Posts Tagged ‘city of los angeles’

Abbott Kinney, Founder of Venice of America, CA

Abbott Kinney, Founder of Venice of America, CA

An old Abbott Kinney deed, buried in the Los Angeles City Archives, has surfaced recently, thanks to the work of two Venice activists (who prefer to remain anonymous). The 1912 deed implies that if the property designated for the Venice canals is not maintained for use as “permanent waterways and canals”, it shall revert back to the Abbott Kinney Company or its successors.

Given that most of the canals were filled in back in the 1920s, does this now mean that the City of Los Angeles is in violation of this deed?  And, if so, does this now mean that the land shall revert back to the AK Company (no longer in existence) or its successors – whoever they may be?

This deed states that:  “If second party [City of Venice], or its successors, shall fail, neglect, or refuse, for ninety days after written notice, to comply with all or any of the beforementioned conditions, then and in that event, this grant shall cease, determine and become void, and the full fee simple title, without encumbrance of any kind by reason of this indenture shall thereupon without any action on the part of the grantor become vested in said first part [Abbott Kinney Company], its successors or assigns.” Click AKDeedCanals 1912 to view complete deed.

AKDeed-canals-1

AKDeed-canals-2

Go here to read more on The Lost Canals of Venice of America from KCET – http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-subject/the-lost-canals-of-venice-of-america.html

Advertisements

March 20, 2015

GLOBAL INVESTORS:  FUTURE OF REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT IN SOCAL COASTAL REGIONS IS IN HIGHER-END RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES [in case you didn’t already know]

These investors are aiming to turn Venice into an enclave for the rich, gentrifying our community with their billions, with no thought for the community and how their ‘investments’ are creating misery and despair for low to middle income residents overwhelmed by mansionization, small lot subdivisions, and new trendy restaurants serving late-night liquor, creating an over-concentration of alcohol and traffic hazards in our neighborhoods. 

In October 2013, Global RE Investment Firm Colony Capital (with investors in China, England, France, Italy, Lebanon, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, & U.S.) invested $50 million in American Coastal Properties (with Pritzker/Vlock Family):

ColonyCapital

In March 2014, American Coastal Properties purchased 714 Hampton Ave for $1.2 million. They believe that the FUTURE OF REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT in the Southern California Coastal regions over the next few years is in repositioning higher-end residential properties, as opposed to buy-to-rent flips, for which profit margins have been compressed. Finding “up-and-coming” neighborhoods with dated housing stock that can be transformed into architectural design homes or town homes (small lot subdivisions) is their basic strategy, which represents true in-fill development.

AmCoastalProps

OH NO!  VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL ENDORSES CAR LIFTS
AS ADDITIONAL BEACH PARKING AT VENICE BEACH!

Sign the petition & send a message to Councilman Mike Bonin “NO CAR LIFTS IN VENICE!”

Triple-high-parking-lift-1

FEB 17, 2015 Venice – In a series of resolutions and endorsements, the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) approved the addition of thirty (30) automated car lifts at the Windward Circle, Venice Beach.

At the surface parking lot located at 29-47 Windward Ave., the VNC approved the addition of 30 automated/hydraulic car lifts which will ONLY increase parking capacity from 38 to a MEASLY 68 spaces!

“The most important issue facing Venice is parking and, tonight, we helped alleviate the lack of parking right at the Windward Circle,” offered President Mike Newhouse. “This kind of NUTS (and bolts) problem-solving is at the heart of why we have grass roots representation here in Los Angeles with neighborhood councils.” (Thnx, Mike, we think it’s NUTS, too!)

THIS VOTE WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR CAR LIFTS IN VENICE – PERIOD – IS THIS WHAT WE WANT?

30 CAR LIFTS WILL ONLY MAKE 30 EXTRA PARKING SPOTS — PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.  LET’S STOP THIS NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

https://www.change.org/p/mike-bonin-no-car-lifts-in-venice

8/19/14 – Venice Neighborhood Council voted to deny the Coastal Development (CDP) application by Gjelina owner, Fran Camaj, for a full-line alcohol restaurant w/takeout beer & wines sales at 320 Sunset Avenue, close to Google in Venice.

The application will now go back to Maya Zaitzevsky, Zoning Admin. at City Planning, for a final determination. Ms Zaitzevsky was waiting for the VNC vote before making her decision. The VNC letter confirming the vote is pending and should arrive early next week (8/25/14) — and we shall see if Ms Zaitzevsky honors the wishes of the Venice community by denying the project.

Here are some facts related to 320 Sunset that show how the applicant tricked the community into believing that he was building a “bakery” at this location. In reality, he performed a “bait & switch” taking advantage of loopholes in the city planning process, in order to start building renovations on the property without having to go through a lengthy process involving public scrutiny.

ABC Notice

The next biggest secret is out – Venice Beach CA has 108 alcohol licenses in a 3 square mile area. This means we have 34 per square mile, whereas in Los Angeles the average is 4 per square mile! This is outrageous, and an abuse of our neighborhood. Still they just keep coming…!

Many of you already know about the 320 Sunset project which is applying for a full-line on-site alcohol and off-site beer and wine license, right next to a residential area with families and children. Not to mention the new upscale restaurant currently planned on Rose Ave, replacing the Venice Ranch Market and La Fiesta Brava.

Where will it end?

In tract #2733, where the ABC license application is in process for 320 Sunset Ave, there are 3,695 residents and 16 alcohol licenses, maybe more.

That means 1 license per 230 people. The ABC regulation is one per either 2000 or 2500, depending if it’s an on/off sale license.

BUT there are way too many ABC licenses already here!

Please help us bring a MORATORIUM on alcohol licenses in Venice to safeguard the future of our community and our children!

SIGN OUR PETITION TO SEND EMAILS TO DECISION MAKERS. THANKS!
http://www.change.org/petitions/ca-state-attorney-a-moratorium-on-alcohol-licenses-in-venice-ca

Very creative video to be presented at the CA Coastal Commission TODAY – Friday June 13 – thank you to the Venice Coalition to Preserve Community Character (VCPUCC) and film maker Xaime Casillas for speaking out about Hyper-Gentrification in Venice Beach (stay tuned) –

save-venice-again
Please Attend Coastal Commission Meeting Jun 13th, 2014

Venice Needs You!

Please attend the monthly Coastal Commission Meeting at Huntington Beach City Hall on Friday June 13 at 9am to OPPOSE EIGHT DEMOLITIONS and one restaurant project.

The current Coastal Commission meeting agenda is online http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html.

Go to the link , scroll down to Friday. It’s a three day agenda: Wednesday – Friday. Venice is on Friday at 9am, which is the last day of the meeting and at the bottom of the agenda.

Each Venice item has a link to the Coastal Commission staff report and each one has the Coastal Permit application number.

ALSO, please WRITE AN OPPOSITION EMAIL RIGHT NOW (sample letter below) and send it to Charles Posner at chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov

Points to bring and make the Coastal Commission aware of:

CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355)

Venice is approximately 1 % of the Los Angeles population, yet has 19% of the developments.

These demolitions are cumulatively destroying the existing Venice community and the rebuilding is out of mass, out of scale, out of character, and obviously only for the wealthy to buy or live in.

It is a violation of CEQA to approve one more demolition in Venice without demanding a study consisting of: Parking, Traffic, Historic Preservation, Community Character, and the Mello Act replacement of affordable housing.

Coastal Act Sec 30624.7 The new developments have adverse effect both individually and cumulatively, because they are not consistent with the existing community character.

Coastal Act Sec 30116 (E) & (F) Venice Coastal Zone community is a sensitive coastal resource area with special communities and neighborhoods which are significant as a visitor destination and also provide existing coastal housing and recreational opportunities for low and moderate income persons.

Coastal Act Sec 30253 (E) This type of over development maximizes adverse impacts, instead of minimizing them and the city planning is doing nothing to protect the unique characteristics of the Venice Coastal Zone.

Coastal Act Sec 30212 (2) & (3) New developments are exceeding floor area, height and bulk of the former structures by more than 10% along with changing the intensity by more than 10%.

Coastal Act Section 30320: Developers are not properly posting or notifying the public or abutting neighbors of demolitions, which is a violation of due process.

Coastal Act Section 30604 (f) because there is no local coastal program the commission is mandated (shall) to encourage housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. Currently developers are evicting low income tenants, holding the property vacant to avoid MELLO Act

Requirements and all of the developments are for wealthy people.

There are no reports on Mello Act replacement for any of the affordable housing that has been lost or removed from Venice.

——————————–

SAMPLE LETTER:  COPY & PASTE INTO EMAIL AND SEND TO:  CHARLES POSNER – cposner@coastal.ca.gov

Dear Mr. Posner,

I oppose the five (5) demolitions proposed in the Oakwood section of Venice, to be heard at the June 13, 2014 Coastal Commission Meeting, for the reasons stated below:

Please ensure that each of the commissioners receives a copy of this letter for each of the five (5) projects, and that the letters be made a part of the permanent file for each of the five (5) cases, agenda items 10 F-J.
Thank you.

Regarding June 13, 2014 California Coastal Commission Meeting –
Agenda items 10 f through j, application numbers:

5-14-124 521 Vernon Ave Venice, CA 90291
5-14-0212 720 Indiana Ave Venice, CA 90291
5-14-0237 520 Broadway Ave Venice, CA 90291
5-14-0239 663 E. Brooks Ave Venice, CA 90291
5-14-0240 659 Broadway Street Venice, CA 90291

Dear Coastal Commissioners,

I request that the Coastal Commission deny the above five (5) application requests for a Coastal Development Permit based on the recurring pattern in each of the five (5) cases, all of which are in the Oakwood Area of Venice based on the following:

(a) none of the cases for demolition have been heard at the local level by the Venice Neighborhood Council, the public has not enjoyed the right to fully participate as required by Section 30005.5 of The California Coastal Act.

(b) provisions have not been made to replace the loss of affordable housing per Mello Act requirements on any of these demolitions. Reports or records are not available to the public on Mello Act replacements units on any of the affordable housing that has been lost and removed from the affordable housing inventory. A request has been made to Council District 11 with no response to date. The Venice Community has lost more affordable housing without replacement in the last six years than any other time in its history. I beseech your support as Coastal Commissioners to reverse this trend and bring relief to our community.

(c) each of these cases is a Venice Sign Off and does not reflect the intention of the Venice Specific Plan, the planned developments are not compatible in mass or scale to the existing community and therefore inconsistent with Coastal Act Sec 30624.7.

(d) It is a violation of CEQA to approve one more demolition in Venice without demanding a study consisting of:

Parking, Traffic, Historic Preservation, Community Character, and the Mello Act replacement of affordable housing. The barrage of development is having a negative cumulative effect per CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable.”  (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).

Venice is approximately 1 % of the Los Angeles population, yet has 19% of the developments and the environmental impact on the ecological balance due to this onslaught of development with lack of green space and removal of trees threatens to irrevocably change this beach community of quaint cottages into a concrete jungle that will no longer be walkable and welcoming. Per section 30001 of the California Coastal Act, I urge you to prevent the destruction of the ecological balance of this world renowned treasure we call home and to retain its resource value that is being destroyed.

Coastal Act Sec 30116 (E) & (F) Venice Coastal Zone community is a sensitive coastal resource area with special communities and neighborhoods which are significant as a visitor destination and also provide existing coastal housing and recreational opportunities for low and moderate income persons.

These demolitions are purely for financial gain those developing have no interest in the long term cumulative effect that it is having on the community and its residents of today and those of tomorrow. It is our responsibility and duty to protect the beautiful California Coast and the unique communities we call home for ourselves and future generations.

In conclusion, I ask you to deny any more demolitions without a proper study of how this is affecting our community.

Respectfully,

(Name)