19th at about 10 PM


Also, please send an email to all your contacts asking them to send this message before Tuesday to the VNC Board at
Please pass the Resolution opposing the use of the Westminster Center for storage of the possessions of the homeless.  The Westminster Center is too close to the elementary school, a park and residences and thus is inappropriate for storage use because it will attract more homeless to camp out in the area, which poses a danger to school children and residents. 

While both a deed restriction on the property and the City's new parks ordinance prohibits this storage use, the City Attorney has not yet agreed and Councilman Bonin has not let go of this inappropriate location for the storage - so we are asking the Neighborhood Council to underscore the opposition of residents to this use.

Resolution Opposing Use of the
Westminster Senior Center for Storage

Whereas, the Councilman of Los Angeles City Council District 11 has introduced a Motion (CF 15-1138 S-8) to convert the Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Avenue for use as storage for the possessions of persons who are homeless; and

Whereas, this facility is in a public park, and adjacent to an elementary school and scores of residences; and

Whereas, the majority of the residents residing near this facility are opposed to this use; and

Whereas, many parents of children attending Westminster Elementary School are also opposed to this use; and

Whereas, there have been no public hearings on this conversion; and

Whereas, the location criteria of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) includes the following language: Potential locations for expanded storage and services will be evaluated based on the following: 3. Impact on residential and high-traffic commercial areas; and

Whereas, no study has been conducted of the impact of the proposed storage use of the Westminster Center will have on park users, nearby residents or students attending the Westminster Elementary School; and

Whereas, the City of Los Angeles is legally prohibited from this use of the property by a a restriction to the property’s deed recorded by the Los Angeles Superior Court on July 5, 1950, which limits the use to public playground and recreation uses, and

Whereas, the proposed use is illegal under recently adopted amendments to Los Angeles Municipal Code 63.44, which state at B. 26 (f):   

Removal of Stored Personal Property; Discarding of Stored Personal Property.

   (1)   No Person shall Store Personal Property in any Park.

(2)      All Stored Personal Property remaining in any Park after closing may be removed by the City.


Whereas, the use of a large storage container at the Venice Beach Paddle Tennis Courts has proved the efficacy of using such a container for storage use; and

Whereas, several other options exist for storage which will not impact a neighborhood park, an elementary school and adjacent residents, including the former MTA bus yard, which could be rented by a non-profit such as Chrysalis and out-fitted with containers, and private storage facilities, e.g. Stor It Self Storage at 4068 Del Rey Ave, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, which is located next to industrial and commercial uses, not a school, park and residences; and

Whereas, enforcement of the new versions of LAMC 63.44 (prohibition of storage in parks) and LAMC 56.11 (limits on storage on sidewalks) will necessitate City storage for abandoned property, prohibited bulky items, and illegally stored property; now

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Venice Neighborhood Council opposes the use of the Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Avenue for use as storage; and

Further, the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon the Councilman of District 11 to secure storage facilities at least 300 feet from any residences or parks for the proposed storage use identified in CF 15-1138 S8 and for abandoned and other property acquired by the City under LAMC 56.11 and LAMC 63.44 and when operational to relocate the stored items at the Venice Beach Paddle Tennis Courts to the new location to remove them from proximity to residences and their location in the park, which now violates LAMC 63.44.