Petition to stop closure of Venice Post Office

The Venice Stakeholders Asssociation, Mark Ryavec and others have filed a petition today in the D.C. Circuit to stop the closure of the Venice Main Post Office.

Planning Commission Reverses Gjelina Decision

West LA Area Planning Commission Reverses Decision/Reduces Gjelina Seating and Imposes New Conditions to Protect Residents

The West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission, acting in response to the VSA’s legal challenge to its earlier decision allowing Gjelina restaurant to increase its seating from 60 to 100 seats – with no additional parking – has reversed itself.

In the reversal, the Commission found for Appellant Arminda Diaz, a Venice architect, who had argued that City code prohibited the Commission from increasing seating by more than 20%. The earlier action on April 20th had increased seating by 66%. VSA’s attorney, John Henning, had also argued that the Commission had violated the requirement to give the public notice of the proposed increase. The VSA also noted the Commission’s action would have set a dangerous precedent that restaurants could increase seating in Venice and other parking-starved areas of the City without fear of any repercussions.

In addition to re-imposing the original conditions of operation, such as the 60-seat limit, the Commission also imposed new conditions, including:

• No serving on the patio past 10 pm
• The patio to close at 11 pm
• No use of the second floor for any private dining
• No use of the garage as storage
• Outdoor seating limited to 16 out of the allowed total of 60

“This was a significant win for the residential neighbors,” said Mark Ryavec, president of the VSA.

“The City has to stop allowing new seating capacity up and down Abbott Kinney without requiring new off-street parking to accommodate all the cars.”

“The Planning Commission and the Building and Safety Department also need to pay attention to the late night noise coming from outdoor dining facilities and from noisy patrons returning to their cars on residential streets,” Ryavec said.

“We support fine-dining restaurants and are sympathetic to the parking problems faced by neighborhood-serving commercial establishments,” the VSA leader said. “But the way to facilitate these establishments is for the Council Office to take the lead in developing neighborhood parking infrastructure, not to throw out planning and the rule of law.”

VSA Challenges Gjelina Seating Increase

VSA Challenges City Approval of 66% Increase in Seating for Gjelina Restaurant without Requiring Any New Parking

(Venice, CA/4-28-2011) Today the Venice Stakeholders Association issued a legal challenge to the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission’s approval of a 66% increase in the allowed seating at Gjelina, a restaurant on popular Abbott Kinney Boulevard.

The challenge from VSA attorney John Henning states that the Commission’s increase in seating – from 60 to 100 seats – violated the requirement to give the public notice of the proposed increase, misused the routine Plan Approval process, and violated the City’s Planning Code, which only allows a 20% increase during the Plan Approval process. Henning’s letter also notes that the Commission’s action sets a dangerous precedent that restaurants can increase seating in Venice and other parking-starved areas of the City without fear of any repercussions.

“This is the oddest decision I have seen in many years,” said Mark Ryavec, the president of the VSA. “First, the Zoning Administrator found Gjelina blatantly out of compliance with its City-imposed conditions,” Ryavec said. “Then, Gjelina’s attorney admitted to the Commission that the restaurant has had 40 more seats than it is allowed for over three years.”

“I would have expected to see the Commission revoke the restaurant’s Conditional Use Permit, at least until they are in compliance,” Ryavec said. “Instead, the Commission rewarded their bad behavior, legalizing the violation with a 66% increase in their seating.”

“That’s the insult. The injury, though, is that the Commission did not require the owner to provide any additional parking for the 40 patrons who will occupy those seats.”

Ryavec noted that when the restaurant opened it was allowed to provide only one parking space because it had been in a retail use earlier and was thus “grandfathered.” With these recent decisions, Gjelina can have 100 patrons but will still only provide one parking space.

“The adjacent neighbors are incensed that restaurant patrons are taking all their parking, forcing them to park at great distances from their homes,” he said. “The City, with the Mayor’s Office leading the charge, has put the desires of the restaurant owners way ahead of the quality of life of the people who live in the neighborhood around them.”

Richard Myers, VSA’s Treasurer, added, “We support restaurants like Gjelina and are sympathetic to the parking problems faced by neighborhood-serving commercial establishments in Venice. The way to facilitate such establishments is not to throw out planning and the rule of law, but instead to plan ahead and invest in our neighborhood parking infrastructure to encourage such places to locate here and exist within the mandates of the Venice Local Coastal Specific Plan.” The VSA is asking the Commission to reconsider its decision. In the event this does not happen, the VSA is considering filing a suit against the City to force it to comply with its own laws.

Attachment: John Henning Letter to Office of the City Attorney, et al

Oppose Rosendahl's 85.11 Ordinance

Please Oppose Rosendahl’s New Ordinance that Welcomes RVs and Campers Back to Venice Streets and Opens Venice Parking Lots to RV Encampments

Councilman Rosendahl has introduced a new ordinance that will gut the City’s ban on lodging in vehicles and will open up streets and City parking lots in Venice and throughout CD 11 for RVs and campers.

His new ordinance, LAMC 85.11, will be considered by the City Council’s Transportation Committee at 2 PM on Wednesday, March 23rd in City Hall.

The details are below.

Please take the following actions:

1. Forward an email to Bill Rosendahl telling him you oppose LAMC 85.11. Here’s a draft:

Dear Councilman Rosendahl:

Please withdraw your proposed ordinance to legalize lodging in vehicles on City streets and on City parking lots within 50 feet of residents in your Council District.

The social service agency (PATH) retained to provide services to those living in their vehicles already has plenty of housing vouchers to help these folks pay for housing, so they can segue directly from the street to apartments.

PATH has stated they do not need either street locations or parking lots in Venice for the program to be successful; they say that ten spaces at your West Los Angeles and Westchester offices will be adequate for short-term parking for program participants while they wait for paperwork to be processed.

Further, LAPD senior lead officers are opposed to legalizing any locations west of Lincoln Boulevard for the Roadmap to Homes program because it would invite a return to a beach lifestyle of partying, alcohol use, drug sales and drug use by program participants (despite any program rules to the contrary).

Please do not reverse the accomplishments of the LAPD, which has worked tirelessly to remove over 200 RVs and campers from our neighborhood and restore parking to residents.

Please place this letter in the official council file on 85.11.

Thank you for considering my views on this important matter.

Sincerely,


Send your email to:

Billrosendahl@aol.com, Arturo.Pina@lacity.org, Paul.Backstrom@lacity.org, margaret.hash@lacity.org, John.White@lacity.org

2. Attend the City Council Transportation Committee hearing on 85.11 on Wednesday, March 23 at 2 PM in City Hall Room 1010. (For parking, call Rosendahl’s office at: 213 473 7011.)

3. Please go to venicestakeholdersassociation.org and make a contribution to the VSA to fund our attorney to develop our legal challenge to 85.11 and represent us on the 23rd.

More on 85.11:

This ordinance will blow a huge hole in 85.02, the City’s ban on living in vehicles that will potentially impact the quality of life of residents and businesses across CD 11. Here are the problems:

1. There is no reference in the ordinance to appointing authority. What official or what department makes the decision to allow vehicles to occupy a particular public parking lot or to use a street for this program? The Mayor? The Mayor’s Transportation Deputy Director Jim Bickhart, who is anti-OPDs/OVOs and pro RVs? Rosendahl? Mike Bonin, Rosendahl’s Chief of Staff, who is also pro-RVs?

2. Who does the public hold accountable when there is a problem with a site, such as increased crime, drug sales, a murder, an assault, late night noise or intimidation of residents?

3. What's the process for public comment before a street segment or lot is chosen? (Hint: There is none in the ordinance.)

4. Why has the LAPD not been given veto power in the ordinance over parking lots or streets which in their opinion will promote or increase crime, drug sales, etc.?

5. What appeal rights do citizens have to remove a lot or street segment from the program if there are problems with the overnight use or a parking lot or block becomes a public nuisance (think of the 3rd Street and Rose Avenue transient encampments growing up around the RVs which are still camping out there despite the OVO signs)?

6. This ordinance will permit the streets alongside any public facility, such as libraries, schools, parks, Rec and Parks property, and DWP and Public Works facilities, etc., to be used unless the City posts them with the OVO signs. We have no indication that Rosendahl will put the OVO signage up along these properties, so they would be open for inclusion in the program. For example, this ordinance would permit people to live in their cars or campers along the Westminster dog park, the Farmers Market lot, Broadway School, Westminster Elementary School, Electric Avenue lots, etc. It will also allow placement of vehicles overnight in residential zones and in close proximity to residences alongside such facilities. As Supervisor Yaroslavsky put it, recreational vehicles belong in proper campgrounds, not on City streets.

7. This ordinance permits vehicles to be used for overnight lodging 50 feet from a residence. We have always advocated a 300 foot setback to avoid just moving nuisance vehicles from one residential location to another. This ordinance puts in play lots throughout Venice and CD 11. Locally it would open up the median lots between North and South Venice Boulevard, the Venice Library lot, possibly the parking lots at any public school, the public lot at Rose and Main, the Electric Avenue lots, etc. We do not believe that the lots (or street segments) can be monitored all night to the point that it will prevent the vehicle dwellers from disturbing residents with generators, loud arguments, fights and noise, public inebriation, or drug sales traffic (despite program rules to the contrary). There is also a strong negative affect on property values from having an RV park sited right next to your house.

8. The City Attorney is incorrect in its advice that the City Council can avoid any CEQA compliance, such as the preparation of an EIR, because the ordinance qualifies under one or both of two “categorical exemptions” from CEQA. One of these exemptions is for the “operation . . . or minor alteration of existing public . . . facilities . . . involving negligible or no expansion of use”; the other exemption is for “minor public . . . alterations in the condition of land.” Neither of these exemptions applies because the ordinance would authorize a dramatic expansion of the use of public streets and parking lots from transitory parking of unoccupied vehicles, to permanent private residential purposes throughout Council District 11, an area that is 64 square miles in size and home to over 274,000 people. Moreover, as has been documented for years in Venice, the permanent residential use would subject areas throughout CD-11 to litter, crime, sewage dumping and other negative environmental impacts.

9. The adoption of the ordinance requires a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission, because it is a blanket approval of “development” throughout the portion of CD-11 (including Venice) that is located within the Coastal Zone, i.e., Venice and Playa del Rey. For purposes of the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, “development” includes “on land . . . the placement or erection of any solid material or structure” and a “change in the density or intensity of use of land.” The ordinance would authorize permanent private residences on public streets and parking lots throughout the Coastal Zone, thus approving both the placement of a permanent structure (an automobile) on the public street and a significant increase in the intensity of use of the public street, from the transitory parking of unoccupied vehicles to a permanent use for residential purposes.

We have already commissioned our attorney to start laying the groundwork for a lawsuit and to represent us at the hearing on 85.11. But we have to fund it. Please go to the VSA website at venicestakeholdersassociation.org and make a tax deductible contribution to the VSA legal fund.

Many thanks for your continuing support to improve the quality of life in Venice.

Mark Ryavec
President, Venice Stakeholders Association

VSA Files Lawsuit Requesting Bickhart Records

Venice Stakeholders Files Lawsuit Against Mayor Villaraigosa to Obtain Public Records Related to Alleged Dirty Tricks by Mayoral Staffer




(Venice, CA/2-17-2011) The Venice Stakeholders Association today filed a lawsuit under the California Public Records Act to obtain records which may prove that a high-level staffer in the Mayor’s office anonymously posted hostile comments on a widely-read neighborhood website in an effort to discredit the VSA and others who support overnight restricted parking in Venice.

“The Mayor’s Office is withholding documents in violation of the Public Records Act that we believe confirm that Jim Bickhart, the Mayor’s Associate Director of Transportation, is the agent provocateur who smeared our organization on YoVenice.com,” VSA president Mark Ryavec said. “We also believe the withheld documents will provide additional evidence that Bickhart misused City time, a City office, and a City email account to further his personal campaign against overnight restricted parking and anyone who disagreed with him.”

The suit alleges that the Mayor’s Office, in refusing to disclose certain documents, has asserted specious “privileges” such as personal privacy. In fact, says John Henning, counsel for the VSA, none of the requested records is exempt from disclosure. “Under the Public Records Act, the public has a right to see any evidence that senior members of the Mayor’s Office staff are using City position and resources to oppose the official position of the City, and to find out what the Mayor’s Office is doing about it,” Henning said.

The records request has already forced the Mayor’s office to turn over numerous documents evidencing Bickhart’s vendetta against the overnight parking districts, known as OPDs. They include numerous email messages apparently transmitted from Mr. Bickhart’s City of Los Angeles email account and using his official City email address, in which he variously requested detailed information from City departments on OPDs; scheduled meetings with City employees on City time to generate opposition to the OPDs; drafted a letter to City officials opposing the OPDs; and discussed the status of settlement negotiations between City representatives and Coastal Commission staff concerning the pending litigation between the parties. The emails also indicated that Mr. Bickhart used City time for in-person meetings and perhaps telephone calls to advance his personal objective of defeating the OPDs.

None of these activities fall within Bickhart’s job description in the Mayor’s Office, which includes transportation issues at LAX and the Los Angeles Zoo.

Ryavec said Bickhart’s activities were an abuse of his position. “Councilman Rosendahl’s staff, the City Attorney’s Office, the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation have all spent years trying to win Coastal Commission approval for the OPDs,” he said. “Meanwhile, Jim Bickhart was using City time, resources and, most importantly, his position to undermine and defeat the City’s efforts.”

“The whole situation is rather bizarre and suggests the Mayor is not properly supervising his staff,” Ryavec said. “Bickhart should be reprimanded immediately, and the Mayor’s Office should turn over all of the documents we’ve asked for.”

Pacific Legal Foundation support

The PLF has begun preparation of an Amicus Brief to support our legal efforts to protect the rights of Venice residents to control vehicles illegally parked overnight on Venice streets.

City of L.A. agrees with the VSA

The Los Angeles city attorney's office filed legal papers today indicating that it agrees with the Venice Stakeholders Assn. in our claim that the city may establish restricted-parking districts in Venice with out obtaining permission from the California Coastal Commission.