Amy Alcon—The Rudies in the Red
The South Philly Experience truck brings the rude entitlement experience to Venice regularly, using the red zone on our block as their personal waiting zone to get into the Brig, though they’ve been asked not to do this. They are in the business of abuse! If you are a Venetian who doesn’t like the jerks who abuse us and treat our neighborhood like their do-anything zone, boycott these rudesters.
Cyndi Hench—Latest Scam
My hairdresser in Westchester mentioned today that two of her clients have recently been hit by the Grandparent Scam. Later today another man in the area told me he had gotten this call and I want to alert those of you who have elderly family members and/or neighbors. My own parents got one of these calls 2 years ago, on the east coast, and thought it was real – and it was only fast action by their bank that prevented them from losing $5,000. Generally the scam starts with a phone call and a person saying Grandma (Grandpa)? Very often the grandparent will respond with the name of a grandchild. The bogus grandchild says here – talk to my lawyer and the bogus lawyer proceeds to say that the bogus grandchild is in jail for (drunk driving in Canada or drugs in Mexico or a recent one was some other infraction in England). The scammer will say that if the grandparent wires $5,000 or $10,000 the lawyer can make this all go away. These scammers play on the elderly and push fear button – especially about a loved grandchild. Please alert your family members with elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc and tell them to ask a question only the real grandchild would know.
Robin Murez—Kim, CCC, “in-lieu” parking
As far as I could tell, nothing new occurred at the Meet and Greet. The proposed restaurant project is neither safe nor appropriate for that congested residential location…. and the owners are trying to pretend that it is.
The owners, who are very pleasant people, are, however, continuing to provide misleading information to neighbors. They were saying that they’ve solved all parking issues by arranging to have 185 parking spots at the public lot on Venice Blvd. What they aren’t saying is: (1) NONE of that parking would be available when restaurants do their main business, i.e., weekends, summertime, and holidays and (2) they don’t have anything confirmed with anyone.
They are also saying that they can totally ignore any parking requirements because they believe that they can pay the City of L.A. $15,000 per otherwise required parking spot. This is referred to as “in lieu parking.” It’s a provision that has been used on Abbot Kinney – thus the parking mess there. It is being challenged at the California Coastal Commission Hearing JUNE 13 regarding the proposed restaurant for Washington at Lincoln. Neighbors should write the CCC and/or attend that hearing to object “in lieu parking.” It puts money in the pockets of the City and creates irreversible overdevelopment parking, traffic, and safety messes for Venice… thus infringing upon Coastal Assess for all citizens while making a couple businesses wealthy.
They are describing their restaurant as “high end,” but when you look at their website, which they say describes their intentions, it looks much like a Mexican beer bar, much like Baja Cantina. Profitable for them, but not what I’d want in our residential neighborhood.
They’re saying that they have pre-existing rights to have a “restaurant.” THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE. The property is permitted to have “retail” and residential. This permits a corner market with takeout deli and liquor store. it DOES NOT permit any seating. That’s a huge difference in permits…. precisely because it puts an enormous increased parking, traffic, loitering, alcohol, noise, truck delivery… burden on the site.
They’re trying to divide and conquer the neighbors. Let’s not be fooled.
This is the exact same insanely dangerous intersection that we objected to have increased traffic on from the proposed 522 Venice development. We won that battle with the City precisely because that intersection is too congested, too narrow and too busy, to support more traffic.
Even if they arranged parking on Venice Blvd, can you imagine how many cars would be circling Mildred / Ocean / Beach Avenues looking for parking? Imagine how many people would be smoking cigarettes while talking on their cell phones or talking loudly as they walk around the area… having had a few beers.
In reviewing Occupancy and Zoning Permits we’ve found these, and more, significant falsehoods in the Owners’ (and even more in their mean-spirited Architect’s) representations.
TO DO:
1. Write your objection to “in lieu parking” to the Coastal Commission. A second parking issue is that the City lets restaurants in Venice not count walking space in determining their square footage which determines parking requirements. Both issues are being challenged at the CCC Hearing. Both are huge problems regarding 600 Mildred, and throughout Venice. The Hearing is 9am Friday July 13. Here’s where to Attend: June 13, at 9 am at the Huntington Beach City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, 92648.
Write Chuck Posner, Coastal Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission,
200 Oceangate – Tenth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
Chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov
AND
2. Write Councilperson Mike Bonin to object to 600 Mildred’s proposed restaurant, to object to “in lieu parking” and the methods the City is using to calculating parking requirements, and to object to the Office of City Planning continuing to allow inappropriate, over scale and dangerous developments to breeze through City Planning… and to ignore legal procedures that requiring public notice, VNC vetting, etcetera.
Spirit of Venice (SOV)—House of Pies, CCC, Parking—Path of Travel
RE: Agenda item 8, House of Pies. NEW APPEALS a. Application No. A-5-VEN-14-0011 1020 Venice Blvd. (Watana, Kat Trust), to be heard at the June 13, 2014 Coastal Commission Meeting:
Please ensure that each of the commissioners receives a copy of this letter and that the letter be made a part of the permanent file for the above case. Thank you.
————————–
Dear Commissioners,
With reference to: Friday, June 13, 2014 Agenda item 8. NEW APPEALS a. Application No. A-5-VEN-14-0011 (Watana, Kat Trust, Venice) Appeal by William O’Connor of City of Los Angeles decision to grant permit with conditions to Viroj Watana, Kat Trust for construction of 3,717 sq.ft. restaurant on 14,000 sq.ft. lot with max. occupancy of 116 people (including 19 patio seats) and 20 on-site parking spaces at 1020 Venice Blvd., Venice, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County. (SV-LB)
I OPPOSE this development project and I am requesting that you, the Commissioners, REJECT the Staff Report on this item and UPHOLD the original intent of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) by requiring:
(a) that parking calculations are based on Service Floor area including “path of travel”;
(b) a scale drawing stamped and certified by a licensed Architect providing an accurate Service Floor area calculation.
The problem is that the restaurant/bar proposed at 1020 Venice Blvd. (which is a new construction) is 3,717 square feet, with 987 square feet of Service Floor area (applicant’s calculations) and would require 37 parking spaces elsewhere in the City. More parking should be required under the Specific Plan and the LUP. But the City required just 20 parking spaces based on the applicant’s calculation of 987 square feet of Service Floor area.
The ZA’s Determination letter was appealed to the West L.A. Area Planning Commission by a neighbor, and the appeal was denied.
There are two issues to address:
1) the City is not properly calculating Service Floor area by allowing deduction of “path of travel.”
2) the City does not require a scale drawing stamped and certified by a licensed Architect which provides a Service Floor area calculation.
Applicants are “cooking the books” on the calculation and this restaurant seems like a prime example, because:
- How can a 3,717 square foot restaurant have a Service Floor area of 987 square feet?
- Do they have 2,730 square feet of kitchen, office, bathrooms, and path of travel?
- The fact that there are 119 proposed seats and only 20 parking spaces required by the City is indicative of “under parking”, especially because this restaurant/bar would be required to provide 37 parking spaces elsewhere in the City!
Now that an appeal has been brought to the CCC, we hope to put an end to the City shortchanging Venice with under parking restaurants and bars. But the CCC Staff Report is proposing that deduction of “path of travel” is acceptable:
The calculation that the City used to generate the service floor area is not consistent with how the Coastal Commission has historically calculated service floor area in relation to required parking spaces.
In past actions, the Coastal Commission has included service aisles and paths of travel when calculating the total service floor area for purposes of establishing required parking for a restaurant project.
If the CCC allows deduction of “path of travel” and allows the applicant to submit a calculation of Service Floor area that is not certified by a licensed Architect, Venice will be stuck with parking calculations that will result in fewer parking spaces than elsewhere in the City, when the opposite was intended, until we can change the Specific Plan.
Once again, I urge you to REJECT the Staff Report on this item and UPHOLD the original intent of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) by requiring that parking calculations be based on:
- Service Floor area including “path of travel” and a
- Scale drawing stamped and certified by a licensed Architect providing an accurate Service Floor area calculation.
Respectfully,
477
Comments–9 June 2014
Amy Alcon—The Rudies in the Red
The South Philly Experience truck brings the rude entitlement experience to Venice regularly, using the red zone on our block as their personal waiting zone to get into the Brig, though they’ve been asked not to do this. They are in the business of abuse! If you are a Venetian who doesn’t like the jerks who abuse us and treat our neighborhood like their do-anything zone, boycott these rudesters.
Cyndi Hench—Latest Scam
My hairdresser in Westchester mentioned today that two of her clients have recently been hit by the Grandparent Scam. Later today another man in the area told me he had gotten this call and I want to alert those of you who have elderly family members and/or neighbors. My own parents got one of these calls 2 years ago, on the east coast, and thought it was real – and it was only fast action by their bank that prevented them from losing $5,000. Generally the scam starts with a phone call and a person saying Grandma (Grandpa)? Very often the grandparent will respond with the name of a grandchild. The bogus grandchild says here – talk to my lawyer and the bogus lawyer proceeds to say that the bogus grandchild is in jail for (drunk driving in Canada or drugs in Mexico or a recent one was some other infraction in England). The scammer will say that if the grandparent wires $5,000 or $10,000 the lawyer can make this all go away. These scammers play on the elderly and push fear button – especially about a loved grandchild. Please alert your family members with elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc and tell them to ask a question only the real grandchild would know.
Robin Murez—Kim, CCC, “in-lieu” parking
As far as I could tell, nothing new occurred at the Meet and Greet. The proposed restaurant project is neither safe nor appropriate for that congested residential location…. and the owners are trying to pretend that it is.
The owners, who are very pleasant people, are, however, continuing to provide misleading information to neighbors. They were saying that they’ve solved all parking issues by arranging to have 185 parking spots at the public lot on Venice Blvd. What they aren’t saying is: (1) NONE of that parking would be available when restaurants do their main business, i.e., weekends, summertime, and holidays and (2) they don’t have anything confirmed with anyone.
They are also saying that they can totally ignore any parking requirements because they believe that they can pay the City of L.A. $15,000 per otherwise required parking spot. This is referred to as “in lieu parking.” It’s a provision that has been used on Abbot Kinney – thus the parking mess there. It is being challenged at the California Coastal Commission Hearing JUNE 13 regarding the proposed restaurant for Washington at Lincoln. Neighbors should write the CCC and/or attend that hearing to object “in lieu parking.” It puts money in the pockets of the City and creates irreversible overdevelopment parking, traffic, and safety messes for Venice… thus infringing upon Coastal Assess for all citizens while making a couple businesses wealthy.
They are describing their restaurant as “high end,” but when you look at their website, which they say describes their intentions, it looks much like a Mexican beer bar, much like Baja Cantina. Profitable for them, but not what I’d want in our residential neighborhood.
They’re saying that they have pre-existing rights to have a “restaurant.” THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE. The property is permitted to have “retail” and residential. This permits a corner market with takeout deli and liquor store. it DOES NOT permit any seating. That’s a huge difference in permits…. precisely because it puts an enormous increased parking, traffic, loitering, alcohol, noise, truck delivery… burden on the site.
They’re trying to divide and conquer the neighbors. Let’s not be fooled.
This is the exact same insanely dangerous intersection that we objected to have increased traffic on from the proposed 522 Venice development. We won that battle with the City precisely because that intersection is too congested, too narrow and too busy, to support more traffic.
Even if they arranged parking on Venice Blvd, can you imagine how many cars would be circling Mildred / Ocean / Beach Avenues looking for parking? Imagine how many people would be smoking cigarettes while talking on their cell phones or talking loudly as they walk around the area… having had a few beers.
In reviewing Occupancy and Zoning Permits we’ve found these, and more, significant falsehoods in the Owners’ (and even more in their mean-spirited Architect’s) representations.
TO DO:
Write Chuck Posner, Coastal Program Analyst, California Coastal Commission,
200 Oceangate – Tenth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
Chuck.posner@coastal.ca.gov
AND
Spirit of Venice (SOV)—House of Pies, CCC, Parking—Path of Travel
RE: Agenda item 8, House of Pies. NEW APPEALS a. Application No. A-5-VEN-14-0011 1020 Venice Blvd. (Watana, Kat Trust), to be heard at the June 13, 2014 Coastal Commission Meeting:
Please ensure that each of the commissioners receives a copy of this letter and that the letter be made a part of the permanent file for the above case. Thank you.
————————–
Dear Commissioners,
With reference to: Friday, June 13, 2014 Agenda item 8. NEW APPEALS a. Application No. A-5-VEN-14-0011 (Watana, Kat Trust, Venice) Appeal by William O’Connor of City of Los Angeles decision to grant permit with conditions to Viroj Watana, Kat Trust for construction of 3,717 sq.ft. restaurant on 14,000 sq.ft. lot with max. occupancy of 116 people (including 19 patio seats) and 20 on-site parking spaces at 1020 Venice Blvd., Venice, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County. (SV-LB)
I OPPOSE this development project and I am requesting that you, the Commissioners, REJECT the Staff Report on this item and UPHOLD the original intent of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) by requiring:
The problem is that the restaurant/bar proposed at 1020 Venice Blvd. (which is a new construction) is 3,717 square feet, with 987 square feet of Service Floor area (applicant’s calculations) and would require 37 parking spaces elsewhere in the City. More parking should be required under the Specific Plan and the LUP. But the City required just 20 parking spaces based on the applicant’s calculation of 987 square feet of Service Floor area.
The ZA’s Determination letter was appealed to the West L.A. Area Planning Commission by a neighbor, and the appeal was denied.
There are two issues to address:
Applicants are “cooking the books” on the calculation and this restaurant seems like a prime example, because:
Now that an appeal has been brought to the CCC, we hope to put an end to the City shortchanging Venice with under parking restaurants and bars. But the CCC Staff Report is proposing that deduction of “path of travel” is acceptable:
The calculation that the City used to generate the service floor area is not consistent with how the Coastal Commission has historically calculated service floor area in relation to required parking spaces.
In past actions, the Coastal Commission has included service aisles and paths of travel when calculating the total service floor area for purposes of establishing required parking for a restaurant project.
If the CCC allows deduction of “path of travel” and allows the applicant to submit a calculation of Service Floor area that is not certified by a licensed Architect, Venice will be stuck with parking calculations that will result in fewer parking spaces than elsewhere in the City, when the opposite was intended, until we can change the Specific Plan.
Once again, I urge you to REJECT the Staff Report on this item and UPHOLD the original intent of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) by requiring that parking calculations be based on:
Respectfully,
Previous Post
CCC to Hear Oxford Basin/Bird Conservation
Next Post
Remembrances of Phil