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.

Re: “Sidewalk and bus stop taken over by New Owner of Venice Historical (sic) Post Office”

As one of my neighbors pointed out, Angelica Huston (misspelled Houston) had nothing to do with removing Venice’s historic colonnades on Windward Avenue. It was Robert Graham. Huston is guilty only if you consider women to be clones of their husbands.

I trust the next issue will correct the statement that a woman was to blame.

Jim Smith

P.S. I doubt that Huston was the last millionaire to move to Venice.

———————————–

Dear Beachhead,

Thank you for your recent article concerning Overnight Parking/RVs/Campers. The streets are not free. All residents and citizens pay for their preservation and maintenance. The Coastal Commissioners are hypocrites.

Playa del Rey, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica and Redondo Beach, all have signs that are near the seashore or Beach which restrict overnight parking of all vehicles of any size all the time. The signs in Playa del Rey were installed 30 years ago. No surfers, vendors or fishermen have ever complained. Never. Restricting public access to the beach is a mere fabrication.

LAMC 85.02 makes it illegal to lodge or sleep in your motor vehicle from time to time and overnight. This will not be accomplished in a public parking lot or street. It is illegal.

The oversized vehicle signs are designed to assist and help LAPD merely enforce our laws. The streets are free and public. The RVs and Campers cannot invade a public street and merely stay in a parking spot for many months or years and claim that space as their own property land. Adverse possession does not apply to a public street. There are 2000 free parking spaces for RVs and Campers at LAX.

We have short memories. Are our public streets dedicated for the Campers and RVs to extract and remove “human waste” pumped onto the streets?????

Loyal Reader and Fan,

Michael Millman

Dear Michael Millman,

Thank you for writing in regards to my article published last month. Yes, all citizens pay for the preservation and maintenance of streets, therefore the streets need to be available to everyone, not just the residents. 

The Coastal Commission was born as a result of a public vote concerning the Coastal Act of 1976. Therefore, the majority of voters agreed with the Commission’s mission of treating the Coastal Zone as different from other parts of the state. Your opinion that the Coastal Commissioners are hypocrites may be different from the majority of voters in California.

The Coastal Commission has the right to treat each coastal zone differently when it comes to parking restrictions depending on several issues, such as beach access and parking availability. Santa Monica’s landscape and the number of parking garages available is quite different than the situation here in Venice.

LAMC 85.02 has nothing to do with Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs). Furthermore, using OPDs as an excuse to selectively target people sleeping in vehicles is against the law.

There are other measures in place to prevent a vehicle from occupying the same spot for over 32 hours, but selectively enforcing that on people living in vehicles is against the law as well.

Who do you think is going to dump more waste on the street: someone living in a vehicle or someone sleeping on the street? The Jones Settlement prevents you from removing a person taking shelter during the night in front of your house. Vehicles can be eliminated, people cannot.

Thanks for reading and supporting the Beachhead!

Sincerely,

Greta Cobar

————————————–

Dear Beachhead,

With decisions pending on Overnight Parking Districts, which I strongly oppose, there is no way I can support Eric Garcetti for mayor. Allow me to explain.

I was living in Silver Lake (the 13th LA City Council District) when Jackie Goldberg was our City Council person. As Silver Lake was becoming more and more “Hipster invested” and gentrified, rumblings were being heard about bringing Permit Parking to the area. Most of the long-time Silver Lake residents and Jackie Goldberg herself were opposed to it. When Goldberg went to the CA State Legislature for a few months, the district was without a seat on the City Council, so nothing could be done for or against Permit Parking.

Then election time rolled around and it was time for the 13th District to fill its seat on the City Council. I did not support Eric Garcetti then either. Instead I voted for Jackie Goldberg’s brother. Garcetti won and has been on the City Council ever since. His election brought with it almost immediate changes to the 13th District. Only weeks after he took his seat on the Council, much to the dismay of its residents, Silver Lake got Permit Parking. And the flood gates were opened to developers and hyper gentrification. Not  unlike what is happening in Venice now.

On a strictly anecdotal level, I was friends (and still am) with a person who worked on Eric Garcetti’s first campaign for City Council. She was so appalled by his about face on issues and stances he took during the campaign, that she swore she would never work on another candidate’s campaign ever again.

Gruel or Garcetti, neither one is progressive. And I expect whoever gets into office to be as big a disappointment as our present Mayor has been. But who ever you vote for we here in Venice should all be steadfast against OPDs! If they come to be, Venice will lose a great deal of the freedom and character that brought us here to begin with.

Thank you,

Anthony Castillo

Venice 90291

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.

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.

This may be uncomfortable to hear, however, if we truly want to solve the problem of terrorism, we have no choice than to reflect honestly about the facts and root causes that have brought it about.  To end terrorism, there must be a process of recognizing the actions that are responsible for it, so that we can arrive at a place of reconciliation, where those motivating forces of anger, fear and hatred no longer control and decide the direction we take as an entire species.

Today, in the aftermath of the bombing of the Boston Marathon, with the renewed debate of terrorism taking hold of our political theatre, it is now more urgent to confront this issue than ever, for in its wake, we as a people have one of two directions with which we can go.  Either one of more danger, insecurity and intolerance, where we rush into cutting even more civil liberties and enhancing the security state – the same course that has led us over the past 12 years to a world that is less safe and less stable; or we can take this as an opportunity to look at where we as a people have fallen off course, and repair the system that has led us to where we are today.

Right now, at this very moment in time, calls are rising up to treat an American citizen – accused of a horrific crime – on U.S. soil, as an enemy combatant – to strip away his civil liberties and prosecute him in a military tribunal, outside of the transparency of our established judicial process.

There are those who say that this person – because of the acts committed, because of the seemingly over-whelming evidence of guilt – does not deserve due process of law – that he falls into a special category.

Oh, but what a slippery slope this course puts us on.

It is urgent, now more than ever, to detach ourselves from the raw emotions of the moment and think deeply about the consequences to which we are leading ourselves.  It is not about a single individual, but rather about who we are as a people.  By setting the precedent of stripping the civil rights away from one person – regardless of how terrible the actions and accusations may be – we open the door for policy that allows the government to justify the taking of civil rights away from all of us.

At this moment, in Massachusetts, legislators are calling to re-instate the death penalty for “certain types of crimes,” which includes the murder of police officers and government officials.  While on the surface this argument can be manipulated to sound like common sense, should it not be pointed out that any such law enacted would be in clear violation of our Constitution, and the 14^th Amendment, in which it clearly states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.”?

Should we not remind ourselves that the Constitution, and the Amendments made to it, was written to protect the people and citizenry from the abuses of power by the government, and not the other way around?  By calling for laws that create a tiered system of citizenry, where those employed by the government are above those of common status, it undermines the entire framework of who we are as a people and nation, and is patently un-American.

Instead of using an act of terror as the justification to change who we are, should we not examine what led to that act in the first place, to prevent such a thing from happening again?

There is no condoning the acts of violence.  The murder and maiming of innocent people is deplorable and has no justification.  Yet, as intelligent, moral beings with the capacity of thought, are we not capable of understanding the motives and root causes of those actions, to change what creates these types of acts.

An important question that must be asked is that if the murder of innocent civilians – women and children – by bombs and other devices is a horrible, unacceptable crime here on our streets, is it not also a horrible, unacceptable crime when that bomb explodes on the streets of another country in the form of a military drone strike, killing innocent women and children?

Is not the horror, loss and pain the same for those human beings, as it is for us here at home?  Are we not capable of understanding and feeling their pain as well?

In recent days, we have seen attacks here at home of terrible proportions.  Violent crime is worse than it has ever been, and increasingly it has been perpetrated by those who are barely out of their teens.  What is it that is leading the youth of our nation to commit such actions?  What the politicians say is that it is related to mental health issues.  To this I must agree.

Let us consider that those who are lashing out the most violently were mere children and babies 12 years ago, on 9-11.  Due to the direction in which we were led, and were silently complicit to, the only world they have known is one of war and violence, one of fear and intolerance.  Would it not only make sense that we have an entire generation of youth suffering from post-traumatic stress?

The real danger that we face today is that if we, as a nation, do not seriously address this situation, by accepting the fact that we have been on the wrong course, for over a generation and more – that war has only made this world a more dangerous place – that our only option, for our children and their futures, is to end this permanent state of war in which we have been living.

For too long, we have been pointing at an individual, at a group, and saying to ourselves that “they” did this to us – that “they” hate our freedom.  No one hates freedom.  The very idea is ridiculous.  People, all people, cherish freedom.  What we as human beings hate is slavery and oppression.

The only ones – the only ones – who would ever hate freedom, are the masters at the very top, who enslave the rest of us.  It is they, who are the real terrorists, who are dividing us on lines of race, religion and status, of gender and belief – arming all sides – using every opportunity to tighten our belts, while they keep getting fatter.  It is they, who have gutted our economy and infrastructure with war and greed.  It is they, the major corporations, the arms traders and manufacturers, the banking CEOs and oil executives, who buy off the politicians and policy makers that write the laws, sending our military into foreign countries to plunder the resources of this planet, without any respect for the life, liberty, or property of others, who care nothing for the rights and freedom of those they conquer.  It is they, who profit off of the suffering of all the people on this planet, and warp the conversation and our public policy towards the very hatred, fear and intolerance that fuels the terrorism that they claim to be fighting against.

This is the truth and the source of how we got to where we are today, and if our true goal is to end terrorism – to provide a planet of peace and stability for our children and future generations, then we need to put our war drums aside and work actively towards addressing those root causes.

The first step towards that is to admit to ourselves that yes, we are imperfect beings – we do make, and continue to make, mistakes and from there to work with purpose to make amends and reconciliation, by showing responsibility for the direction we are on – responsibility for our own actions.  In the end, it is not a question about them, but instead a question about us, about who we are, and what we are becoming.

Closing Santa Monica Airport seemed to resonate on the Saturday afternoon of April 27, as the Venice Neighborhood Council threw a forum focused on how Santa Monica Airport (SMO) impacts Venice, Mar Vista, and other Los Angeles neighborhoods. The forum took place in the Pen Mar Park gymnasium, drawing a good crowd  of approximately 200 very interested attendees. With a very decent array of snacks and beverages, no one seemed to mind that the opening remarks started 45 minutes late. There was plenty of time to mingle.

VNC Airport Committee Co-Chairs Laura Silagi and Abigail Meyers, as well as VNC Vice President Marc Saltzberg (who acknowledged several noteworthy attendees), spoke briefly before introducing Los Angeles Councilman Bill Rosendahl who, in this reporter’s opinion, has done more to address our critical community SMO concerns than any local official, bar none. Bill spoke about this and that, acknowledged several in the crowd, and of course spoke strongly about how SMO should be shut down. There were three Santa Monica city Council Members in attendance: Tony Vazquez, Ted Winterer, and Gleam Davis.

Having had the honor of putting on several Forums with Bill over the past eight years, I know that a strict agenda timeline is but a guide, as forums have a tendency to take on a life of their own.

I had the honor of the first presentation. Bill introduced me and I spoke as the director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution. My presentation, accompanied by 31 slides, was titled “Santa Monica Airport’s Impacts On Los Angeles, The Fairness Factor.” My intent was to bring to light facts that are overlooked by the City of Santa Monica, yet have a devastating effect on the airport’s Los Angeles neighbors of Venice, Mar Vista and other West Los Angeles neighborhoods.

Next on the agenda was a presentation by David Goddard, chair of the Santa Monica Airport Commission, accompanied by Santa Monica resident and attorney Jonathan Stein. They spoke about a plan to take back 2,000 feet of the 5,000 foot runway that would dramatically curtail the airports operations.

Because of delays, the science segment was shortened to just one presentation by South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Phil Fine, who spoke about his two studies performed at SMO.

Moving then to the political segment moderated by former CA Assembly Member Betsy Butler, we heard from our Council Member elect Mike Bonin, our City Attorney candidates Mike Feuer and Carmen Trutanich, CA State Senator Ted Lieu and  Congressman Henry Waxman. Waxman received the most applause when he stated that if the communities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica wanted the airport closed, he would work to make that happen. The Santa Monica Airport’s Fly Neighborly Program, as well as other fairness factor issues were discussed. Speakers shed light on possible solutions.

I consider the forum to be a huge success, as much valued information was gleaned, and a spirit of political cooperation was enhanced.

For more info, visit: www.jetairpollution.com

Martin Rubin is the Director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution

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.

The Neo-Venetians are at it again. Barely a month has passed since one Venice institution (Glencrest BBQ) has been forced to close due to gentrification, another is in potential jeopardy.

This time it’s your local hair parlor, Paper Scissors Rock. Potentially at the hands of the not so “Local Hangout since 2013,” The Barnyard.

The location that was formally “Benice,” and before that “The Ho,t” and many other institutions. None of the occupants of 1715 Pacific Avenue have been so brazen or greedy as to try and usurp the next door neighbors at 1711 Pacific Avenue. Until now….

Paper Scissors Rock is a slammin’ little building, covered in graffiti and bright blue paint. It lives up to its distinct name, both in practice and in spirit. When you walk inside, you can clearly see and feel the individuality and unique draw, compared to any other parlor. That individuality is included in the stylists that the “Floyd’s Barbershop” chains could only pretend to be. The place clearly sends a message to any who pass its threshold that this is no frou frou salon.

Opened in 1986 by 5 friends, who migrated to Venice from a salon in Santa Monica when they wanted to try something new. They set up shop on Pacific, and have been rocking the shears and buzzers ever since.

The shop and its inhabitants have seen three owners of the property come and go over the years, as land tends to swap hands. It was never was a problem, since the owners always tended to be fair,as long as the rent was paid. Now it would seem the best 2 out of 3 is just not enough.

It all started on March 19th, when one of the original 5 stylists, Masao Miyashiro, was sent a link from an acquaintance to a news item in a blog. It appeared on LA.Eater.com, titled “Paper Scissors Rock Could Fold For New Venice Restaurant.” The blog stated how the location property of 1715 Pacific (The Barnyard) had applied for a liquor license. The only problem is they applied for the license under the address 1711 Pacific, which is Paper Scissors Rock.

Interestingly enough, the same day this link was emailed to Miyashiro, a letter of notice was delivered to his home in the nearby apartments,  from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. It stated that an application had been made for a liquor license for 1711 Pacific Ave, but the notice was dated March 13th.

Let’s not jump the gun just yet, and make assumptions. The Barnyard as a whole does not own the property it rests on, and it does not own the property of 1711. Itt could be just a mistake on the LAeater’s part, however one of the co-owners of The Barnyard restaurant DOES own both properties.

A mistake…riiiiiiiight.

The owner of both properties in which Paper Scissors Rock and The Barnyard stand, according to the public records I obtained from the County Assessor Office, is Jose Bunge. However, the application of the said liquor license, according to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, was filled out by two companies, under the names CFJ, LLC and HHHC95, LLC. Both offered very little information as to WHO exactly they were with some online fact checking.

I spoke to Deb Kennedy, the owner of Paper Scissors Rock, and the lessee of the space in question. She informed me the very day Miyashiro received the posted notice on his door, he printed a copy of the LAeater column to show her. The owner (Bunge) walked in to the shop, went straight to Deb and said, “I filed for a liquor license, what do you think?” Kennedy’s reply? “Yeah, we heard you want to build a restaurant,” as she turned to her supply box and and pulled out the printed copy of the online blog. Bunge immediately grew irate, and was taken aback. “Who wrote this?,” Bunge demanded. “It’s not true, that’s not what’s going on,” he insisted.

I asked Kennedy, “If that’s not what’s going on,  then what IS going on? Why would he be applying for a liquor license for a hair salon?” “That’s what I was wondering myself,” said Kennedy. “But he then went on to say how he would move me to one of his other spots, and he even showed me one, but it really was not to my liking. It had no parking, and we need space for our clients’ cars.”

Another interesting fact, aside from not informing Kennedy till after filling out the application, was the actual LACK of the paperwork for the Liquor License that was legally supposed to be properly displayed.

According to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, a license that has been applied for must have a sign of notification placed in full view to the public on the window of the property in question. This notice was not put up at all for over a month, and when it finally was put up, it wasn’t the legitimate paperwork required by law, nor was it on the right window (it was posted on the door to 1711 1/2, the apartments just above Paper Scissors Rock).  The “notice” was just two separate pieces of printer paper scribbled in squarish letters with blue sharpie, that states on the first sheet ” POSTED ABC” and below it on the other sheet “LIQUOR LICENSE.”

The only official paperwork posted was not for the liquor license at all, but for a notice informing filming would taking place. Finally weeks after the fact, with phone calls complaining to Stacy Williams, the Licensing Representative for the Department of the ABC, a proper notice has been posted, but there is no date specified as to when the application was filled out, and certain sections are blacked out with sharpie, not indicating the proper fields.

Kennedy has a year lease left, and does not want to make waves to anger her landlord, or do anything to jeopardize her location while she still has it, but if one were to take a step back and look at the situation from a distance, this truly seems like Bunge is manipulating the situation, tweaking the laws regarding protocol to get what he wants.

When I brought up to Kennedy how this seemed very backhanded, and asked how it made her feel, she stated, “It’s his property, and I kind of understand why he is being sneaky about it, as he probably does not want to lose revenue till he is ready to set up his new project, but he did something similar to Benice next door, when he applied for a liquor license under the pretenses of it being for the benefit of Benice. But when the license went through, he gave the owner of Benice the boot and then opened up The Barnyard. I don’t think I have much time left here.”

This is one example of how this particular establishment is willing to mistreat its business neighbors, but what about its employees? Is there any difference in how they treat the locals that don’t have something The Barnyard wants, or stands in it’s way? Tamra Hernandez, a life long Venice resident, with a more than qualified resume of restaurant experience, was recently hired – and subsequently fired – by The Barnyard as a server. Hernandez is also putting herself through school, and her hours for class are a bit demanding. When interviewed for the position, Hernandez informed her potential employer about her class related schedule requirements. She had class till 4:00 pm, which means she could not be at the restaurant any earlier then 4:45pm. The manager of The Barnyard, Celia Barber (wife to the Head Chef, Jesse Barber) had informed Hernandez that it would not be an issue, as the Barnyard does not open till 5:00pm.

The first day on the clock, however, Mrs. Barber decided Hernandez would do better as a hostess than as a waitress, since she was not familiar with the selections of wine that could be paired with the food. This normally would not be too big of a problem, except for the fact that the hostess needs to be at the restaurant before opening to answer calls and take reservations. This meant Hernandez would be late to work every single day due to her school schedule. Two days in to her new position as a hostess rather than a server, Barber then demanded that Hernandez not only hostess, but bus tables, run food for other servers, and serve tables (the very task she had originally been hired to do but was then demoted due to “lack of wine knowledge”). Then, on top of it all, denied her any of the tips that were either put directly into her hand, earned from customers she had personally catered to. After two weeks of being continuously “late to work” due to the classes, Barber pulled Hernandez aside and shrewdly said to her, “I just don’t think you are a right fit here.”

On paper, the reason Hernandez was let go was because she was late for work, even though her boss knew she had class till 4:00pm, and could not be at the restaurant till 4:45pm. From Hernandez’s perspective, it had nothing to do with being late. In her mind, they clearly wanted a certain kind of person, both in their employment, and in their restaurant as customers. Tamra, nor anyone she knew, did not fit the bill.

“What confuses me is this place strives to be local and about the neighborhood, and they treated me like I didn’t belong,” said Hernandez. “When friends of mine, people I grew up with and I’ve known my whole life, people from the neighborhood who saw me through the window hosting, they would stop by to say hello, and ask me about the food. Each time someone I knew came by, I introduced them to Celia and told her who they were and what they did, and she would dismiss them as unimportant simply by the way they looked. So much for a local hangout, when you won’t even acknowledge the locals.”

I am not sure how many of you have graced the website for The Barnyard’s “About” section, but it has since been greatly altered to only showcase the Head Chef and Manager’s credentials, but that is not what it originally portrayed. I am willing to bet someone pointed out how stuck up they sounded with the original content, and that’s what prompted the change. When I first looked at the website, I found it difficult amid the hypocrisy and name dropping to not rip it apart word for word  A bigger person would be above doing such a thing …. unfortunately for The Barnyard, I am not that person.

The restaurant’s now changed self defining review of how local restaurants should be run around the neighborhood was nothing short of hilarious, especially when they openly criticized the other restaurants on Abbot Kinney, when they are a very similar establishment. With its smug hipster aura, it’s additionally ironic seeing how Jessie Barber worked at The Tasting Kitchen, which is located precisely on Abbot Kinney.

The website verbally pumped itself up about the building location, and how it’s been a local spot since the 60′s, despite the fact Barnyard only moved in late 2012, and only opened this year. They have virtually nothing to do with the memories or reputation the property has obtained over the years to make it so unique in the first place. The website actually bragged about being located next door to the “Blue Grafitti Box” aka Paper Scissors Rock, (the very building they want to take over) and the graffiti art proudly displayed on the building. The art was specifically created FOR Paper Scissors Rock, and they dropped the artist’s name (Asylum), when he has never even spoken to any of the management of The Barnyard. The site ranted about localism, when these very people have given locals nothing but the cold shoulder and a leering eye.

I laughed out loud when I read how the Head Chef, Jessie Barber, creates dishes with “lack of pretension,” but then in the next paragraph, he is described as a self proclaimed “purist” in terms of cuisine. He was not shy to flaunt that he had mentored under Thomas Keller at The French Laundry (so much for lack of pretension). There was also the self-proclaiming statement that it’s a place to get “an honest bite to eat.” I had very hard time finding anything honest about The Barnyard. I have ordered beer from there, and glanced at the menu. The prices were not exactly affordable, nor did they seem simple. The service was less then accommodating, never mind friendly towards me. My jaw dropped in disbelief at the very end, when they insist to, “Come as you are.” Clearly only if you are to their liking, and look like you have money.

This place screams of gentrification and social elitism in some of the worst ways. It leeches off the reputation and hard work of others that came before it. It prides itself on including the neighborhood, while stomping it flat into the ground. It cuts corners with legalities to get ahead, while underhandedly misinforming their neighbors, who without proper facts, can’t even attempt to halt the process.

I guess all I have left to say about The Barnyard and places like it is this … Support your local shops, not your local snobs.

that will persuade you to get back on your meds.

RoadsideAmerica.com

By Delores Hanney

It’s as emblematic of Venice as Mickey Mouse ears are of Disneyland. The 30-foot tall jester in a tutu is peculiar, to be sure, but its consummate oddness somehow makes it a suitable avatar for this its unconventional hometown. 2013 is the silver anniversary of its flamboyant reign.

It stands there at Main Street and Rose Avenue, a full story above the sidewalk on its kitty-corner Renaissance Building perch. Designed by Santa Monica architect Johannes Van Tilburg and built by first owner Harlan Lee, the building is home to commercial enterprises – such as the CVS Pharmacy – to pricey condos, vacation rentals, and housing for low income seniors; in addition to its function as way-visible display space for the kitschy Ballerina Clown.

Created by Jonathan Borofsky in his Topanga Canyon studio, the wiggy sculpture is constructed of aluminum, steel and painted fiberglass. It was fitted with an electric motor that allowed the right leg to kick back and forth – ballerina fashion – until the mechanism was turned off in order that the hum not be a botheration to the lawyer lady living right behind it. Along with the tutu, its quirky ensemble includes a pair of white elbow-length gloves that some say look more like washing-the-dishes gear than glamour wear. Two barely noticeable tiny red tears appear to slowly slide down its face.

The sculpture was commissioned by the aforementioned Harlan Lee. Borofsky offered him three suggestions: one traditional, one less so, the third – and chosen one – clearly over-the-top. It therefore conformed to what Borofsky termed Lee’s “flair for stirring things up.” Demonstrating success for this very thing, it seeded a whole bunch of controversy including a petition to have it removed circulated by a little assembly of aspirant taste arbiters. The petition was countered by a review written by L.A. Times art critic, Christopher Knight, reeking with respect for the statue.

The piece is hardly typical of the artist’s work, which tends to be spare, streamlined and dynamic. Using names like I Dreamed I Could Fly or Human Structures, Borofsky has spawned ginormous public installations around the world: in Switzerland, France, Germany, England, Norway and Canada; in Japan and South Korea and China – not to mention all the stuff in private collections – thus staking out for himself a claim to art big kahunaship. Weirdly enough, he was not so famed here in the United States till around 2004 when a temporary installation of Walking to the Sky went up in New York’s Rockefeller Center.

Born in Boston in 1942, his interest in art began percolating to the surface early on: a predictable symptom of his DNA given that his mother was a gallery owner, an artist and an architect. Dad was artistic, too, but his field was music. As a child Jonathan Borofsky was especially inspired by a Paul Gauguin painting that hung at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts; well, less by the image than its title: Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? It triggered in him philosophical musings he would glom onto as the overarching theme of his future work, in which he seeks to explore these heady, meaning-of-life questions.

He received a BFA from Carnegie Mellon University, an MFA from the Yale School of Art and Architecture, between which he sandwiched in study at the Ecole de Fountainebleu in France. In 2006 Carnegie Mellon conferred an honorary doctorate of Fine Arts.

Early in his career, he taught at the School of Visual Arts in New York. Later he taught at the California Institute of the Arts, living, then, in a small funkadoodle apartment on the Venice boardwalk, there to soak up – he told me – the lightness, brightness and energy so different from the more muted tones of the east. Though unimpressive, the dwelling boasted a beach view from the window and outside the building’s front entrance the eccentric accumulation of amusement makers and vendors swirled and twirled like organisms in a tide pool.

The Ballerina Clown was always a salute to those gaudy habitués of Ocean Front Walk and – more deeply – a psychological “resolution of opposites.” At 25 familiarity with the bi-gendered statue and greater societal acceptance of sexuality as a continuum have reduced some of its original outrageousness factor. Today its symbolism may even be seen to have broadened, transmogrifying the sculpture into a visual celebration of diversity: that quintessential element at the core of the Venice, California experience.