Venice Loves You – NOPDs

By Greta Cobar

Discrimination against those opposing Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in Venice was in full swing at the April Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) meeting.

No speaker cards were used for the discussion concerning OPDs, and Marc Saltzberg, VNC vice-president presiding over the OPD discussion, favored those supporting OPDs. They were allowed and encouraged to speak, while those opposing OPDs were marginalized and silenced.

As a result, the public is currently misinformed when it comes to OPDs. Here are some facts to consider:

• Price: How much is it going to cost you to park in front of your house? By how much will the rate increase each year? How much will you and your friends spend on parking tickets?

• Hassle: Do you look forward to going to some city office miles from here to pick up your permits? Is that something you want to do right before guests are coming over, to have to go and pick up a permit for them? What do you think will take longer, the drive or the waiting in line?

• Domino effect, not democracy: Although two thirds of all residents on a certain block would have to sign a petition requesting OPDs on their block, once one block signs such a petition, the blocks next to it will be forced to do it. When a person living on a block with OPDs has a visitor, that visitor will take the parking space in front of your house if your block has no OPDs. And therefore OPDs would create a domino effect in which people will be forced into signing up for OPDs on their block.

• Attention, beach residents!: Parking in your area will become even more congested under OPDs. Under the proposed settlement the area West of Pacific is not eligible for OPDs. Therefore all visitors coming to Venice will be looking for parking in that area.

• OPDs will not provide parking relief: Parking scarcity is a problem during the daytime, not at night. OPDs will be effective 2am to 5am only, when parking is not a problem in Venice. The only area where it is difficult to find parking during the night is West of Pacific. Ironically, OPDs are not going to be an option in that area.

• OPDs are illegal: Everybody needs to have 24 hour access to the entire Coastal Zone, which lies West of Lincoln. Not allowing people to park during certain hours anywhere within the Coastal Zone is a violation of the Coastal Act.

• Restriction of access: Sharing the Coastal Zone with people who are not as lucky as we are to live here is a Venetian responsibility. Restricting access through OPDs is wrong, immoral and unethical.

• Selective targeting and discrimination: “As a result of the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance people living in RVs have moved to vans,” stated Mark Ryavec, who is responsible for bringing forward this new settlement. The real intent of OPDs is to target people living in vehicles. Although that attitude might fly high in other parts of town, it really goes against the Venice way of doing things.

The only person not supporting OPDs who was allowed to speak during the meeting was Sara Wan, former commission member with the California Coastal Commission. She warned that OPDs would change the characteristics of our community. She also warned that the city of Los Angeles needs to put in place all proposed changes in order to accommodate OPDs before the parking restrictions go into effect. She mentioned that the city does not have a good record of following through.

Wan emphasized the fact that the settlement is only tentative, and it still needs to be approved by the Coastal Commission. In her opinion, because the Commission had not approved two very similar settlements in 2009 and 2010, it is likely and expected to follow its precedent rulings.

Presentations supporting OPDs at the VNC meeting were given by: Tamara Martin, Manager Analyst, of Parking Permits Division for the Department of Transportation; Arturo Pina, Councilperson Bill Rosendahl’s Chief of Staff; Jane Usher, from Carmen Trutanich’s office.

During the Question and Answer section of the meeting, the aforementioned speakers were allowed to answer the public’s questions. However, following Saltzberg’s suggestion, Ryavec became part of the panel answering the public’s questions even though he was the one who paid an attorney to come up with the settlement that would establish OPDs, if approved. Talk about conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Linda Lucks, VNC President, chose to recuse herself from the discussion concerning OPDs following Ryavec’s request of an investigation of ethics violation concerning Lucks’s employment with the Venice Community Housing Corporation, organization which has opposed OPDs.

Although all those opposing OPDs were allowed to talk at large, when a question was directed towards Wan, who was against OPDs, Ryavec took over the microphone and proceeded to answer the question himself. Did he just make himself exempt from conflict of interest violations?

The public needs to build a strong stand against Ryavec’s attempt to fool the public and the Coastal Commission into something that was already denied twice.

Send letters opposing OPDs in Venice addressed to John (Jack) Ainsworth, Senior Deputy Director and
Teresa Henry, District Managerto, at the following address: 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219.

And come out to voice your opinion during the June hearing, to be held on either June 12, 13 or 14 at the Long Beach City Council Chambers, 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach.

Venice Stakeholder OPD Pain in the Ass

By Peggy Lee Kennedy

The California Coastal Commission denied Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in June 2009 and again in June 2010. The stated reasons for the June 2010 OPD denial by the Commissioners, the ones written in the Coastal Commission decision findings, were how the City can put in the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance without a Coastal Permit and it 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).

After the June 2010 Coastal Commission’s denial of Venice OPDs:

1) Councilman Rosendahl’s office (Council District 11) 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.

3) The much publicized and anticipated Vehicle to Homes program never (ever) supplied one parking space in Venice for the displaced Venice vehicle dwellers.

4) A federal lawsuit (Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles) was filed regarding the civil rights violations incurred by the LAPD upon Venice Vehicle Dwellers during the intense RV removal efforts by the City. The Desertrain case is currently in the 9^th Circuit court of appeals.

5) The Venice Stakeholder Ass. filed another lawsuit for OPDs, with which we are now dealing.

The City has resolved, harshly and unconstitutionally, issues with Vehicle dwellers in Venice.  It should not now be trying to present a settlement agreement for the Venice Stakeholder 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 2-6am.  The Commission agreed to Oversized Vehicle Ordinance as the solution. Feel free to see the decision findings at: http://bit.ly/ZVfVA5.

Furthermore, complaints have been repeatedly submitted to the Coastal Commission regarding the city of Los Angeles violating the Coastal Act by closing the beach without the required Coastal Development Permit, and also removing free street parking in the Venice Coastal Zone, effectively removing beach access. This especially affects low income people wanting to visit the coast.

The removed free parking 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 parking meters or time limits.

Rosendahl and the Venice Stakeholder Ass. consistently claim that OPDs are some kind of a “civil right.” They say that because other surrounding beach areas have permit parking in Coastal Zones, then so should Venice! First, permit parking is not in our Bill of Rights and, secondly, the fact that so many coastal communities have permit parking 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 so much restricted parking in the Coastal Zone, the Coastal Commission cannot know how all these years of patch work mitigations and unenforced blatant violations of the Coastal Act (restricting public access to the coast) has cumulated into. Recent CEQA court findings have leaned in favor of requiring an assessment of the cumulative effects of development. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation rubber stamps each and every permit parking saying that CEQA does not apply.

But CEQA does apply in this case, 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 Environmental Impact Study requirements 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.

Besides, why is the Coastal Commission rewarding a Coastal Act violator (the City of Los Angeles) with a Coastal Permit? Also because the current OPD (Venice Stakeholder Ass) proposed settlement is based on a lawsuit, the community has been excluded from any real input regarding OPDs. Keep in mind that this is a Coastal Zone development project denied by the Coastal Commission two years in a row with packed meetings filled with public members completely opposed to OPDs in Venice – each time.

So people get ready, we need you again! This OPD lawsuit settlement is supposed to be heard at the June 2013 Coastal Commission meeting in Long Beach. We will have sample letters and updates posted at www.justice.wetnostril.net and if you want, email humanrights@freevenice.org asking to be added on the list for email updates. Venice needs you again to show up and to write letters to the Coastal Commission.

Tell the Bullies to Seek Help

By Lisa Green

I am defined by part of community as a vehicular dweller, and/or Homeless. I’ve been a consistent figure on Venice Boardwalk across from Venice Bistro for 5+ years. I’m an artist, an earthkeeper. I spend most of my time “outside and available,” dedicated to liberating the human family from our limitations, fears, and misunderstandings. At night I sleep inside my van with my dog Tiki, because I choose this lifestyle to illustrate an alternative way of existence. I live a simple life, as holistically as possible, and more than one documentary has been captured to make record of my example.

The true costs of how I function in life are of more value to humanity, the earth and all existence than most of you can comprehend right now, especially if you are still putting money above love and life. Recently, I’ve heard some of you state, “Well, this does not apply to you, just to ‘those people’. ” Well, that comment not only reeks of ignorance but implies that the “powermongers” are giving me an opt-out clause for good behavior, when I have not requested or demanded either. I stand by my word and my actions. When you attempt to separate our community, you tell me a great deal about your state of mind, and your mental and emotional health. I believe that the greatest work begins within the self. I live by example – that is my truth. Let’s get to the root of the problem at an individual and collective level.

OPD’s are a form of regressive taxation, and exclusionary. Who is behind this effort and why? Mark Ryavec continues to appear to be the spokesperson for an ongoing campaign to rid Venice of people that he does not accept as part of the community. When I see someone with a pattern of hostility, of negative thinking, of abusive behavior, loads of anger, and attacking others, I recommend a community intervention using non-violent conflict resolutions, life coaching, counseling, and yes – love. When will Mark stop? He was overstepping his authority at the VNC meeting yet again. Why is that acceptable to some of you? This man is misusing power. Are you afraid of him? Tell the bullies no. Tell the bullies to seek help. To seek inside themselves.

We live in resource based world. The economics of energy is a governing principle. Instead of spending time and energy on penal, regressive, and oppressive measures which cost us emotionally, physically, socially and environmentally long before they cost us monetarily, focus on solutions that empower people, that teach, and guide us towards equality, towards harmony.

Instead of making most people pay a fee to park, like OPDs, we must take actions to focus political will that have the corporations, and the economically rich pay their fair share. Do you really believe those taxes you are paying are fair? Are you getting enough back for what you give? Well, most people are telling me no, yet continuing to do the same thing expecting different results.

This is our world. One planet. One people. Our task is to learn not just to survive, but to thrive. Say no to OPDs and those that misuse power. Take action in healthy ways. In order to thrive we have to accept unity within the diversity. We have deep wounds to heal. Let’s come together. Let’s stand for equality. Let’s stand for justice. Let’s help those that require guidance in ways that are compassionate and empowering, and treat people with dignity and respect.

Censored at the April VNC Meeting: Interview with Sara Wan

By Greta Cobar

Sara Wan, former California Coastal Commission member, attended the April 16 Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) meeting. She spoke with the Beachhead subsequent to the VNC meeting, and this is what she had to say concerning Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in Venice:

Beachhead: What do you think about OPDs in Venice?

Sara Wan: The residents in Venice don’t know the long-term effects of OPDs, and neither does the public. The April 16 VNC meeting was rigged. There was no attempt to listen to what problems might be created for homeowners, residents and members of the public. The presentations were very one-sided. How are they going to determine who gets to vote in order to establish OPDs?

Beachhead: Were you unhappy with the VNC meeting?

Sara Wan: The meeting was a big disappointment – they did not allow me to say what I wanted to say. I wanted to give a little background on why the commission turned OPDs down twice – the public should know what the reasoning was. VNC reps limited me to talking only about the current settlement and told me that if the public wanted to know more about the previous defeated attempts to establish OPDs in Venice, they would address those questions to me during the Question and Answer section. However, when someone did ask me a question, Marc Saltzberg, who was presiding over the meeting, directed Mark Ryavec to take over the microphone from me, which he did. He then took all the allotted time to express his position, and I was never allowed to answer the two questions the person had for me.

Beachhead: Is the city of Los Angeles questioning the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction over parking?

Sara Wan: The original intent of all of this was to challenge the California Coastal Commission’s power to regulate parking by stating that parking does not fall under the definition of “development”, and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. “Development” is defined in the Coastal Act as anything considered to be a “change in density or intensity of use.” Parking is definitely a change in intensity of use.

By voting in support of the California Coastal Act of 1976, the public stated that the Coastal Zone be treated differently than the rest of the state. The city has the power to regulate parking outside of the Coastal Zone, but the city does not have the right to over-ride the Coastal Commission.

Beachhead: What do you think about parking restrictions in the Coastal Zone? 

Sara Wan: Parking restrictions create preferential treatment for the people who live there. OPDs are against public access and are designed to limit the public’s ability to park and therefore to use the beach. OPDs are against the Coastal Act of 1976.

OPDs will eventually lead to Preferential Permit Parking (PPD, which allow residents within 1500 feet of major commercial streets to apply for 24-hour permit parking). PPD would limit non-resident parking to a few hours, while residents with a City permit could park with no restrictions.

Beachhead: How is the city of Los Angeles bringing the issue of fairness into the discussion concerning OPDs?

Sara Wan: One of the main issues raised by Rosendahl’s s office has been the matter of fairness (if the rest of the city can have OPDs, it is unfair for Venice not to be able to have them as well). This is an attack on the Coastal Act – if you think that the Coastal Zone should be treated no different than the rest of the city, then you don’t think there should be a Coastal Act, which was voted by the people.

Beachhead: What do you think about the current midnight to 5am curfew on the beach and Ocean Front Walk?

Sara Wan: It is illegal. The city never got a permit from the Coastal Commission for the curfew. The public needs to write to the Chair of the Coastal Commission and ask the Commission to take action to deal with the enforcement of the curfew and initiate enforcement action against the city.

Beachhead: Do you think that by increasing the number of parking spaces available in the early morning hours the new settlement might be approved by the Commission?

Sara Wan: No, all those parking lots are supposed to be open 24 hours, they should be used for public access now.

Beachhead: What can the public do to let the Commission know that they are against OPDs in Venice?

Sara Wan: The public needs to understand that this is not a set thing. Attend the Commission hearing in June ( Long Beach City Council Chambers, 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach), following which the Commission could deny the settlement establishing OPDs in Venice, could approve them with modifications, or approve them as they are now.

Letters can be sent to the San Francisco office (45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219) to be forwarded to the each of the commissioners. Some of the commissioners have their addresses listed on the Commission’s website (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/address.html), and in that case letters can be sent to them directly.

Phone calls can be made to the Long Beach office (562-590-5071) for further questions and comments.

Keep Venice Free – No OPDs

By Greta Cobar

What else could possibly be done to change the welcoming spirit that has been the trademark of Venice for as long as it’s been on the map? How about bringing in Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) that would make it illegal to park without a city-issued permit from 2am to 5am.

The California Coastal Commission has voted against OPDs in Venice on June 11, 2009 and June 10, 2010. Because neither the legislature nor the circumstances have changed since, it is expected that the same vote will yield the same results come June 2013. The judicial system of the US is heavily based on precedent rulings.

The Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) was scheduled to hold a Town Hall meeting on OPDs on April 4, but that meeting was canceled and the next tentative date is May 6.

The reason the last meeting was cancelled and the date for the next one is still up in the air is because of disagreement between Linda Lucks, VNC President, and the Outreach Committee of the VNC, concerning who should be on the panel answering the public’s questions at the Town Hall.

“I’m not going to accept this,” Linda Lucks told the Beachhead about the current selection of panel members. They include Mark Ryavec of the Venice Stakeholders Association; Arturo Pena, Bill Rosendahl’s Chief of Staff; Jane Usher, former President of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission; and Tamara Martin, LADOT representative in charge of OPDs. All of these individuals are strong supporters of OPDs.

Town Hall meetings in Venice have historically been dominated by strong, outspoken opinions and enraged citizens on all sides of an issue. But the current effort of the VNC Outreach Committee is to have the next one be non-controversial and non-confrontational. According to this committee, the option of not having OPDs is not an option anymore.

Following the Coastal Commission’s 2010 ban on OPDs in Venice, Mark Ryavec’s Venice Stakeholders Association filed a lawsuit with the City of Los Angeles in which he argued that no Coastal Commission approval is needed in order to establish OPDs in Venice. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, although at first against Ryavec’s lawsuit, changed his mind and joined forces with Ryavec against the Coastal Commission.

“An earlier, tentative settlement went to the Commission about a year and a half ago, but it was rejected by extremists on the Commission. In the intervening time the Commission membership has dramatically changed,” said Mark Ryavec,

Although the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Board voted to approve OPDs in 2010, then Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission Peter Douglas joined forces with the 38 Venice residents who had filed an appeal against OPDs by filing his own appeal.

As a result, the Coastal Commission in 2010 voted against the establishment of OPDs in Venice.

Unfortunately Peter Douglas passed away on April 1, 2012, and the Coastal Commission went from what the World Bank had previously called “the strongest in the world” to what Steve Blank, a Commission member, predicted at the time of Peter Douglas’s death: “Once he’s gone, this commission will implode in the blink of an eye and all we’ll be talking about is the color of the concrete used to pave over what’s left of the coast.”

Currently a tentative settlement between Ryavec and the Coastal Commission has been reached, which would allow OPDs throughout Venice if the Coastal Commission were to approve them. In addition, two-thirds of the residents of each block would have to sign the petition asking for OPDs in order for them to go into effect.

Linda Lucks, although not the most outspoken liberal member of the VNC Board in the past, is now taking a strong stand against the Town Hall panel being represented only by Ryavec and those who agree with him and his settlement with the Coastal Commission.

As a result, Ryavec and his Stakeholders Association on March 25 filed a request for an investigation of an ethics violation by Linda Lucks. According to the request, Lucks should recuse herself from involvement with deliberations concerning OPDs because she has a conflict of interest due to her position as Capital Campaign Coordinator at the Venice Community Housing Corporation, which has opposed OPDs.

“The ethics charges are groundless, I don’t have a conflict of interest,” Lucks told the Beachhead.

Ryavec has previously been a big advocate of the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance (OVO), which prohibits RVs from parking on certain streets between 2am and 5am. “Vehicle dwellers have simply moved to vans, small trucks, and SUVs, which are not subject to the restriction on oversize vehicles,” Ryavec stated.

“The city of Los Angeles cannot justify this proposal as a way to address homelessness,” wrote Kim Thompson, a San Fernando valley resident and regular visitor to Venice, in his 2010 appeal to the Coastal Commission against OPDs.

Undoubtedly public access to the beach would be restricted under OPDs. According to the Coastal Act of 1976, “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.”

The midnight to 5am curfew that is now in place in parts of Venice under LAMC 63.44.B.14(b) is not only selectively enforced, but also illegal. A person sleeping on OFW during that time is likely to be harassed by the police either with a ticket or an arrest, while someone walking his or her dog is likely to be ignored by those same cops.

According to the Coastal Act of 1976, “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.” Under that same act, the city needs a permit for “any sort of curfews or restrictive ordinances that have such a negative impact on coastal access” said Charles Posner, Coastal Program Analyst with the California Coastal Commission in a phone conversation with the Beachhead in January 2012. The city does not have such a permit.

OPDs come at a price to all residents: they cost money. And the fee will be increased on a yearly basis. All of a sudden we will have to pay to park in front of our own houses and will end up paying outrageous parking tickets when we forget to put up the permit. Our friends will have to leave in the middle of the night or pay for the ticket more than they would for a hotel room if they just decide to crash over. Or, even more trouble can come about if they decide to leave after drinking because they’re worried about getting a ticket.

Although OPDs would be a hassle to the residents, the more important issue to consider is the public’s right of access. Do we want Venice to become the equivalent of a gated community?

Just because certain fractions of the VNC are trying to make it seem as if OPDs are inevitable, the settlement reached by Ryavec is tentative, just like the ones reached in 2009 and 2010. The Coastal Commission cannot afford to discredit itself by issuing a ruling opposing its previous decisions. Neither can it afford fighting and losing, based on the Coastal Act and on precedent rulings, the lawsuits that would inevitably follow.

The Coastal Commission is going to hold a hearing on the settlement on either June 12, 13 or 14 at the Long Beach City Council Chambers, at 333 W. Ocean Boulevard, in Long Beach. The public cannot attend this meeting, but letters opposing OPDs can be mailed in. Also, keep an eye out for the Town Hall meeting, currently scheduled for May 6, and come to voice your opinion during the Question and Answer section.

The Snake Around Venice

By Charles Dunn

The Snake that curls around Venice every Saturday and Sunday is easy to see as it slowly squeezes and suffocates its victim (Venice) like its next meal. Venice has become the metal Snake’s new prey, with the residents having to stand by and tolerate its invasion each weekend.

I`m talking about the overloading, ever increasing amount of traffic on our roads. The traffic has numerous heads and tails which wind around the Venice streets – coursing, snarling and creating jams with no end in sight – not to mention the noise pulsating out of car windows, with no choice for the listener.

Let`s put an end to this undesirable problem. We`ve all seen the empty parking lots at the Abbot Kinney library and at Venice High School the empty parking spaces outside local office buildings and businesses. A` Park and Ride` system should be adopted. We could have a tram line setup, with maybe two cars that travel in a loop up and down Venice Blvd., running on Solar Power.

Presently every available parking space is taken up, disregarding the needs of Venice residents. One local said “they come to park in spots needed for us, then when they go home,  they leave their trash behind for us to clean up some time Monday.”

We need a solution to this problem for all parties involved. It`s not right that Venetians should suffer and it`s not right that the visitors are having to sit in endless traffic congestion. These visitors are unwittingly overpowering us with their unnecessary pollution.

Most of the visitors spend a good length of time in traffic during their visit and I`m sure this may eventually keep people away,  thus local businesses would lose the much-needed revenue generated by these visitors, which in turn helps to pay their escalating rents.

I for one wish not to see Venice swamped with multi-story parking lots, ruining the unique Venice landscape – take other cities around the world as an example, they have excessive multi-story parking lots and ever expanding shopping malls.

Main St. in Venice once had a tram system (its existing lines can be seen when the road is under construction), and was known as the `Red Line` – maybe it`s time to bring it back.

Easing The Automobile Out Of Venice

By Jim Smith

Getting around Venice can be a problem if you don’t have a car. Even then, if you park your car on the street, don’t even think about moving it on a sunny weekend, or nearly any time during summer days. First Friday can extend the problem well into the evening if you live in Central Venice, Oakwood or Milwood.

In spite of having a problem that affects thousands of Venetians, no one seems to be working on a solution. The MTA doesn’t care. Bill Rosendahl’s advisory transportation committee is too busy looking at the big picture to address intra-community transportation problems. There is no Venice committee or organization that addresses this issue.

What exactly is the problem? First of all, there are too many cars in Venice. When Abbot Kinney founded our city in 1904-05, there were few cars and not many places to drive one. Most visitors came to Venice on an excellent rail system. Locals mostly walked around the town which hardly extended east of what is now Abbot Kinney Blvd. Or instead of walking, they could hop on the tram that plied Ocean Front Walk. Many streets were canals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, were and are, narrow.

Until more affluent residents moved to Venice beginning in the 1980s, many Venetians either did not have a car, or had one car per family. In the 1970s, the energy crisis had made small Japanese cars popular.

Detroit struck back by mounting station wagon bodies on large trucks and calling them SUVs. Gasoline became plentiful again and was sold at the lowest prices ever (adjusted for inflation). The growing popularity of Venice as a tourist attraction meant thousands of big vehicles were competing for Venice’s anemic supply of parking places. In recent times, the supply has shrunk even more as the City of Los Angeles has put up restrictive parking signs and red curbs without regard to the needs of local residents.

Growing numbers of Venetians have abandoned their cars for short trips and recreation by bicycle. However, Venice has lagged far behind many biking cities in protecting bike riders and in providing them with equal rights with other vehicles (cars and trucks). The only buffered or separate bike path in Venice is on the beach. Biking down Lincoln Blvd. can be considered a suicide attempt. The ill-considered painting of sharrows on Abbot Kinney Blvd. makes riding a bike there more dangerous because it gives riders a false sense of security. Some cities in Europe have closed some streets to autos and other streets to bikes.

In Venice biking, skating and walking are three popular alternatives to driving. Some streets, particularly near the beach, should be considered for skating lanes.

Nobody walks in L.A., but lots of people walk in Venice, and always have. You might think that there would be lots of accommodations for walkers. There are a few. Ocean Front Walk is the best. No cars and no bikes allowed. Police cars and bikes constantly violate this rule (anyone want to make a citizen’s arrest?). They should not be allowed in vehicles unless it is a genuine emergency. They can walk, can’t they?

On the other hand, there is no crosswalk leading to our circle in front of the Post Office. In order to enjoy this park, one has to evade several lanes of cut through traffic coming from one of five streets. A paranoid Venetian might think the L.A. Dept. of Transportation was trying to kill us off. Further evidence for this belief can be found in the dangerous crosswalk connecting Rialto Ave. and Palms Blvd. at Abbot Kinney. The Beachhead has previously reported on the inability for pedestrians to see whether motorists have a green or red light.

If Venice was a city of its own, it would probably have a flourishing shuttle service and perhaps a street car. A shuttle in Venice could provide two functions. It could pick up visitors to the beach who could park in unused lots on Lincoln Blvd. or in the Marina. During the week and during the winter, the shuttle could pick up some of the thousands of seniors who live near the beach where there are few businesses that cater to people’s daily needs and take them to Ralphs, RiteAid, Ross and other stores along Lincoln Blvd. The shuttle could charge a relatively high single use fee and a relatively low monthly pass fee. This is the fee schedule that is used in Venice, Italy, and enables the city to derive a good income from tourists using its Vaporetto (water bus), while providing a needed and low cost service to residents.

Would there be enough ridership to make a Venice shuttle viable? Yes, if visitors were able to park more cheaply in distant lots, and if the shuttle was attractive.

If Venice was a city of its own, it could build a streetcar down Pacific Avenue from the Santa Monica border to the end of the peninsula, giving sunbathers their choice of 2.6 miles of beaches. The street car could be linked with shuttles that would depart from Rose, Venice and/or Washington and Pacific to circle around Venice on Lincoln and Abbot Kinney Blvd. Ultimately, cars would not be needed to get around our community. Meanwhile, both street cars and shuttles would share traffic lanes with cars.

If shuttles and street cars don’t get you where you want to go, there are always rickshaws. Electric or pedal powered three-wheel vehicles are used in many cities around the world and have made their appearance in parts of Southern California from time to time. It remains for one of Venice’s budding entrepreneurs to navigate the L.A.’s bureaucracy and buy about 20 of the easily obtainable vehicles. Don’t wait too long. Someone might beat you to it.

There is nothing in the suggestions above that is not being done already by progressive-minded cities of all sizes. The main drawback in Venice is that we have no city government of our own. We are dependent on the city of Los Angeles, which has shown a marked reluctance over the years to make any improvements in Venice unless it comes from bond-issue funds or is desired by one of the moguls that runs Los Angeles.

 

Abbot Kinney Merchants Oppose Food Trucks

STATEMENT OF THE ABBOT KINNEY MERCHANTS COMMITEE

First Friday in Venice is where everyone wants to be, and the businesses on Abbot Kinney have taken a bold move.  They have paid the Department of Transportation to post the street for “NO PARKING from 4 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.” with the full understanding that this means that passenger cars are included in the parking ban.  The reason for this action is the excessive number of food trucks that show up.  Valet parking services will be operating, including one at the corner of Navarre Court which is not restaurant-affiliated.

First Friday began in 2007 when a group of merchants on Abbot Kinney banded together in an effort to promote business on the street.  It was slow to start, but attendance gradually increased as more businesses joined in.   For years, Abbot Kinney has hosted a holiday event with great success, and they were trying to expand on that concept.

In June, 2009, there was a sudden increase in traffic, as word spread through social media that Abbot Kinney was ‘the place to be on First Fridays’.  The increase in pedestrians caused some concern for public safety.

The merchants, working with LAPD and the Fire Marshall, agreed to be more mindful of what they could do to stop contributing to sidewalk congestion.   The crowds continued to flock to the street for subsequent First Fridays.  The energy was exciting, and businesses flourished.

In early 2009, food trucks began parking in a private lot on Abbot Kinney. These first few trucks were novel and well-received by patrons. By September 2009, what started out as a handful of food trucks quickly snowballed.  Presently, anywhere between 40 and 50 trucks park along the full length of the Boulevard which has routinely created a public safety hazard.

Pedestrians walk in the street because of the congestion on the sidewalks – congestion created by scores of people trying to navigate the narrow sidewalks made narrower by those waiting in line for the food trucks.

Many merchants have reported that their businesses have been hurt by the presence of this unsustainably large number of food trucks, and the consequent problems associated with their presence.  Many report that ‘scouts’ for the trucks actually park cars on the street early in the day to ensure that a truck will have a space for that evening - one food truck space is roughly equal to two mid-size cars.  Trucks that park in front of businesses effectively shut those businesses down by blocking their signage and window displays. The cooking exhaust fills the stores.  The associated trash and food waste litters the sidewalk.

There is virtually no legislation in place that governs where and when the food trucks can do business.  Most agree that having a few trucks present on First Friday could be an asset, but their attempts to negotiate moderation with the trucks have failed.

The merchants of Abbot Kinney are working together to continue to provide a safe, festive, and welcoming atmosphere on First Fridays.  To that end, they have scheduled their “Holiday Street Walk’ on Sunday, December 5^th, from 3-8 p.m., with Santa and carolers convening at The Brig parking lot.

The ‘no parking’ posting for this Friday, far from being a long-term solution to the food truck issue, is a first step in the merchant community’s ongoing efforts to preserve Abbot Kinney’s unique appeal by restoring a measure of balance and order to Abbot Kinney Blvd.’s First Friday celebration.  Nov. 27, 2010

First Friday, for Who?

By CJ Gronner

‘On my last First Friday I realized this: There are way too many food trucks, they are so marginally talented and they need to drive to Bakersfield and stay there. And also, people of Brentwood, Santa Monica and the Palisades, PLEASE NOTE: you are not cool for just coming to Venice one Friday of the month. Love & Hugs as always…”

So read the Facebook status of one of my Venice pals the day after last month’s First Friday. Yep, I think it’s time for we citizens of Venice to have another little Pow Wow about it all. What started out as a thing to help out Abbot Kinney merchants at a slow-ish time, and have a cool hang for the locals to mingle and enjoy each other as they strolled along the Boulevard, has now become a bit of a monster that no locals seem to want to participate in.

August’s First Friday was a madhouse. I helped out at my friend’s store (Firefly) that night, so I was really immersed in it this time, rather than looking down upon it all from another friend’s balcony, which has been the norm recently. The entire part of the evening that we stayed open after normal non-First Friday hours, I recognized not one single soul from Venice – and I know a lot of people. Not ONE.

When you ask Venice people these days if you’ll see them on First Friday, the general response is “No way, I can’t stand that mess,” and it has actually propelled many of us AWAY from Venice (Helpful Hint: that would be a good day to try and lure us East of Lincoln, East side pals!).

And it really is a mess, literally and figuratively. A real mess, as people leave their food truck garbage everywhere (my bike basket is especially attractive to them for that purpose). A mess of people blocking the sidewalks, as it took me 20 minutes to get from locking Firefly’s back door to get to my bike parked in front. A mess of traffic, as 40 (!) Food Trucks (the most ever, I believe) lined the streets, and a long queue more of them waited their turn on Milwood to turn on to AKB. It’s gotten to where it’s really just kind of gross, and not many locals want to participate in that.

People that live in Venice chose their home for a reason, generally, and that is that it is VENICE … not Santa Monica, not the Marina, but Venice, and all that goes along with that. We don’t want Abbot Kinney to be another cheesy Promenade. We like to support local businesses. We like to park somewhere near our homes. We like to ride our bikes or walk without a hassle. We like to recognize SOMEONE as we go about our fun.

More and more shops and businesses on the street are talking about not staying open for First Fridays, as it doesn’t seem to be that profitable. The permanent restaurants on the Boulevard are all great, and busy on Fridays anyway. With such a glut of Food Trucks that night, and locals completely avoiding it all, who really benefits from the thing – other than the night trippers that want to feel all cool and Venice for an evening, I mean?

Again, I don’t have the answers, but we need to discuss it all, before the whole thing turns ugly. There’s already anger with the food trucks, the crowds, the garbage, the parking, etc … and that’s not cool. I just want my friends and neighbors to be happy, and there hasn’t been too much happiness (that I’ve heard of) with the whole First Friday deal. On the other hand, it’s merely one night a month, and I guess we can all stomach that … I guess.  Most seem to think it’s a passing phase/phenomenon, and we can just ride it out. People will find some other place to go litter and Twitter and get drunk soon enough. Time will tell…

It’s a good time to talk about Venice Cityhood, too. With independence from Los Angeles, we’d be more free to sort out what’s best for us as a city, and as a people. FREE – that’s a big, big part of why I chose to live here, to feel free to live however I want to, with like sorts that also greatly value their freedom. That’s why this paper is called The FREE Venice Beachhead.  It’s the core value, I believe, of Venice.

So let’s talk about all of it… First Fridays, supporting local business and the best ways to do that, if Cityhood is a real possibility that has support and benefits everyone, litter, parking and anything else you want to talk about. Write to The Beachhead, or stop me on the street Monday-Thursday, Saturday and Sunday, since I probably won’t be seeing any of you at First Friday.

If you have to stack ‘em, you’ve got too many cars

It all began when Restaurant Developer Fran Camaj, otherwise know as ADC Development of Beverly Hills, applied to the city of Los Angeles for a permit to demolish the existing structures at 1305 Abbot Kinney Blvd. and build a restaurant on the site.

Naturally, the city rubber stamped the application even though it did not have adequate parking.  Venice residents appealed to the Coastal Commission which found that substantial issues existed, especially the lack of parking. The Commission staff supported the appeal.

The Developer hired Attorney John Henning who had been, and may still be, the lawyer for Mark Ryavec’s Venice Stakeholders Association, which has been leading the effort to bring overnight permit parking to Venice. The Commission voted against it last June.

Henning recently argued before the Venice Neighborhood Council that the solution to the lack of parking for the restaurant is to stack the cars 30 feet high in a mechanical contraption (not to be confused with the photo above).

Camaj also owns another restaurant on Abbot Kinney Blvd. at Milwood Avenue, called Gjelina.

Back at 1305 AKB, some of the units are classified as residential, although they haven’t been used as such since the boulevard became hip and landlords could charge more renting to businesses. The proposed new building would not be mixed use which would allow replacement of the former residential units.

It took the VNC more than an hour to dispose of the car stacking scheme. But this is likely not the end of the road, so to speak, for this latest gentrification plan.

–Jim Smith