NOPDs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stay in touch with the Spirit of Venice
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 6, 2013
Nasty Venice Anti-Homeless Gentrification Permit Parking Efforts Keep Coming Back
From activist Peggy Lee Kennedy:
The California Coastal Commission denied Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) two years in a row and what has changed since are all the new Coastal Commissioners and the real reason behind the Venice OPDs has been virtually eliminated. We hope the new Commissioners will study the OPD denials from both June 2009 and again in June 2010 ( http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/6/Th14a-s-6-2010.pdf) and maybe even listen to our story to see why so many of us have fought all this time to keep Venice Beach Free and keep our Coastal Zone open to All.
This story does not exactly start here, but in June 2009 after the Venice OPDs were denied by the Coastal Commission, the Venice Stakeholder Association (VSAss) filed a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission. The City of Los Angeles filed a cross complaint against the California Coastal Commission aligning itself with the VSAss – in favor of OPDs.
The main Venice OPD proponent and president of the VSAss is Mark Ryavec. He is the core person in favor of the OPDs and he has used his organization to keep his pro-OPD agenda alive via the lawsuits. The main reason for OPDs is to remove homeless people living in vehicles from Venice and to help make Venice a more exclusive community.
The OPD law is a Los Angeles Municipal Code (an ordinance) brought to life by Councilman Bill Rosendahl after he was first elected and seated in 2005. The intent of this parking permit system is and has always been to make it illegal for homeless people (or other alternative people) to park a vehicle between 2-6am in Venice, because the rules make it so they cannot get a permit.
Please note that Venice has considerable homeless and low income services, second only to Skid Row in Los Angeles County. The development of these outstanding and life essential services, such as the Venice Clinic, were based originally on the fact that Venice was where their clients lived – prior to the extreme gentrification of the last ten to fifteen years.
You may ask, “Why is the Coastal Commission dealing with such a huge social issue?” Well Venice is in the Coastal Zone, the OPD law is a parking restriction ordinance and parking equals coastal access. The Coastal Commission is supposed to protect coastal access for all via mandate of the Coastal Act. That is their job.
Even though the Coastal Commission Staff and Attorneys along with the City of LA and Mark Ryavec all reached a tentative settlement agreement to put in the Venice OPDs prior to the June 2010 Coastal Commission meeting, the Commission denied the OPDs for the second year in a row. Unfortunately, they did not deny the OPD application on its face based on the multiple problems that existed (and still do) with the process. These problems include the City’s Coastal Act violations of removing miles of free parking in the Venice Coastal Zone without a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), closing the Beach in Venice without a CDP, and – importantly – without providing the appropriate replacement parking.
In June 2010 the Commission appeared to directly weigh in on the social issue of homelessness by recommending that the City use other laws and law enforcement as a reason for denying the OPDs in Venice. The Coastal Commission 2010 Venice OPD decision findings state:
“If the City implemented oversize vehicle parking restrictions, the City and the Commission would be able to evaluate whether those restrictions are sufficient to alleviate the concerns of OPD proponents. Similarly, the City has police power authority to regulate sleeping in vehicles, littering, public intoxication and dumping. In addition, many of the problems cited as a basis for the OPD relate to the important social problem of homelessness. Programs targeted at providing adequate housing and other services for the homeless could help alleviate problems associated with the use of vehicles as housing. None of these measures would exclude the general public from parking on the streets that support coastal access.” (http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/9/W25c-9-2010.pdf)
What happened next in Venice during the rest of 2010 is:
1) Councilman Rosendahl’s office (CD11) applied the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance widely in Venice,
2) LAPD formed a special Venice task force that arrested/towed/terrorized most RV dwellers out of Venice (or from just driving through Venice in an RV!),
3) A much publicized/anticipated Vehicle to Homes program never (ever) supplied one parking space in Venice for the displaced Venice vehicle dwellers,
4) And a federal lawsuit (Desertrain v City of Los Angeles) was filed regarding the civil rights violations incurred by the LAPD to Venice Vehicle Dwellers during the intense RV extermination efforts by the City at the end of 2010 in Venice (currently in the 9th circuit court of appeals).
The City has already dealt with, harshly and unconstitutionally,
the issues of Vehicle dwellers in Venice.
It is also important to say that no recent assessment of the perceived problem has been made. There was a count done by LAHSA (Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority) with St Joseph Social Services prior to the 2010 RV elimination in Venice. The count was over 250 RVers. The entire intent of OPDs in Venice now is to remove any few remaining Vehicle dwellers or poor people unable to fit in to the OPD rules. It is excessive and no realistic compensation will be made for the displaced or for the walkstreet residents.
Furthermore, the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) allowed the City and the VSAss to present an extremely one-sided presentation at the April 2013 VNC Board meeting to promote this new settlement in favor of OPDs BUT now they are promoting daytime permit parking for Venice as an add on. (LA Transportation slide show http://www.venicenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/012213-VeniceNC-PPT-1.pdf )
At this April 2013 VNC Board meeting, the City Attorney’s office made a portion of the extremely one-sided presentation, specifically regarding how Venice OPDs have been processed by the City prior to it getting in front of the Coastal Commission in 2009. Ms. Usher obviously forgot that the original mandatory public hearing held by the LA City Engineering Department (actually done by a contractor hired by the Engineering Dept. who we paid for) was packed by Venice people opposed to the OPDs – yet they said the audio of that meeting was not usable. The Engineering Dept. rubber stamped the OPD application for Venice, which was followed with over one hundred appeals filed on the decision – a record number of appeals for anything in the City of LA. When the appeal went in front of the Board of Public Works, Venice showed up there to say no to OPDs. The LA Board of Public Works again rubber stamped the Venice OPDs while Rosendahl grandstanded how he would amend the law making it illegal to live in a vehicle.
That law (LAMC 85.02) Rosendahl said he would amend was later used to justify arresting people, towing away the only home people had and taking pets to the pound during the vehicle dweller removal of late 2010. BTW the LAPD did this all during the daytime. And it was not hard for the LAPD to find the RVs as the County had closed all the beach lots to any oversized vehicle just to help the City along with this horrible thing they did.
But back to the Coastal Commission complaints, which have been repeatedly submitted to the Coastal Commission staff regarding the City of Los Angeles violating the Coastal Act. One is because the City wrote and is enforcing a law closing the beach without applying for a Coastal Development Permit, which the Coastal Commission has asked the City to address. The City of LA thumbed their nose at the Coastal Commission’s attempt to resolve this.
Another complaint is for removing free street parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, effectively removing beach access to low income people wanting to visit the Beach. This complaint refers to an extraordinary amount of street parking (miles of possible free beach parking for low income inner-city people) which the City has placed restrictive parking signs on – without even considering a Coastal Permit or providing replacement parking.
1) This is a violation of, but not limited to, Coastal Act Section 30210 and Section 30211
2) This also violates the Venice Coastal Land Use Plan. The City of Los Angeles signed the Venice Coastal Land Use Plan in 2001, which agrees to replace parking on a one-to-one basis. But the city has only ignored this contract by continually removing parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, while restricting any extremely meager new parking through payment meter or time limits.
So one question is: Why is the Coastal Commission granting permits to a verified Violator of the Coastal Act?
The City of LA and the VSAss consistently claim that because all the other surrounding beach areas have permit parking in Coastal Zones, then so should Venice. That fact should be an extremely compelling reason to not allow any further permit parking that restricts or eliminates street parking until there is a study of the” cumulative effects” that permit and restrictive parking has had on low income people regarding access to the California Coastal Zones. Without knowing the cumulative consequences of permit parking, the Coastal Commission cannot know how years worth of patch work mitigations and unenforced blatant violations of the Coastal Act restricting public access to the coast has cumulated into. Recent CEQA finding have leaned in favor of requiring assessment of the cumulative effects of development. Unfortunately, Los Angeles Department of Transportation rubber stamps each and every permit parking as not requiring an EIR and saying that CEQA does not apply.
Even if beach area permit parking was to be applied in Venice similar to other beach cities, such as Santa Monica, then the City of Los Angeles should be required to supply similar amounts of parking to offset the lost parking. This simply has not been done and is not in this new convoluted proposed settlement that will be on the Coastal Commission agenda in June 2013.
Also, because the current OPD (settlement) issue is based on a lawsuit filed by VSAss, the community has been excluded from any real input regarding a 2013 development project denied by the CCC in 2009 and 2010, two years in a row with packed meetings filled with public members completely opposed to OPDs in Venice – each time. Furthermore, the City is promoting daytime permit parking now without any real proof of wide public support.
This is a continuation of more gentrification for Venice, but one thing that bugs is why so many people do nothing and do not see how they are next. If they get rid of the homeless and funky artists, do everything to remove the African American community, go after the low income housing, and allow development to remove all the mom and pop businesses – then who will be left?
OK, it’s happening, but let’s still come together to give them a hell of a fight
to keep Venice Beach Free.
Venice needs you! Don’t let her down, please.
We need to lobby the new Commissioners by writing them
and going to the meeting in Long Beach in June.
Please email HumanRights@freevenice.org and ask to be put on the OPD action alert list and go to http://www.justice.wetnostril.net for updates, calls to action, and coming sample letters so you can tell them we do not want those OPDs.
———————–
April 23, 2013
NEW Proposed Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) Settlement
Presentation and Q & A re: Proposed Overnight Parking Districts Settlement – Marc Saltzberg, Vice President presiding
The City of Los Angeles seeks, again, to establish OPDs throughout Venice in order to prevent poor people, who are living in their vehicles, from parking on Venice streets. The Commission, after a public hearing on June 10, 2010, once again determined that the proposed overnight parking districts would adversely affect public coastal access and would exclude the general public from parking on public streets. The Commission found that there are alternatives that would accomplish the necessary goals without adversely impacting coastal access.
Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA), in their lawsuit against CCC, presumed to represent the will of the Venice community. When, in fact, they represent a minority of residents. VSA were recently joined by the right wing, anti-environmental Pacific Legal Foundation, which has attempted for years to dilute the safeguards of the California Coastal Act and I believe this partnership demonstrates their real intentions, which have been obscured by confusing legal maneuvers and misleading public statements by their spokesperson, Mark Ryavec.
——————–
The presentation on April 16, 2013 (see videos above) explained the OPD settlement to VNC Board and stakeholders. Representatives from the City Attorney’s Office; Tamara Martin and Felix Valde from LA Department of Transportation; Arturo Pina, District Director,CD11, the California Coastal Commission and knowledgeable others were invited to provide information and respond to questions. NOTE: No motion has been put forward on the subject of the OPD settlement. This item was for discussion only.
Any motions dealing with the OPD settlement will be heard at the VNC Board’s May meeting. (See article below for expanded explanation and suggestions by Peggy Lee Kennedy, activist/advocate) for keeping Venice public streets FREE!
Also, go here to pledge to KEEP VENICE STREETS FREE – https://www.causes.com/actions/1748385-keep-venice-streets-free-nopds-in-venice
and here to sign our petition which sends an email to the officials involved: http://www.change.org/petitions/keep-our-public-streets-free-nopds-in-venice
Thank you!
——————–
April 15, 2013
From Peggy Lee Kennedy
April 16, 2013 VNC OPD Questions
Why is the Coastal Commission settling for Overnight Permit Parking Districts (OPDs) with the city and ignoring the citizen complaints that have been repeatedly submitted to the California Coastal Commission about LA City’s Coastal Act violations?
1. One complaint is that the city of Los Angeles closed the beach without a CDP and then arbitrarily decided that Ocean Front Walk (street) was also the beach and is also closed.
2. Another complaint is regarding the city of Los Angeles violating state Costal Commission regulations by removing free street parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, effectively removing beach access to low income people wanting to visit the coast. The complaint refers to an extraordinary amount of street parking (miles of possible free beach parking for low income inner-city people) which the City has placed restrictive parking signs on – without even considering a Coastal Permit or providing replacement parking.
A) This is a violation of Coastal Act, but not limited to Section 30210 and Section 30211
B) This also violates the Venice Coastal Land Use Plan. The city of Los Angeles signed the Venice Coastal Land Use Plan in 2001, which agrees to replace parking on a one-to-one basis. But the city has only ignored this contract by continually removing parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, while restricting any extremely meager new parking through payment meter or time limits.
Question:
The Vehicle Dweller count done by LAHSA in Venice in 2010 was over 250. What is the count now? And what studies or counts have been conducted by the city proving that the perceived problem claimed by OPD proponents has not already been drastically reduced by the Oversized Vehicle ordinance and law enforcement tactics?
The California Coastal Commission denied Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) June 2009 and again in June 2010. The 2010 Coastal Commission decision findings state:
If the City implemented oversize vehicle parking restrictions, the City and the Commission would be able to evaluate whether those restrictions are sufficient to alleviate the concerns of OPD proponents. Similarly, the City has police power authority to regulate sleeping in vehicles, littering, public intoxication and dumping. In addition, many of the problems cited as a basis for the OPD relate to the important social problem of homelessness. Programs targeted at providing adequate housing and other services for the homeless could help alleviate problems associated with the use of vehicles as housing. None of these measures would exclude the general public from parking on the streets that support coastal access. (http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/9/W25c-9-2010.pdf )
1) Councilman Rosendahl’s office (CD11) applied the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance widely in Venice,
2) The LAPD formed a special Venice task force that arrested/towed/terrorized most RV dwellers out of Venice,
3) The much publicized/anticipated Vehicle to Homes program never (ever) supplied one parking space in Venice for the displaced Venice vehicle dwellers,
4) And a federal lawsuit (Desertrain v City of Los Angeles) was filed regarding the civil rights violations incurred by the LAPD to Venice Vehicle Dwellers during the intense RV removal efforts by the City at the end of 2010 in Venice (currently in the 9th circuit court of appeals).
Question:
Why does the City get to do these things without going through a new Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process that includes an opportunity for real public input?
Because the current OPD (proposed settlement) is based on a lawsuit filed by VSA, the community has been excluded from any real input regarding a development project denied by the Coastal Commission in 2009 and 2010 (two years in a row) with packed meetings filled with public members completely opposed to OPDs in Venice – each time. Now the city is promoting daytime permit parking in the Venice Coastal Zone without any real proof of wide public support.
Question:
Why is the Coastal Commission not requiring an assessment study to determine the cumulative effects of reduced coastal access (removed free parking) to low income residents and visitors created by all of the permit parking and parking requirement exemptions granted in the California Coastal Zone (along with the blatant violations of the Coastal Act)?
The city and the VSA consistently claim that because all the other surrounding beach areas have permit parking in Coastal Zones, then so should Venice. That fact should be an extremely compelling reason to not allow any further permit parking that restricts or eliminates street parking until there is a study of the “cumulative effects” that permit and restrictive parking has had on low income people regarding access to the California Coastal Zones. Without knowing the cumulative consequences of permit parking, the CCC cannot know how years of patch work mitigations and unenforced blatant violations of the Coastal Act restricting public access to the coast has cumulated into. Recent CEQA finding have leaned in favor of requiring assessment of the cumulative effects of development. Unfortunately, Los Angeles Department of Transportation rubber stamps each and every permit parking as not requiring an EIR and saying that CEQA does not apply. CEQA does apply and at least an assessment study should be conducted prior to the approval of any more permit parking, specifically in a Coastal Zone.
——————–
April 13, 2013
OPD FACT SHEET AND CONTACT INFO FOR COASTAL COMMISSIONERS
Dear All,
As probably known – the OPD issue is surfacing again and we need to take action. I started a draft fact sheet and plan on creating a simple web site with action alerts, sample letters, and a OPD facts page.
I would be grateful for input, edits, and any additional information you think might be left out of the fact sheet or the contact list. If you have commissioner emails – that would be very helpful.
I would also be grateful for draft sample letters written to the Coastal Commissioners that I can post.
And it would be great to be kept updated with issues, like on that crummy one sided VNC OPD Town Hall.
Plus a flier would be a good idea, especially for walk streets.
If you want to see the letters written during previous efforts, the info is all linked to the June 2010 and June 2009 CCC Meetings
You will find links in the fact sheet to the June 2010 Meeting Info and the Sept 2010 Findings. The sheet is attached and also pasted below.
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
OPD FACT SHEET & CONTACT LIST
The California Coastal Commission denied Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) June 2009 and again in June 2010. (see http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/6/Th14a-s-6-2010.pdf ) After the June 2009, Venice Stakeholder Ass (VS Ass) filed a lawsuit against the CCC’s decision to deny the Venice OPD Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application. The City and Los Angeles filed a cross complaint against the CCC.
Although the CCC, the City, and the VS Ass reached a tentative settlement agreement to OPDs in Venice prior to the June 2010 CCC meeting, the CCC denied the OPDs for the second year in a row. Of the many comments made by the Commissioners at the June 2010 CCC meeting, the ones that dominated the decision and stated in the decision findings (http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/9/W25c-9-2010.pdf) were how the City could put in the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance without a CDP and this would solve the perceived problem (homeless people living in RVs) without causing as many problems for some residents (the people living on walk streets near the beach and near Lincoln who do not have street parking and who would be negatively affected by the OPDs). The litigants appeared to agree.
After the June 2010 CCC denial of Venice OPDs:
1) Rosendahl’s office (CD11) applied the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance widely in Venice,
2) The LAPD formed a special Venice task force that arrested/towed/terrorized RV dwellers out of Venice, but the much publicized/anticipated Vehicle to Homes program never (ever) supplied one parking space in Venice for the displaced Venice vehicle dwellers,
3) A federal lawsuit (Desertrain v City of Los Angeles) was filed regarding the civil rights violations incurred by the LAPD to Venice Vehicle Dwellers during the intense RV removal efforts by the City at the end of 2010 in Venice. Desertrain is currently in the 9th circuit court of appeals,
4) The VS Ass filed another lawsuit for OPDs, which we are now dealing with.
The City has resolved, harshly and unconstitutionally, issues with Vehicle dwellers in Venice. It should not be now trying to present a settlement agreement to the Aug 2010 VS Ass lawsuit that includes Venice OPDs. The entire intent of OPDs in Venice is to remove Vehicle dwellers, because they are unable to purchase a permit to park on a public street between 2-4am. Furthermore it appears that the VNC is going to allow a town hall to help the city and the VS Ass present a settlement in favor of OPDs (with no opposing voices) along with promoting daytime permit parking for Venice. (See for the LA Transportation slide show for this http://www.venicenc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/012213-VeniceNC-PPT-1.pdf )
Complaints have been repeatedly submitted to the CCC regarding the city of Los Angeles violating state CCC regulations by removing free street parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, effectively removing beach access to low income people wanting to visit the coast. The complaint refers to an extraordinary amount of street parking (miles of possible free beach parking for low income inner-city people) which the City has placed restrictive parking signs on – without even considering a Coastal Permit or providing replacement parking.
1) This is a violation of Coastal Act Section 30210 (In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Amended by Ch.1075, Stats.1978.) and Section 30211 (Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.)
2) This also violates the Venice Coastal Land Use Plan. The city of Los Angeles signed the Venice Coastal Land Use Plan in 2001, which agrees to replace parking on a one-to-one basis. But the city has only ignored this contract by continually removing parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, while restricting any extremely meager new parking through payment meter or time limits.
The city and the VS Ass consistently claim that because all the other surrounding beach areas have permit parking in Coastal Zones, then so should Venice. That fact should be an extremely compelling reason to not allow any further permit parking that restricts or eliminates street parking until there is a study of the” cumulative effects” that permit and restrictive parking has had on low income people regarding access to the California Coastal Zones. Without knowing the cumulative consequences of permit parking, the CCC cannot know how years worth of patch work mitigations and unenforced blatant violations of the Coastal Act restricting public access to the coast has cumulated into. Recent CEQA finding have leaned in favor of requiring assessment of the cumulative effects of development. Unfortunately, Los Angeles Department of Transportation rubber stamps each and every permit parking as not requiring an EIR and saying that CEQA does not apply. But CEQA does apply and an assessment study should be conducted prior to the approval of any more permit parking, specifically in a Coastal Zone. The fact is that the city of Los Angeles has violated CEQA with every permit parking ordinance it approves by not addressing the cumulative effects. And each so-called temporary permit parking (temporary to avoid recognition of environmental effects) is simply re-approved over and over by the city.
Because the current OPD (settlement) issue is based on a lawsuit filed by VS Ass, the community has been excluded from any real input regarding a development project denied by the CCC two years in a row with packed meetings filled with public members completely opposed to OPDs in Venice – each time. Furthermore, the city is promoting daytime permit parking now without any real proof of wide public support.
Coastal Commission Staff
Charles Lester, Executive Director
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
(415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400
South Central Coast District Office
John (Jack) Ainsworth, Senior Deputy Director email: JAinsworth@coastal.ca.gov
Steve Hudson, District Manager
89 South California Street, Suite 200
Ventura, CA 93001-2801
(805) 585-1800
FAX (805) 641-1732
South Coast District Office for Los Angeles Co.:
Charles (Chuck) Posner email cposner@coastal.ca.gov
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4416
(562) 590-5071
FAX (562) 590-5084
NO written materials should be sent to Coastal Commissioners unless the Commission staff receives copies of all of the same materials at the same time.
Commissioners
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html
Commissioner Steve Blank
45 Fremont St. Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Commissioner Dayna Bochco
45 Fremont St.Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Commisioner Dr. William A. Burke
45 Fremont St.Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Commissioner Wendy Mitchell
12949 Blairwood Dr
Studio City, CA 91604
(415) 904-5200
Commisioner Mary K. Shallenberger Chair
P.O. Box 354
Clements, CA 95227-0354
(415) 904-5200
Commissioner Jana Zimmer
45 Fremont St.Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
zimmerccc@gmail.com
|
Martha McClure, Supervisor County of Del Norte |
|
Commissioner Steve Kinsey, (Supervisor)
Vice-Chair
County of Marin
Board of Supervisors
3501 Civic Center Dr # 329
San Rafael, CA 94903-4193
(415) 499-7331
Commissioner Carole Groom, (Supervisor)
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Commissioner Brian Brennan
45 Fremont St.Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Commissioner Dr. Robert Garcia
City of Long Beach, City Hall Office
Civic Center Plaza
333 West Ocean Blvd., 14th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Esther Sanchez, Councilmember
Oceanside City Council, City of Oceanside
300 North Coast Hwy
Oceanside, CA 92054
(760) 435-0971
esanchezccc@aol.com
ALTERNATES:
James Wickett (for Steve Blank)
45 Fremont St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Belinda Faustinos (for Dayna Bochco)
45 Fremont St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Dr. Clark E. Parker (for Dr. William A. Burke)
45 Fremont St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Steve Kram (For Wendy Mitchell)
45 Fremont St., Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 904-5200
Meg Caldwell, JD (For Mary Shallenberger)
Center for Ocean Solutions
Stanford Law School
Envt’l & Nat’l Res. Law & Policy
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
——————————————
June 17, 2010
Mayor Villaraigosa Sends Proposed OPD Settlement Agreement UNSIGNED Back to City Council
Honorable Members of the Los Angeles City Council
clo City Clerk
City Hall, Room 395
Re: CF 10-0843. Venice Stakeholders Association v. California Coastal Commission; City of Los Angeles v. California Coastal Commission; Settlement Agreement
Honorable Members:
Today I return without signature Council File 10-0843, which approves a settlement agreement that would allow for the initiation of overnight parking districts (OPDs) in the community of Venice in West Los Angeles.
I am taking this step in light of the June 10, 2010 decision of the California Coastal Commission to reject the City’s latest application for the establishment of Overnight Parking Districts in the Venice coastal zone. This decision has the practical effect of voiding the settlement agreement and making the City Council’s action moot.
Though technically a parking issue, the underlying issue is the growing number of residents that dwell in vehicles on our City streets. As a City, I believe we have the ability to differentiate between the needs of those legitimately suffering from economic dislocation who are in need of safe places to park and help in obtaining services and housing, and those who are taking unfair advantage of both the system and the historically welcoming tradition of the Venice community by creating nuisances and sometimes committing crimes. We can combine compassion and pragmatism with appropriate measured law enforcement to avoid the further victimization of both the housed and the un-housed populations of Venice.
Homelessness and economic dislocation are issues in every part of Los Angeles, not to mention the region, state and nation. I applaud Councilman Rosendahl for his efforts on issues of homelessness and support his proposal to create safe-haven public parking areas for people who are willing to accept homeless-related services. Programs in Eugene, OR and Santa Barbara, CA have been very successful at bridging this gap. Such a program could provide a number of locations that are dispersed throughout the region, where services could be provided and allow for people to impose overnight parking restrictions without taking away some of the last housing options that some people have.
In this case, and all over our City, it’s time we embraced the challenge and began working toward real solutions, not those that push problems from one block to another, from one neighborhood to another. We can do better, and we must do better.
Therefore, I am returning this file without signature and hope that we can work together to find an appropriate solution for this important and growing problem.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
—————————————
June 12, 2010
From: Arturo Pina
Subject: Message from Councilmember Rosendahl
Sent: Jun 11, 2010 3:51 PM
“I am very disappointed that the California Coastal Commission rejected a settlement proposal that would have given residents of Venice the same ability to regulate street parking as every other community on the California coast. The proposal would have simultaneously given residents local control and increased visitor access to the beach.
Despite this setback, I am determined to use every tool at my disposal to help Venice residents regulate parking in front of their homes. On Wednesday, the council’s Transportation Committee, which I chair, approved a stronger, tougher ordinance restricting parking by over-sized vehicles. I will ask the full City Council to adopt this ordinance. Over-sized vehicle restrictions can be adopted on a block-by-block basis, and can be implemented without seeking the approval of the Coastal Commission.
My staff and I are also moving forward aggressively with a Safe Parking program that will help move RVs and over-sized vehicles from residential streets while providing those living in their vehicles with much-needed social services and a path to housing.
While this is clearly a contentious issue, we all must resist anger and divisiveness. Solving this problem, and striking the right balance with a carrot and stick approach, will be difficult and will require patience and good will. Working together, I am confident we can accomplish that.”
Sincerely,
Arturo Piña
Office of Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
Office (310) 568-8772 – Fax (310) 410-3946
arturo.pina@lacity.org
http://www.councilmanrosendahl.com
—————————————
June 11, 2010
OPD Loses at CCC
The California Coastal Commission voted 5 to 4 yesterday to oppose the settlement reached by the City of Los Angeles and the Venice Stakeholders. The Venice Stakeholders negotiated with the City and settled for a modified OPD.
The City agreed to eliminate parking for vehicles more than 7 feet in height or more than 22 feet in length during the hours of 2 to 6 am in designated areas within the coastal commission jurisdiction, which is west of Lincoln Blvd. The decal parking was dropped, which would have extended the motor home exclusion to include dumped airport vehicles, vehicles dumped via commercial auto dealers, and vehicles accommodating apartment houses from 2 to 6 am.
Mark Ryavec, head of the stakeholders pursuing the suit, said, “There is no appeal, only a return to litigation. I’m accepting checks now.”
Mo Blorfroshan, head of West LA department of transportation, said he was disappointed. “We were all set to go.”
Santa Monica
Many at meet wondered about Santa Monica’s oversize vehicle exclusion. Santa Monica parking enforcement was called to see how they handle the oversize vehicles in the coastal commission jurisdiction during the hours of 2 to 6 am.
Santa Monica’s parking enforcement spokesperson said: “We do not allow them. The state ordinance that prevents oversize vehicles from parking in a residential area from 2 to 6 am also applies to Santa Monica’s coastal area.”
Asked if they enforced such. The answer was “Oh, yes.” When asked if they posted signs, the spokesperson said: “Santa Monica does not feel it necessary to post signs; it is the state law, per the vehicle code.”
Santa Monica’s beach lot at the pier stays open until 2 am and then closes. All other Santa Monica beach lots close at sunset.
—————————–
June 4, 2010
Happy Friday, fellow NOPD supporter!
Enjoy this weekend while you can, because next Wednesday and Thursday and maybe Friday – June 9-10 and 11 – the California Coastal Commission will vote on the proposed settlement of the lawsuit filed by the “Venice Stakeholders Association” regarding the City’s ability to impose costly new parking restrictions in the Venice Coastal Zone.
As you may know, the proposed settlement, created in a secret negotiation with our City Council, presents a real and present danger to the Venice we all know and love: It will immediately add parking meters to Venice’s public parking lots, removing all free street parking for you, and for your friends who just want to visit for a day, or an evening, or overnight.
The short version of this “bill of goods” is that a small group of Venetians are rightly concerned about RV dwellers illegally overnighting in front of their houses. The City has been miserably dragging its feet on enforcing existing laws and addressing the real issues. So, this group, instead of working with the City on good solutions, chose to sue the Coastal Commission to restrict parking in all of Venice. Next week, the settlement will be decided up or down.
After six months of “oversize vehicle” restrictions, the settlement would enable your neighbors a block away to choose fee-based permit parking there, which will drive all of their overflow parking to your block. To protect your parking, you will be forced to sign up and pay the new parking tax, and so on, block by block, until no one in Venice can park for free in front of their own home or apartment.
It gets worse: Buying a permit doesn’t promise you a parking space. If you ever park a couple of blocks from home now, you’ll still have to park far away – the only difference is that you’ll be paying for the privilege. And it won’t come close to helping the RV issue.
If you agree that this is just plain wrong, you must help stop this huge mistake. Urge as many people as you can to do the following:
1) Sign one or all of the following petitions; they are different from each other, but they all have the same basic goal:
http://tinyurl.com/27ltm3s
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/no-permit-parking-in-venice/sign.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/pt100216/petition.html
2) Forward this note to everyone you know who wants to keep our Venice free and fair for all.
3) Attend next Wednesday and Thursday’s Coastal Commission hearings (or at least one day if you can’t do both).
4) Prepare your one-minute or two-minute statements for Wednesday’s and Thursday’s hearings.
5) Volunteer to distribute flyers, which we can provide.
6) Arrive at next week’s CCC hearings early – 8:15am at the latest – to gather with your fellow NOPD neighbors.
This is a big deal: You can help turn “business as usual” into real progress for us all.
The CCC meetings will be held here:
Wednesday, June 9, 2010 – 9:00 am, Marina del Rey Hotel, 13534 Bali Way, Marina del Rey
Thursday, June 10, 2010 – 9:00 am, Marina del Rey Hotel, 13534 Bali Way, Marina del Rey
Thank you for your time and effort to help us all help each other.
See you there,
Venice Action Alliance
————————
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Send This Letter to L.A. City Council and the Calif. Coastal Commission
Dear Councilmember,
Why is the City even thinking about supporting this bogus VSA lawsuit settlement?
Did anyone ask the citizens of Venice what they want? No. Instead, you’re letting a group of aggressive malcontents dictate your agenda.
This settlement ignores the fact that the large majority of Venetians don’t want Overnight Parking Districts and don’t support the VSA lawsuit. Ask most Venice dwellers, and we’ll tell you:
NO, we don’t want OPDs.
NO, we don’t want to criminalize homelessness, whether or not they live in vehicles.
NO, we don’t want to pay for parking permits, or deal with the hassles involved
NO, we don’t want block-by-block petitions for OPDs that will pit neighbor against neighbor.
NO, we don’t want to push our problems from block to block without addressing them.
NO, we don’t want to undermine the Coastal Act, which has protected Venice for nearly three decades.
NO, we don’t want to see Los Angeles in the news again from coast to coast as “The Meanest City in America.”
YES, we want to protect our neighborhoods from criminal behavior and blight.
YES, we want to address problems caused by the bad behavior of a few RV dwellers.
YES, we want to find solutions for homelessness and for the needs of the homeless.
YES, we want to deal with the homeless humanely.
YES, we want a “safe parking” program focused on getting people into permanent housing.
YES, we want to protect the character of Venice.
YES, we want Venice to remain the great tourist attraction that draws people to our City.
YES, we want the City and County to address our serious homelessness problems in Venice, both vehicular and non-vehicular, instead of turning a blind eye.
NO, WE DO NOT WANT THE CITY TO BE PARTY TO A COERCIVE SETTLEMENT TO A CYNICAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION.
Yours Truly,
—————————————
May 13, 2010
Assemblyman Lieu drops bill on overnight parking restrictions as condition of tentative settlement agreement
BY VINCE ECHAVARIA, Argonaut
The California Coastal Commission, City of Los Angeles and a Venice stakeholders group appear to have tentatively settled on a challenge to the commission’s denial last year of permits for overnight parking restrictions on Venice streets.
In a lawsuit filed against the Coastal Commission and City of Los Angeles, the Venice Stakeholders Association alleged 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) in five areas of Venice.
The stakeholders association sought a writ of mandate with the complaint to invalidate the commission’s denial of the permits and a declaration that the coastal agency lacks jurisdiction in regards to overnight parking restrictions in the city. The complaint claimed that both the commission and city wrongly believe that the commission has jurisdiction over the establishment of OPDs between 2 and 6 a.m.
But under a proposed settlement of the case, the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission to approve restrictive parking permits would not be challenged while the city would have the option to implement parking restrictions in certain areas in the future.
Mark Ryavec, Venice Stakeholders Association president, said attorneys of the groups have recently been in discussions and the commission addressed the proposed agreement in closed session late last month but he could yet not disclose specific terms of the settlement. An attorney for the Coastal Commission, Chris Pederson, confirmed that the parties have been in discussion regarding a settlement but he declined to comment on specifics until the deal is finalized.
——————————————————–
May 6, 2010
Venice Stakeholders Assoc. are in a tentative settlement with the Calif. Coastal Commission (CCC) on the OPD issue. However, it could be several months before the negotiations are finalized and we still have time to make a difference.
Please express your disapproval by sending an email to the Coastal Commission, Bill Rosendahl and City Attorney Trutanich ~ here: http://tinyurl.com/27ltm3s
——————————————-
April 23, 2010
TELL ASSEMBLY REP. TED LIEU NOT TO AMEND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT!
In a proposed amendment to Assembly Bill (AB) 2228 regarding overnight parking, brought by Assembyman Ted Lieu – 53rd District – the City of Los Angeles could restrict parking on public streets in the Venice coastal zone between 2 and 5 a.m. without obtaining a permit from the Coastal Commission.
Please sign this petition ~ (http://tinyurl. com/y35c7fk) to send emails to your State Assembly Rep. and Rep. Ted Lieu telling them NOT to amend the California Coastal Act – and then tell your friends and family.
Thanks.
SOV
—————————–
April 24, 2010
Motion to Oppose Bill that Restricts Coastal Commission’s Review of Overnight Parking Districts in Venice Withdrawn – because the State Assembly Bill the VNC Board was to discuss was withdrawn on the news that a settlement to litigation between the Coastal Commision and various parties on the status of OPDs in the LA Coastal Zone is in the offing.
———————————-
April 14, 2010
Assemblyman Lieu introduces bill to allow city to restrict overnight parking without Coastal Commission authority
BY VINCE ECHAVARIA. Argonaut Newspaper
The City of Los Angeles would not have to receive the approval of the California Coastal Commission to establish parking restrictions in early morning hours on public streets in the coastal zone under a bill recently introduced by Assemblyman Ted Lieu.
In a proposed amendment to Assembly Bill (AB) 2228 regarding overnight parking, the City of Los Angeles could restrict parking on public streets in the Venice coastal zone between 2 and 5 a.m. without obtaining a permit from the Coastal Commission. The city would additionally be allowed to issue permits that exempt residents of the coastal zone from the parking restrictions.
According to the California Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission is authorized to issue permits to regulate various types of development along the coast. Assembly Bill 2228 states that existing law allows local municipalities to create an ordinance restricting vehicle parking on certain streets or highways between 2 and 6 a.m., a right which Lieu says he supports.
“I support cities having the traditional power of parking enforcement and oversight; every city has that, including the City of Los Angeles,” Lieu said.
The issue of establishing overnight parking districts has been at the forefront of a debate in recent years in Venice, where the community is seeking solutions to an ongoing problem of recreational vehicles lining streets for extended periods of time. The city sought the right to issue restrictive parking permits in June last year but the Coastal Commission rejected the request due to concerns of coastal access impacts.
With the lack of overnight parking limits, Lieu said Venice residents of the coastal zone have expressed concerns of public urination, litter and the dumping of raw sewage into yards and storm drains. As the location that is impacted by such issues, the city should be the one to decide how best to deal with them and not the statewide agency, Lieu said.
“I think the Coastal Commission does a great job in protecting our coast, but this to me is an issue of parking and making sure the residents of Venice are not affected by people urinating on laws and throwing trash on the streets,” the assemblyman said. “A lot of residents are being negatively impacted by a decision that should be made by the City of L.A. and not the Coastal Commission.”
But some Venice residents have opposed the proposed bill for attempting to remove the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission in deciding if coastal zone parking restrictions can take effect. In a letter to Lieu, members of the Venice Action Alliance said the bill would challenge the Coastal Act, noting that the tendency of cities to restrict coastal access is one of the reasons that the Coastal Act was passed by state voters.
“We think it’s a bad idea to tamper with the Coastal Act; it’s one of the major protections against overdevelopment and for coastal issues in general,” said David Ewing, Venice Action Alliance member. “It undermines (the Coastal Act) when people can go at it piecemeal.”
The action alliance letter states that removing overnight permit parking from the purview of the Coastal Commission would be a serious error.
Responding to claims that the proposal tampers with the Coastal Act, Lieu said his bill is “very narrowly tailored,” applying only to Los Angeles and between 2 and 5 a.m., when the argument for coastal access effects is weak.
Venice Action Alliance member Karen Wolfe pointed to another concern with the bill, saying that granting Los Angeles the right to restrict coastal zone parking could open the door for other cities to do the same.
“Not only does this restrict public coastal access in Venice but it provides a blueprint for all other communities to restrict public access in their area, and that’s scary,” Wolfe said.
Richard Bloom, south coast representative of the Coastal Commission, said he has not extensively reviewed the bill but believes it calls for an unnecessary reduction of commission jurisdiction. The Santa Monica city councilman, whose city deals with a significant homeless population like Venice, said he recognizes the need to address vehicular camping but such a proposal could potentially have large-scale negative consequences on coastal access.
“Any time you start to reduce the jurisdiction of an entity, even in a relatively small way, it could be the camel’s nose under the tent,” Bloom said.
Members of the action alliance have also claimed that Lieu introduced the bill in response to the city’s attempt to resolve a lawsuit against it and the Coastal Commission. Following the commission’s denial of overnight parking permits in June, the Venice Stakeholders Association filed a lawsuit arguing that the commission does not have jurisdiction to approve or deny permits for restricted parking.
Lieu disputed the claim that his proposed legislation was in response to the lawsuit but said City Attorney Carmen Trutanich has sponsored the bill. Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for Trutanich, confirmed that the office has supported the bill.
Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Association, also said the bill is not responding to the legal action but rather the alleged violation of the Coastal Act by the Coastal Commission when it rejected the permits last June. Lieu’s proposal could serve as a tool to offer coastal zone residents the same rights as other parts of the city to approve parking restrictions, he said.
“This is one more way for us to have the same rights to overnight restricted parking that everyone else in Los Angeles has,” Ryavec said.
City Councilman Bill Rosendahl reiterated his belief that residents living in the coastal sections of Venice, west of Lincoln Boulevard, should be given the same opportunity as other parts of Los Angeles to establish overnight parking districts.
—————————-
March 24, 2010
OPD Still Being Discussed
Venice Stakeholders Association, the City of Los Angeles, and the State Coastal Commission continue discussions regarding the Overnight Parking Districts proposed by the community of Venice. “It is too soon to tell if this will be successful,” according to Mark Ryavec, head of Venice Stakeholders Association, “though we are pleased with the support we are receiving from City Attorney Carmen Trutanich who is on our side.”
———————————-
December 19, 2009
To: Mark Antonio Grant, Special Deputy, City Council Seat 11 Rosen
From: Rick Selan, Educational Advocate
Re: A Closed Session Meeting Between CD11 Bill Rosendahl and Department of Transportation on OPD ?
As you serve as the special Deputy for Council person Bill Rosendahl, might you please verify a few points that were shared with me by a community members yesterday.1. She stated she watched on television a meeting which included Mr. Rosendahl and the Department of Transportation. When the issue of OPD’s in Venice came into play, the commissioners and Mr. Rosendahl went into a closed door session. Is this accurate or not accurate? If not accurate, please make the necessary changes to make it correct.
2. Has CD 11 Bill Rosendahl been in closed session(s) with the Department of Transportation regarding OPD’s in Venice? If so, what is his position and might you send a copy of the minutes of the closed meeting or a summary with the results of any votes taken?.
Please be as accurate as possible as this is an emotional issue in Venice.
Peace. Rick Selan
Press Advisory Contact: Mark Ryavec
310-392-4843
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.
In spite of a staff report favoring the proposed Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in Venice, the Coastal Commission voted almost unanimously “No” to the proposal at a hearing held in the Marina Del Rey Hotel. The results of the vote were greeted by applause by the many NOPD supporters who showed up at 8:00am on Thursday, June 11, 2009 to pack the hearing room. Speakers against the OPDs outnumbered the opposition by about 10 to 1. The Coastal Commissioners sat patiently listening to the heartfelt 2 minute speeches given by Venice residents who want to keep our streets free of permit parking.
Councilman, Bill Rosendahl, tried, in vain, to compare Venice to Santa Monica and Malibu, both cities who have achieved permit parking without Coastal Commission permission. However, the Commissioners were not convinced and responded by stating that the RV/homeless parking in Venice was a social issue that needed to be addressed by the City of Los Angeles, not the Coastal Commission.
Opponents of the OPDs left the hearing in a jubilant mood. Truly a victory for the “little people” – one which will resound through Venice for weeks and months to come!
# # # # #
June 15, 2009
Please post in website and let people know how the homeless haters are reacting. Poor and homeless must deal with this all the time now its their turn for defeat and they cannot sit still at home. How the hate thickens.
We must come out positive and keep the momentum going in a gracious way not in a ugly non-caring way.
Peace
Laddie
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Subject: Re: WatchDawg – BE MAD! – COME TO MEETING
On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Rick Feibusch wrote:
“The worst of all lives is the vicious life; the life of someone who becomes a positive addition to the forces of evil in a community.” – –
Theodore Roosevelt
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* > Venice WatchDawg 6 – 14 – 2009
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
>
> VENICE LOSES THE OVERNIGHT PARKING DISTRICT FIGHT
> THE RV DWELLERS WIN – WE LOSE!!!
>
> BUT THAT IS NOT ALL!!! “THEY” ARE PUTTING THE NEXT STEPS IN PLACE TO TURN VENICE INTO A NEW HOOVERVILLE – HOME OF THE HOMELESS!!!
>
> THE NEXT SHOE IS ABOUT TO DROP!!!!!
>
> You have to come to the Venice Neighborhood Council meeting at Westminster School on Tuesday, the 16th and have your views heard – THEY ARE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND DISREGARDING YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE!!!
> Dear Readers,
>
> YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION NOW!!! (Tuesday night, actually!) What all of the campaigning and a whole day spent voting at the library has done is wasted Stakeholders time while the City puts resident leaders through hoops and mountains of paperwork and petitions TO NO AVAIL, while runing the town with legal tricks, subterfuge and political pressure from special interest groups.
>
> I will put the “old news” about the OPD loss at the Coastal Commission at the bottom of this report in order to show you what “they” are attempting to do to the people of Venice!!
>
> The note below was sent by Mark Ryavec, The Co-chairman of the official Venice Neighborhood Council Ad Hoc Homeless and Vehicular Occupation Committee. Apparently, the recommendations of the committee were not lax enough for a group of activist VNC Boardmembers who are completely disregarding the documented wishes of Stakeholders and Committee Members and they are going for some really scary amendments.
>
> They want to:
>
> * Remove the committee-adopted 300 foot setback from inhabited residences for a RV parking lot.
>
> * To allow up to six vehicles on a lot instead of three.
>
> * To allow six months stays instead of three months.
>
> * Add 5-10 lots, presumably all in Venice.
>
> COME TO THE MEETING – COME THERE MAD!!!!
>
> What is their purpose?? Why do they feel we deserve this??
>
> Show up this Tuesday night, June 16 ! The meeting will be held at Westminster Elementary School Auditorium, 1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd, starting at 7:00pm. Demand that the VNC adopt the committee’s report and motions as written.
>
> DON’T LET THEM FORCE THIS SITUATION ON US………. ..!
>
> Read below and you will see for yourself…. .
>
> Irate Editor, Rick Feibusch
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********
>
> “Is it true to say, “The evil done by men of goodwill is
> the worst evil of all?” – Iain Pears
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********
> From Mark Ryavec
> Venice Stakeholders Association,
>
> All,
>
> I appreciate that we are all tired and depressed by the Coastal
> Commission’s decision. However, the opposition is constantly at work.
>
> As you will see below, Boardmenber Carolyn Rios, with the support of VNC Vice President and BONC Official) Linda Lucks and Boardmember Karen Wolfe, has proposed to amend the motions coming out of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Occupation to remove the committee-adopted setback from inhabited residences of 300 feet for an RV transition lot, to allow up to six vehicles on a lot instead of three, to allow six months stays instead of three, and add 5-10 lots, presumably in Venice. If adopted this will give Rosendahl the leeway to put RV camps on church and city and school parking lots all over Venice.
>
> Think of the church lots in Oakwood, the city lots along Venice Blvd., and the school lot behind Westminster Elementary.
>
> What can you do? Show up Tuesday night! The meeting will be held at Westminster Elementary School Auditorium, 1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd, starting at 7:00pm. Demand that the VNC adopt the committee’s report and motions as written.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********
> From Boardmember Joe Murphy:
>
> Hi All,
> Attached is the 6/16/09 VNC Board Meeting Agenda. If you are receiving a copy of this email, there is an item in the agenda of interest to you.
>
> Much thanks.
>
> Joe
> – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
>
> E From Co-Chair Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and
> Vehicular Occupation
>
> I Motion to Amend Motion to Create Vehicle-to-Housing
> Transition Program
Carolyn Rios to be presented by Linda Lucks & Karen Wolfe:
> (i) Motion to change the language on page 5 of the Ad Hoc Homeless and Vehicular Occupation Committee Report (the first page of the Recommendation for a Pilot Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program) as follows:
>
> 1. The City would adopt conditional use permit language (recommended language below) to allow the permitting of public or private lots as transition sites per the proposed attached language. The sites would be at least 300 feet from inhabited residences, exempted from LAMC 85.02, no more than three six vehicles would be allowed on a site at one time, and participants would be restricted to receive permits for three month stays (renewable per request of Social Service agency) and must be of very low income status. (Examples of possible sites are below.) (5 – 10 lots would be added to list of possible sites.)
> (ii) Motion to change the language on page 5 of the Ad Hoc Homeless
> and Vehicular Occupation Committee Report as follows:
>
> ( ) Transitional Vehicular Residency on Parking Lots.
> Notwithstanding Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 85.02, the use of
> public parking lots and/or privately-held parking lots overnight as
> transition sites, with funded services providing for transition to
> affordable housing, for individuals living in their vehicles, limited
> to three (3) six (6) vehicles or less, with stays of less than three
> months per year, where the vehicles will be parked at least 300 feet
> from any inhabited dwelling(s) located on an adjoining or nearby
> parcel, and the vehicle owner(s)/occupants are determined to be very
> low income as determined by the transition service provider or the Los
> Angeles Housing Department, in the CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CM, MR1,
> MR2, M1, M2, M3, P, and PF Zones, provided that: . . .
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
>
> “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious
> encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but
> without understanding.” – -Justice Louis D. Brandeis
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **
>
> 
DEATH OF VENICE COASTAL OPDs
> First report by Stewart Oscars
>
> The OPDs got killed at the CCC hearing today. The vote was 9-1-1 (i believe) to reject the coastal development permits for the opds. Here is what i saw:
> The commissioners stated they were not in the business of social engineering (the parking issue got lost in the homeless issue). they also believed the city was making a case for privatization of beach access for Venice residents. one commissioner stated that RVs were part of the fabric of life in Venice. I guess we just need to get used to them. they believe that there is a better solution to the problem so the city should come up with one. So Venice, west of Lincoln remains the only coastal area in California with no form of restricted residential parking, at least that I know of. I have scouted north and south of here and everything adjacent and beyond that has some sort of restrictive parking.
>
> Stewart
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
> Indeed, it was the one of the most bizarre behaviors by a governmental
> body I have witnessed in my life.
>
> And I have appeared before a lot of government bodies over the years.
>
> They basically decided that they would not allow the CDPs to function
> in a manner that would address a social problem. They ignored the
> Coastal Act and made their decision on the basis of social policy and
> aversion to having their final approval of the CDPs/OPDs be the last
> deciding factor in whether residents could remove RVs/vans from their
> block overnight.
>
> Mark Ryavec
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
> Leora Barish wrote:
>
> Just hypothetically- – Let’s say the police really, seriously enforced
> the existing rules and laws regarding parking, vagrancy, public waste
> disposal, littering, etc – wouldn’t that basically solve all the problems? Personally, I don’t need or want my street to be perfectly spotless at all times; just reasonably clean and legal would satisfy me. It’s the preponderance and flagrance of RVs and other problems that makes me willing to entertain parking permits, but the permits aren’t the best solution I can imagine at all. If the police enforced the existing laws, that would be fine, in fact, it would be more convenient, friendlier, and all around better. If there were police enforcement, then I wouldn’t need parking permits, so the people like the letter-writers below (who clearly don’t have the serious RV problems and other problems we have in Oakwood) would be happy and I’d be happy and Bill Rosendahl, to pick a random example, would probably
> be happy to be off the hook and to maybe get my support instead of my
> cranky emails.
>
> So I’m curious if other people feel as I do. And if not, I’d be interested to hear why not. Maybe I’m naive, or deluded, or I’ve overlooking something – if so, please enlighten me.
>
> But if I’m not deluded, and if a lot of people feel like I do, then wouldn’t it make sense for us to organize and fight for what we actually want, i.e., police enforcement of existing laws, instead of parking permits, which are arguably more exclusionary and problematic to a lot of people? I know that in the past, we’ve been unable to get adequate police enforcement (or anything close) – but the fact that we haven’t gotten enforcement doesn’t necessarily mean we can get parking permits, does it? I don’t see why it’s easier to get parking permits just so we can have law enforcement, rather than just getting law enforcement without permits. And I wonder if we get parking permits, maybe those won’t be enforced either. I mean, either we’re getting
> back up or we’re not. It’s easy to see how the permits could turn out
> to be just as meaningless as the laws which aren’t be enforced now.
>
> Could someone please explain why this doesn’t make sense?
>
> Leora Barish
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **
> It does not make sense because:
>
> 1. Council District 11, which includes Venice, just lost another 100
> police officers that were reassigned to other, more dangerous parts of
> L.A.
>
> 2. LAPD officers cannot and/or will not take the time to stake-out an
> RV or group of lined up RVs to document that someone is actually
> living in them, so they have the evidence to turn over to the City
> Attorney’s Office to substantiate a violation of LAMC 85.02.
>
> 3. It was the LAPD that suggested overnight restricted parking so
> they would have a bright-line standard for citing non-resident
> vehicles.
>
> Please accept that many of us have been working with the LAPD for over
> 15 years to remove these nuisance vehicles and found that they generally do not have the time and officers to establish the evidence needed to sustain conviction and/or towing of the offenders. We did not come to the OPD solution without exhausting other possible solutions.
>
> I do not like having to have permits, but if $15 a year will get the
> tourist rental cars, the young travelers seeing America while pissing
> in the alley behind my garage, the RVs that leave trash and jars of
> urine on my front curb, etc., off my street, I’ll happily pay it.
>
> Mark Ryavec
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
>
> Dear Mark & Community,
>
> As a member of the LAPD Pacific Division Community Police Advisory
> Board, I can tell you the urban campers have been brought up many
> times since the board’s inception after the Christopher Commission
> recommendations were released some, what, fifteen years ago? In my
> opinion the local police do whatever they can to alleviate dangers
> that arise from the campers and the other mentally ill street people.
> There is no task force of officers available to deal with the issue.
> It most generally falls upon the one and only Senior Lead Officer in
> any given area to work on issues like this. In the area from Lincoln
> Blvd. west to Pacific Ave and from Santa Monica to Venice blvd. that
> is, as most of you know, Teresa Skinner. She does a hell of a good
> job for the resources she is given. And that is a point. When I
> (personally) observe Chief Bratton and Council people attending the
> yearly St. Joseph’s fundraiser which is one of the prime enablers of
> the street camping in our area, at the Dorothy Chandler, I had to
> wonder what if any positive commitment “city management” has towards
> even minimal corralling of the issue, let alone trying to end it. I
> happen to believe it is more fun for them to watch all of us folks
> running around being misdirected than for them to take on and
> accomplish real tasks.
>
> Nuts and bolts. Please understand that observing an urban camper
> coming and going from a camper is not grounds enough to say they are
> living there. That’s the current law. It used to be the mere presence
> of a camper parked on a residential street for more than a few hours,
> and/or if there was a lack of evidence of loading or unloading gear
> from the camper that would also would qualify for a ticket to be
> issued. Not anymore. The law was changed because people in the Valley
> were getting tickets by aggressive parking enforcement officers over
> 10 years ago. So then it became the standard that officers must
> directly observe the campers living in their vehicle in order to write
> a ticket. So how do you do that? Have you ever noticed that the
> campers are dark at night even when you know they are in there?
> Officers knock on the door and if the campers answer, bingo they can
> write a ticket, and if they don’t answer the door, no ticket is
> issued. Then of course you have the various personnel complaints filed
> against the officers for in the great majority of times, completely
> unfounded lies. Also please understand many officers are frustrated
> by their efforts being completely flushed down the toilet by some of
> our more activist judges who fail to hold people responsible for their
> actions. You may not like that, but it’s a fact.
>
> Then there is the parking lot idea. Nearly every community that has
> tried it, has abandoned it. Why? When gathering places have been
> tried in other communities, somewhere, sometime, by the very nature of
> how these people exist, someone gets hurt. Beaten, stabbed, robbed or
> shot, it doesn’t make a difference, It happens, and then there is
> always some social justice organization waiting in the wings to sue.
> That usually ends the program. Our City would be probably held
> responsible for any criminal action that would occur within a parking
> lot for the campers. Ironically if one of them inflicts damage on the
> surrounding community it would be up to us of course, individually or
> as a class, to seek our own legal redress. Sometimes you really have
> to wonder who is looking out for us? City management seems to focus on
> primarily for far too much of the time their defined special needs
> populations.
>
> So what other option do you have? Yes the OPD’s are a tax, but the
> benefit you will get for them in my mind, and for your peace of mind,
> far outweighs their cost. Linda Lux is a bright person. She knows all
> of this, so why is she really working so hard with the Mayors current
> Transportation Deputy and past Councilwoman Galanter deputy, Jim
> Bickhart, to stop all of you?
>
> Should any of you ever wish to attend the Community Police Advisory
> Board meeting, I extend a personal invitation to all of you. It is a
> public meeting and is held on the third Wednesday of every month
> except December, at 7PM in the Centerpointe Club in Play Vista. Please
> let me know.
>
> If any of you would ever like to see personally just how few officers
> there are to cover the entire Pacific Division, I would recommend you
> bake some cookies or rolls or dare I say doughnuts, and call Captain
> Hiltner the commanding officer at Pacific Station, and ask him if you
> can attend a roll call to thank the officers. Be prepared for being
> shocked. Most of us folks in Pacific are peaceful law-abiding people
> and it shows by how few officers you will encounter. They are strictly
> on reaction mode all the time, but it could and should be much better.
> There should be at least double the officers available in Pacific,
> then and only then can any type of proactive police work be
> accomplished.
>
> Chris Williams
>
> VNC Founding Boardmember
> Penmar Neighborhood Association
> LAPD Community Police Advisory Board
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
>
> “The difference between fiction and reality?
> Fiction has to make sense.” – – Tom Clancy
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****
> Dear Readers,
>
> Stop beating yourselves up – nothing would have helped – The CCC has
> been lobbied by the best – ex-members and all. They were convinced
> that they would not want to have their “fingerprints” on anything that
> could be construed “anti-poor” or against the ever deminishing middle
> class. They said that they didn’t want to be considered “political”
> while being VERY political by setting a precident that will allow to
> have ALL parking restrictions that were put there in Venice the past
> removed, as well as go after other beach communities in the coastal
> zone. Of course, those town’s police will enforce the other laws to
> keep them from there……. ..
>
> We got boned by the same folks who did it in the past before Cindy was
> Councilwoman. …. Live with it. If you insist on living in a
> community of overage children, run by dictatorial social engineers,
> this is what you will get….
>
> If not, MOVE!!! There is no room for rationality in Venice – Don’t
> repair or build anything and let criminals live in vans on the
> street…… create enough of a drug market to bring back street
> vending and gang wars….. scare the parents of young children out of
> town…….. all in the name of art and free thought….. . Pathetic
>
> Best,
>
> editorRick
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
SOV BLOG ---- SPIRIT OF VENICE BLOG 
[…] NOPDs […]
LikeLike