Ferris Wheel Effects on Parking, Traffic and Views

The Venice Stakeholders Association has called for the City of Los Angeles to perform a full Environmental Impact Report on the proposal to place a 200 foot Ferris wheel in the Venice Beach Recreation Area at the foot of Windward Avenue.

“The parking, traffic and scenic impacts of the Ferris Wheel installation are highly problematic for our neighborhood,” said Mark Ryavec, VSA president. “Oddly, the firm proposing the Wheel has offered no mitigation.”

In a letter to City Recreation and Parks officials, the VSA’s attorney, John Henning, notes that the Wheel could draw up to 16,320 visitors per day, based upon the capacity of the Wheel given at a recent public hearing by a representative of Great City Attractions, the firm proposing the installation.

“The Ferris wheel would operate 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, from 10 AM to 10 PM,” Henning wrote. “It contains approximately 40 “capsules” in which riders would sit, and there are 8 seats per capsule, for a total of approximately 320 riders when fully loaded. Each cycle (i.e., “ride”) of the Ferris wheel lasts about 14 minutes, so there would be approximately 51 cycles per day, for a total of 16,320 individual riders per day.”

Henning also points out that unlike a restaurant, which turns over its seating every 60 to 90 minutes, the Wheel will turn over its seats every 14 minutes, so the Wheel will generate four to six times has many visitors clamoring for a ride….and seeking non-existent parking.

A restaurant of that size would be required to provide 80 parking spaces under the Venice Local Coastal Specific Plan, the City land-use ordinance that governs development in Venice. Great City Attractions has offered no parking or traffic mitigation.

“We’re asking the City to apply to itself the same land-use rules that it would apply to any other new development of this size in our neighborhood,” Ryavec said.

Attachment: Letter to LA City Recreation and Parks Department

Great Observation Wheel

City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks

Re: Great Observation Wheel

Dear Sirs and Madams:

Your department has solicited community views on a proposal to allow the installation,
for a temporary period, of a 200 foot Ferris wheel, known as the Great Observation
Wheel, at the foot of Windward Avenue in the Venice Beach Recreation Area.

The Venice Stakeholders Association is a non-profit organization committed to civic
improvement. While many would be delighted to ride a Ferris wheel at the proposed
location and to enjoy the stunning views which it will make available, we have serious
concerns about the project, principally related to the parking demand and increased traffic
that will result from this installation.

We would ask that this project be viewed as an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to
seriously reconsider its policy regarding any and all events and installations in the Venice
Beach Recreation Area. For example, the filming of the Ninja Warrior Challenge this
last week took over much of the park from south of Windward Avenue almost to Market
Street. Our members report that public parking on Windward on Saturday and Sunday,
while filming was underway, was completely taken up by 7:30 AM by visitor vehicles in
the 200 block of Windward. This resulted in residents who do not have on-site parking
being held hostage in their homes or running the risk of having to park many blocks away
from their homes if they gave up their street parking spaces on Windward during the day.

The Wheel proposal is a good reason for the City of Los Angeles to apply to the
Coastal Commission for preferential 24/7 permit parking for beach adjacent residents
and to craft an ordinance to require that all events and installations in the Venice Beach
Recreation Area pay in-lieu parking fees to a dedicated Venice parking fund, which is
immune to being “swept” by the City Council for non-parking purposes or use outside of
Venice, to the end of creating parking structures of modest height in Venice.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Mark Ryavec

Mark Ryavec, President

cc: Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa, Councilman Bill Rosendahl

Janice Hahn supports VSA appeal of Venice PO closure

Re: Support for Appeal of USPS Decision to Close the Venice, CA, Main Post Office

Dear Mr. Callender,

I am Writing to support the Venice Stakeholders Association and other Venice residents in their appeals of the USPS' decision to close the Venice Main Post Office (VMPO) at 1601 Main Street in Venice, Califomia. The USPS' decision represents a 60% closure and a sale of this historic facility, and thus is an appealable action.

My constituents have informed me that the current level of USPS customer service at the VMPO does not now and has not historically met the USPS' standard of providing window services to the public within five minutes. Apparently, at this location, waits of 20 and 30 minutes are not uncommon for window service.

However, despite failure to provide services in a reasonable period, l have been informed in
meeting with Diana Alvarado of USPS' Pacific Facilities Services Office that it has decided to close three customer service windows and relocate the remaining two windows to the Venice Carrier Annex at considerable expense. This is unacceptable.

The Venice community has long been under­-served by the USPS at the VMPO, even though the physical facilities allow more personnel to be present to reduce the wait time and provide quicker customer service. Given that customers already wait an astonishing amount of time, I am concerned that loss of the three windows will lead to an even lower level of service for local residents.

I also would note that under 39 C.F.R Section 241 .4(Í) USPS has a duty to comply with local planning and zoning requirements and building codes and to provide plans and drawings of new postal installations to appropriate local government officials. I have been informed that USPS has not complied with this statute. It appears to me that the Postal Service should assure that local land-use laws can be met at the proposed new location for customer services before it proceeds any further with its plans to sell the existing facility, which currently has adequate space to provide the requisite level of customer service.

For these reasons I urge the Commission to remand the USPS’ decision back to USPS with
instructions to investigate, in consultation with the Venice community and officials ofthe City of Los Angeles, a means to keep this facility in use as a post office and to provide a higher level of customer service commensurate with maintaining a wait time of less than five minutes and with improving the USPS' relationship with its customers.

Sincerely yours,

Janice Hahn
Member of Congress

Attachment: Appeal of Venice Stakeholders Association

Appeal of Venice Post Office Closure

(Venice, CA/10-16-11)  The Venice Stakeholders Association filed an appeal Friday with the U.S. Postal Rate Commission seeking to overturn the U.S. Postal Service's decision to close and sell the Venice Post Office and relocate customer services to the Venice Postal Annex, a sorting and carrier storage facility.
The appeal claims that the Postal Service failed to follow its own rules for the closure and seeks to have the Commission revoke the closure.

The dramatic decrease in the extent of Post Office operations, simultaneous with its "relocation," means that the action is the functional equivalent of a closure - or at least a partial closure - and thus is subject to the right of an appeal to the Postal Rate Commission.

The Venice Post Office, a 1939 Works Project Administration structure, is of significant historical, architectural, and community value.  It also contains the historical mural "Story of Venice" by noted artist Edward Biberman.

John Henning, the Stakeholders' attorney, notes in a letter to David E. Williams, the Vice President of Postal Network Operations, that federal law requires the Postal Service to "comply with local planning and zoning requirements and building codes."

However, the USPS has already announced it will soon issue a contract for approximately $400,000 to install a customer service facility in the Annex.  This is before it has submitted any plans to the City of Los Angeles to review compliance with LA planning and zoning codes, in particular compliance with the current requirements for adequate employee, public and carrier truck parking, and parking lot setbacks, landscaping and re-striping.   City rules will also require up-dating the facility to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Henning suggests that Williams, in his recent denial letter stating that no appeals are permitted to his decision, is attempting to bully Venice residents into not appealing his earlier decision, when closures of main post offices are indeed appealable to the Postal Rate Commission.

Residents fear the loss of the historic structure and mural if it is sold, on one hand, and foresee increased parking congestion and a continuation of exceptionally poor maintenance of the grounds around the Annex, on the other, if customer operations move to the Annex.

"We fully understand the severe budget constraints facing the Postal Service," said Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders.  "But in downsizing, the Postal Service still has to follow its own rules - and they haven't in this instance."

"Representatives of the Postal Service have told us that they do not have to comply with local land-use laws, while a clear reading of the federal law shows this is incorrect," Ryavec said.  "It also shows they have been premature in deciding to relocate customer services before they have determined, in consultation with the Los Angeles City Planning Department, if the re-configuration of the Annex building and adjoining parking lot is legally permissible; for example, can they provide the required parking."

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

VSA Opposes 1305 Abbot Kinney parking plan

To: Bill Rosendahl, Los Angeles City Council, District 11

I am writing on behalf of our organization to ask that you require a new public hearing for the restaurant project located at 1305 Abbot Kinney Boulevard in Venice. The current iteration of this project – approved by the Coastal Commission but not the City - will set an unwelcome precedent which will exacerbate the traffic and parking problems now afflicting neighborhoods adjacent to Abbott Kinney.

We oppose the restaurant owner’s new plan to use a rooftop parking deck with steep ramp, triple-stacked tandem parking and three mechanical parking lifts to provide the required parking. Moreover, these features of the project have never been considered in any public hearing. The parking lift technology is unproven and unsuitable for a busy restaurant with constant turnover, and it would subject the neighborhood to ugly outdoor machines and constant noise 13 hours a day, 7 days a week.

In addition, the triple-stacked tandem parking on the roof would require parking attendants to constantly back multiple cars down a steep ramp onto the narrow city alley between Electric Avenue and Abbot Kinney Boulevard, and then idle them in the alley or on nearby streets, where they will increase traffic congestion.

The owner should provide all required parking in easily accessible surface or garage spaces, on the restaurant site or nearby, or, if necessary, should reduce the size of the restaurant to match the available parking.

Further, we would suggest that you consider a moratorium on new restaurants on Abbott Kinney and form a task force of property owners, City departments and your office to identify short and long term solutions, such as a City parking structure, which can address the dearth of parking in this area of Venice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Ryavec, President
Venice Stakeholders Association

Informational Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/1305AbbotKinney#p/a/u/0/9yJAVGfkX1c
http://www.youtube.com/user/1305AbbotKinney#p/a/u/1/vlwRasq8uMs