Councilman Bill Rosendahl
Los Angeles City Council
City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Motion to Allocate $1,200,000 from Venice Surplus Real Property Fund to Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to Fund RV/Camper Program (Rosendahl/Parks)
Dear Councilman Rosendahl,
I am writing on behalf of the Venice Stakeholders Association to indicate our opposition to your Motion to allocate $1,200,000 from Venice Surplus Real Property Fund (VSRPF) to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) to fund an RV/Camper Program in CD 11 (Rosendahl/Parks).
This proposed allocation violates the intent and letter of the City Administrative Code section which governs the VSRPF.
The Administrative Code requires that the net proceeds from the sale of any Venice properties shall be devoted exclusively to capital or non-capital projects generally within the “Venice area” for purposes which will be of benefit to citizens of the City of Los Angeles or tourists to the Venice Beach area. The perimeters of the “Venice area” are tightly prescribed, and the eastern boundary is Lincoln Boulevard.
The intent of the ordinance establishing the VSRPF was to fund physical improvements from the sale of physical property, so as to not squander these rare assets
The allocation of these funds to LAHSA does not represent a capital or non-capital project. LAHSA is a service provider. There will be no “project” – no improvement, no structure, no physical repairs – from this allocation.
While the Motion’s language calls for the services funded by this allocation to LAHSA to be provided in CD 11, this is not legally permissible under the Administrative Code. Any expenditure outside of Venice would invite legal challenge. To avoid legal action, the City and LAHSA would be forced to expend the $1,200,000 to provide safe parking and services only in Venice for people living in their vehicles as long as they were citizens of any part of Los Angeles or were tourists. This would have the following three results:
1) Fund the placement of hundreds of RVs, campers and vans parking in close proximity to residences, schools, parks, canals, the beach, etc., in Venice.
2) Make Venice the destination RV/camper park for all of Los Angeles, and formally open the door for providing parking spaces and services for a large number “tourists” living in RVs/campers/vans.
3) Violate LAMC 85.02, the ban on lodging in vehicles.
As you know, our organization supports a Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program, as outlined in the report of the VNC Ad-Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicle Occupation, under a conditional use permit, limits on length of stay, and setbacks from residences of at least 250 feet. There is no definition in your Motion of the proposed program, which gives us serious concerns, as we do not believe that the Santa Barbara model is appropriate in several aspects for the much denser environment of Venice. In addition, LAHSA has no experience in operating a program to assist vehicle dwellers transition to housing.
Further, we understand that the Grand Canal Restoration Project – a capital project in Venice – has an immediate need for $1,600,000 to complete the western side of the Grand Canal from Washington Boulevard to Driftwood.
We would strongly recommend that you revise your Motion to allocate the $1,200,000 to finish this long delayed restoration project, which complies with the intent and letter of the language of the VSRPF.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Ryavec
President
cc: Mark Winter, Director, Marina Peninsula Neighborhood Association
Members of the Los Angeles City Council
The Venice Stakeholders Association is dedicated to civic improvement. The VSA supports slow growth, protection of the limits of the Venice Local Coastal Specific Plan, neighborhood safety, better traffic circulation, increased parking for residents, neighborhood beautification projects, historic preservation and protection of coastal waters.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Contribute to the legal effort
Contributions to the legal effort to allow Overnight Parking Districts in Venice may be made by sending a check directly to our attorney:
John Henning, Attorney at Law
125 N. Sweetzer Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Please include the note: Venice Stakeholders Association / Venice OPD legal effort
Suggested amount: $100 to $250, though all contributions welcome. Contributions are unfortunately not tax deductible.
You may also use the Paypal button to contribute to this legal effort.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Argonaut article
Residents group sues Coastal Commission over denial of permits for overnight parking restrictions
Less than two months after the California Coastal Commission chose not to issue permits for overnight parking restrictions in five areas of Venice, a community residents group has filed a lawsuit challenging the state agency’s jurisdiction to approve such permits.
In its lawsuit filed against the Coastal Commission and City of Los Angeles in Los Angeles Superior Court Monday, August 10th, the Venice Stakeholders Association alleges that the commission failed to follow the California Coastal Act when it voted in June to deny coastal development permits for overnight parking districts (OPDs) on Venice streets.
Read entire article here:
http://www.argonautnewspaper.com/articles/2009/08/13/news_-_features/top_stories/2v.txt
LA Times article
Coastal Commission is sued over Venice parking permits
Proponents of restricted overnight parking say the commission failed to 'protect coastal waters' by refusing to rule on the proposal. Street parking is not in their jurisdiction, commissioners say.
A Venice group on Monday sued the California Coastal Commission over the group's request to limit overnight parking in five areas near Venice Beach where residents have complained for years about the growing number of people living in cars and campers.The suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, raises a fundamental issue: Does the state coastal panel have the legal authority to determine where people can and cannot park in coastal areas?
Full Story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-venice-parking11-2009aug11,0,686516.story
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Lawsuit Press Release
Venice Stakeholders Association Files Lawsuit to Allow Overnight Parking Districts in Venice
(Venice, CA/August 10, 2009) The Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA) will today file a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court to remove the California Coastal Commission from jurisdiction over overnight parking districts (OPDs) in Venice or, alternatively, compel approval of coastal development permits (CDPs) for such districts, to allow Venice residents to establish restricted parking on their streets from 2 AM to 6 AM by petition.
The suit identifies several instances when the Coastal Commission failed to follow the Coastal Act in its June denial of permits for overnight parking districts (OPDs) in Venice.
“The Coastal Commission has a legal mandate to protect coastal waters,” said Mark Ryavec, an officer of the VSA and 25-year coastal activist. “However, despite hearing of repeated instances of the owners of recreational vehicles leaking and/or dumping their sewage directly into yards, streets and storm drains, which drain directly to the ocean, the Commission failed to act to protect the coastal water.”
Noting that these vehicles should be in proper campgrounds with sewer connections, not on residential streets, Ryavec explained that the Commission would not allow apartment units to discharge sewage directly to the ocean. “Bizarrely, the Commission looked the other way when the issue of illegal discharges from RVs and campers was presented to them.”
The Coastal Act also requires the Commission to balance beach visitor needs with the quality of life of coastal residents. Ryavec said, “During its discussion of the matter, none of the Commission members made any effort to find that balance, even though its own staff had presented a balanced recommendation that significantly increased overnight parking for visitors.” The Commission rejected the staff recommendation out-right.
The most significant issue raised by the lawsuit is its conclusion that the Commission does not have legal authority over the OPDs in the first place and that no coastal development permits are required for overnight restricted parking.
“Santa Barbara, for example, bans RVs in the coastal zone and has never applied for a coastal development permit,” Ryavec said. “The key word here is ‘development.’ Parking restrictions and a few signs are not ‘development’ under the Coastal Act and they are not what the public thought it was adopting when we voted for the California Coastal Conservation Initiative in 1972.”
Ryavec noted that if CDPs are required for parking restrictions and street signs, then cities all along the coast are in violation of the Coastal Act for unpermitted signs that restrict parking for street sweeping and set time limits for parking in commercial areas, to name a few examples.
“Since the Commission did not follow the law and recommendations of its own staff, the residents of Venice have no choice but to ask the court to correct the situation,” Ryavec said.
(Venice, CA/August 10, 2009) The Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA) will today file a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court to remove the California Coastal Commission from jurisdiction over overnight parking districts (OPDs) in Venice or, alternatively, compel approval of coastal development permits (CDPs) for such districts, to allow Venice residents to establish restricted parking on their streets from 2 AM to 6 AM by petition.
The suit identifies several instances when the Coastal Commission failed to follow the Coastal Act in its June denial of permits for overnight parking districts (OPDs) in Venice.
“The Coastal Commission has a legal mandate to protect coastal waters,” said Mark Ryavec, an officer of the VSA and 25-year coastal activist. “However, despite hearing of repeated instances of the owners of recreational vehicles leaking and/or dumping their sewage directly into yards, streets and storm drains, which drain directly to the ocean, the Commission failed to act to protect the coastal water.”
Noting that these vehicles should be in proper campgrounds with sewer connections, not on residential streets, Ryavec explained that the Commission would not allow apartment units to discharge sewage directly to the ocean. “Bizarrely, the Commission looked the other way when the issue of illegal discharges from RVs and campers was presented to them.”
The Coastal Act also requires the Commission to balance beach visitor needs with the quality of life of coastal residents. Ryavec said, “During its discussion of the matter, none of the Commission members made any effort to find that balance, even though its own staff had presented a balanced recommendation that significantly increased overnight parking for visitors.” The Commission rejected the staff recommendation out-right.
The most significant issue raised by the lawsuit is its conclusion that the Commission does not have legal authority over the OPDs in the first place and that no coastal development permits are required for overnight restricted parking.
“Santa Barbara, for example, bans RVs in the coastal zone and has never applied for a coastal development permit,” Ryavec said. “The key word here is ‘development.’ Parking restrictions and a few signs are not ‘development’ under the Coastal Act and they are not what the public thought it was adopting when we voted for the California Coastal Conservation Initiative in 1972.”
Ryavec noted that if CDPs are required for parking restrictions and street signs, then cities all along the coast are in violation of the Coastal Act for unpermitted signs that restrict parking for street sweeping and set time limits for parking in commercial areas, to name a few examples.
“Since the Commission did not follow the law and recommendations of its own staff, the residents of Venice have no choice but to ask the court to correct the situation,” Ryavec said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)