Conservative Ed Ring writes another article about the progressive movement and the demise of Venice Beach. Read article.
He mentions the 40-unit on Lincoln Blvd, the 154-bed housing at Sunset, and the 140-unit Venice Median project.
Can AB1197 Effect Venice Projects Retroactively? Elizabeth Wright Challenges Venice Update Statement
Elizabeth Wright challenged a statement the Venice Update made stating that making Assembly Bill 1197 apply (retroactively) to Venice Projects already in the works was unconstitutional.
Wright bases her decision on a tax decision and then provides other research, which to this writer only proves that Assembly Bill 1197 being passed to effect projects in the works, specifically in Los Angeles, is unconstitutional based on the facts presented.
Venice has two court cases which AB 1197 has been used to nullify claims by residents in court. The two projects are the Venice Median brought by Fight Back Venice and the Bridge Housing project at the MTA lot brought by Venice Stakeholders Association.
Note: Neither Elizabeth Wright nor this writer are lawyers.
The case of her friend
Years ago a co-worker, along with a small group of others, funded a solar power project partly because of the tax benefits offered for such projects. Before they could claim the tax benefits, legislation was passed that retroactively eliminated, or significantly reduced them. Don’t know what kind of project (small as solar power for a church or large as creating a solar farm) or at what level the tax benefits existed (fed, state, county, or city). It was upheld. I do not know details.
Research
- Art 1, § 9
- This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
- Art. 1 § 10.
- This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
What Constitutes Punishment
In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions:
- “It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.”
Courts have applied this standard to different parts of the criminal process. California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995) takes the Beazell standard and applies it to the parole process. In Morales, California amended a law to state that the California Board of Prison Terms may defer parole hearings for up to three years for a prisoner convicted of more than one homicide offense. Respondent-defendant Morales was imprisoned before the law was amended, and he was subsequently affected by it when he applied for a parole hearing. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the amendment violated the ex post facto prohibition. The Supreme Court, in applying Beazell, held that an amendment which impacts someone currently imprisoned to a law does not violate ex post facto if the amendment does not increase the punishment attached to the respondent’s crime. The Court held that here, the amendment did not impact Morales’s sentence nor did it impact any substantive attempt to be granted parole. The Court found that a simple alteration of a prisoner’s process of attaining parole does not violate ex post facto prohibitions.
Retroactive Judicial Decisions
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. However, this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions. Appellate courts sometimes announce a new rule of law, but will not apply it to the case in front of it, in order to attempt to comply with ex post facto prohibitions.
Year and a Day Rule
The Year and a Day Rule is a common law doctrine which states that a person cannot be convicted of homicide for a death that occurs more than a year and a day after his or her act(s) that allegedly caused the death. Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2000) dealt with the doctrine. Defendant–petitioner Rogers had stabbed Bowdery, who died 15 months later. The trial court found Rogers guilty of murder. When Rogers appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals under the Year and a Day Rule, the appellate court upheld the conviction and abolished the Year and a Day Rule for Tennessee. Rogers ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the appellate court’s action violated the ex post facto prohibition. The Supreme Court in Rogers found that ex post facto was not present here, as the appellate “court’s decision was a routine exercise of common law decisionmaking that brought the law into conformity with reason and common sense.” The Rogers court also referenced a previous Supreme Court decision, Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), which held that “due process prohibits retroactive application of any judicial construction of a criminal statute that is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which has been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.” Rogers, considering the holding in Bouie, held that the ex post facto prohibition applies only to legislative decisions, and that even if it were to apply to judicial decisions, the retroactive judicial repeal of the Year and a Day Rule is neither unexpected nor indefensible.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf (Congressional Research Service)
Retroactive Civil Legislation
Congress has much greater leeway to enact retroactive legislation in the civil sphere than in the criminal sphere. However, certain constitutional limits apply, and courts interpreting ambiguous statutes apply a general presumption against retroactivity.
By Roxanne Brown Concerned Neighbors of 320 Sunset (CNS)
At the prior West LA Planning Commission (WLAPC) hearing for Gjusta’s (320 Sunset) change of use from bakery/take out only to restaurant with full alcohol, commissioners were upset that Maya Zaitzevsky, Zoning Administrator, was not present. They insisted on her presence and the presence of Building and Safety.
At this appeal hearing on March 2,2016, Zaitzevsky was present. Building and Safety was not present.
ZAITZEVSKY PRO GJUSTA
Zaitzevsky started by stating that the past record can’t be looked at. Each case is presented individually: can’t presume Camaj will be a bad operator.
Regarding alcohol, Zaitzevsky stated, “Gjelina only seats people for an hour – not enough time to get drunk.” She further stated, “Their plans show more than I approved – 87 seats. I’m not sure if it’s accurate.”
Zaitzevsky said there had been so many plan changes, that’s why she marked them up so much – to make them more clear. Unfortunately, CNS had not seen the new plans, nor were they allowed to view them at the hearing.
With the new plans, cars will enter and exit on Sunset (rather than the alley). The parking lot will now hold seventeen cars (although CNS has never seen it hold more than eleven at present.
REZNIK OPENING REMARKS
Ben Reznik, attorney, presented that Fran Camaj’s Gjelina, GTA, and Gjusta have an exemplary record and Camaj is an upstanding member of the community.
Reznik stated that the patio will be enclosed. He said this will eliminate noise. The patio will have a retractable roof that let’s the sun in.
MAROSI OPENING REMARKS
Ilana Marosi, Appellant and President of Concerned Neighbors of 320 Sunset (CNS), presented the opposite case. She presented evidence showing hundreds of violations, nuisance complaints, and non-compliance issues at Fran Camaj’s Gjelina’s, GTA, Gjusta, and the Black Beast at 1305 Abbot Kinney.
HEALEY OPENING – VENICE CRIME DROPS WHEN ALCOHOL LICENSES RISE
Laurette Healey, consultant working with Reznik and Camaj, presented a chart that demonstrated her words, which were: Unlike other areas, adding a liquor license in Venice brings the crime rate down.
Healey stated that: “Crime exponentially went down as alcohol went up in Venice from 2009-2015.”
CNS REBUTTAL
A CNS member stated that the LA Times reports Venice crime up. Further, the LA Times reports that the LAPD has understated that crime rate.
Another CNS member cited evidence from Pacific Division: DUI’s in Venice from December 6, 2015 to January 2, 2016 were up 800%.
Sarah Blanch from the Public Policy Institute said: There is a point where alcohol licenses reach a critical mass – Venice is already saturated – and that is harming the public’s health and safety.
Dr. Todd Sherman representing the Renaissance building (70 units) on Main between Rose and Marine said that homeowners there have witnessed, “ With the increase in restaurants with alcohol, we have seen crime increase. Our Home Owners Association has hired its own security guard. Perhaps this is not on LAPD’s radar.”
HEALEY AND CNS REGARDING HOMELESS
Healey further stated that: We all know bringing a restaurant in reduces homeless and crime.
A CNS member later countered, “Since Gjusta’s arrival, the homeless population which used to be confined to 3rd has now spread further onto the 300 block of Sunset and beyond.”
APPLLEANT JIM MUREZ – PRO GJUSTA
Commission President Donovan stated that, “It’s a little strange to have an appellant in favor of the project.”
Murez, a former LUPC Chair, stated that he felt with the changed plans, Gjusta was an exceptionally brilliant solution to a troubled neighborhood.
CNS MEMBERS and RESIDENTS TESTIFY OPPOSING GJUSTA
A CNS member/resident who resides in the 300 block of Sunset stated that he sees Gjusta customers pee in the alley behind Gjusta and has seen a significant increase in critters – rats.
Reznik later said: The homeless pee in the alley. Not Gjusta’s customers.
CNS members cited everything you readers have heard before: disregard for rules, regulations, violations, nuisance, noise, traffic, and parking problems since Gjusta’s arrival.
GJUSTA EMPLOYEES, VENDORS, CUSTOMERS TESTIFY
A Gjusta customer stated: I no longer have to carry my stun gun when I walk in the 300 block of Sunset.
Gjusta employees and vendors complimented Camaj on being a great employer to work for and providing internships, jobs, and voluntary help in the community.
Dustin Mills a business owner behind Gjelina says he has had no issues with Gjelina.
PRESIDENT VENICE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Carl Lambert, President of the Venice Chamber of Commerce sat on Gjusta’s side at the hearing. Lambert owns multiple apartment buildings that he converted into “de facto hotels.”
REZNIK CLOSING REMARKS PRO GJUSTA change of use from bakery
In closing, Reznik presented Camaj as a responsible alcohol licensee.
Reznik called CNS members Gjusta’s “aggressive neighbors.”
1. Reznik concluded that Gjusta would now be a restaurant, bakery, and retail with full alcohol – on site only (imposed by commissioners and agreed to – no off-site sales)
2. Gjusta patio will be enclosed with skylight and doors. Walls will be the appropriate 4-pound thickness, which is adequate according to the City’s Building & Safety engineers.
(Architect Stephen Vitalich said earlier that Gjusta’s patio walls will have 4 pounds of noise protection per square foot. CNS Sound Engineer and Acoustics’ Expert, Cambridge educated Kevin Madigan, testified that a sheet of drywall provides 40 pounds of protection.)
3 Gjusta will have a signed agreement with Board of Ed for valet parking.
4. Alcohol is part of an eating experience – no need for off-site.
Reznik and Murez stated: Everyone knows the Metro yard at Main and Sunset will be a parking lot providing 1,000 parking spaces.
MAROSI, PRESIDENT CNS, CLOSING – OPPOSING GJUSTA
Marosi stated, “ We are aggressive neighbors, because Building and Safety and the City don’t enforce conditions, code, rules, regulations – so we are driven to do so.”
Marosi stated that the fact is CNS has evidence, and there is evidence online, of Gjelina/GTA serving alcohol in what is supposed to be an upstairs apartment, and serving food and alcohol in the back alley patio area of GTA which has no permit to do so.
CNS Neighborhood Watch kept records of dates and times that Gjelina catering special events with food and alcohol in the “apartment:” more than 170 times in the past 1-½ years. Marosi concluded that this shows Camaj is not a reliable alcohol licensee and cannot be trusted to uphold conditions.
Marosi further concluded that business owner Camaj has a pattern and practice of bad behavior. He has shown himself to not be responsible with alcohol. Camaj continues to serve food and alcohol in an unpermitted event center “apartment” and in GTA’s patio/alley and back alley.
She showed 100 pages – 1 inch thick of violations and complaints and nuisance evidence, which are detrimental to the health and safety and welfare of the Venice Community. There is a clear pattern of abuse over the past eight years.
Marosi asked the commissioners to please uphold the appeal.
WLAPC DECISION
Commissioner President Thomas M. Donovan and Commissioners Lisa WaltzMorocco, Marian Merritt, Esther Margulies, and Joseph W. Halper approved change of use as outlined above in Reznik’s concluding remarks.
Throughout the hearing, Commissioner Halper did push for enclosed roof, enclosed patio, no off-site liquor, and did say he was very concerned about parking and the disturbance imposed on this neighborhood by Gjusta.
This hearing is audio and video recorded. CNS was there from 4:30 until 1 a.m.
ROCKY’S OPINION: CITIZENS WIN WHILE LOSING at GJUSTA APPEAL HEARING
CNS did achieve its goal: providing evidence of wrong doing and speaking the truth. Mayor Eric Garcetti, his administration, his City Council, and his WLAPC have now given the green light to more “property gangster” – some one that ignores laws.
Venetians are inspired to keep fighting for truth and justice. If you disagree with this approval, please contribute $5 now – this very moment – before you forget – to save Venice. These monies are and will be used to hire experts and lawyers -https://www.gofundme.com/helpsavevenice
It seems we no longer live in a democracy for the people by the people. We seem to be experiencing a dictatorship run by special interests with a puppet government.
VOTE MITCHELL SCHWARTZ to replace GARCETTI.
By Roxanne Brown
Attorney for Fran Camaj’s Gjusta at 320 Sunset asked that the appeal hearing (regarding City’s approval of change of use from bakery/retail to restaurant/retail with full liquor license) be given a 90-day extension. West LA Planning Commission approved 60 days.
Appealing the decision are: Jim Murez and Ilana Marosi and others.
Rescheduled appeal hearing will be 20 January, 11214 Exposition Blvd, LA 90064
West LA Area Planning Commission will hear 320 Sunset 18 November, 4:30 pm, at West LA Parking Enforcement Facility, 11214 Exposition Blvd, LA 90064
Appellants are Jim Murez and Ilana Marosi and others.
The hearing involves an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit authorizing a change of use of a tenant space from a 4,116 net square-foot bakery with 559 net square feet of retail floor area to a 4,675 square-foot sit-down restaurant with a maximum Service Floor Area of 717 square feet and 559 square feet of retail space located in the single permit jurisdiction area of the Coastal Zone; a Conditional Use authorizing the sale and dispensing of a full line of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption in a proposed restaurant in the M1-1-O Zone, and; to allow the change of use from bakery and retail use to a sit-down restaurant and retail use with an approved Service Floor Area not to exceed 717 square feet (contained within the restaurant’s interior and the new outdoor dining area).
Contact West LA Area Planning Commission at 213-978-1300 for all pertinent details regarding submittal of written testimony.
Today’s appeal hearing for 320 Sunset, Gjusta, has been postponed to a later date, yet to be determined.
This is due to the fact that neighbors in 500 foot radius and interested parties did not receive the correct 24-day Notice of this hearing from the city nor did the applicant place Notice on the front of his business within 10 days, as is required by law for this case.
A new hearing date has not been set as of yet.
The appeal for 320 Sunset will be heard Wednesday, 21 October, 4:30 pm by the West LA Area Planning Commission, 11214 West Exposition Blvd, LA 90064.
The hearing involves the zoning administrator’s decision to approve a change of use of a tenant space from a 4116 net square-foot bakery with 559 net square feet of retail floor area to a 4675 square-foot sit-down restaurant with a maximum service floor area of 717 square feet and 559 square feet of retail space loczated in the signle permit jurisdiction area of the coastal zone; a condition use authorizing the sale and dispensing of a full line of alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption in a proposed restaurant in M1-1-0 zone; and change of use from baker and retail use to a sit-down restaurant and retail use with an approved service floor area not to exceed 717 square feet (contained within the restaurant’s interior and the new outdoor dining area).
Appellants are James Murez, Ilana Marosi, Adam Vagley, Roxanne Brown, Heather Priest, Hubert Hodgin, Carmine Gangemi, Liesbet Koromzay, Heather Thomason, Patricia Delaere, Zach Galafianakis, and Arthur Athas.
A group of Venetians who live nearby was formed around the 320 Sunset project and grew in size as other questionable projects appeared. They were asked what their reaction was to this decision. Ilana Marosi, spokesperson for the group, made the following statement.
This is hardly a surprising course of events. It seems Gjusta’s “approval” was in before day 1, when City Planning and Zoning enabled piece-mealing of the project, while Building and Safety allowed a full commercial restaurant to be built where only a bakery was allowed. Bear in mind that the Certificate of Occupancy, issued by Building and Safety in September 2014, was for a TAKE OUT BAKERY ONLY – NO SEATING. This permit was ignored for almost a year whilst the operator smoked fish, grilled pigs heads, and barbecued chickens in his “bakery”, all the while seating patrons illegally on milk crates in an illegally operated parking lot. Neighbors suffered (and still do) from breathing fumes and black smoke, noise disturbances, lack of parking, and traffic congestion to dangerous levels.
Gjusta refused to comply after being cited several times by Building and Safety since December 2014. Apparently a criminal case was in the works. Yet somehow, the City Attorney Mike Feuer (via Neighborhood Prosecutor Claudia Martin) refused to prosecute. The Garcetti administration allowed this unlawful activity to continue for 10 months and now his Zoning Administrator, Maya Zaitzevsky has given it her blessing. All of this despite the hundreds of complaints, alcohol protests and huge community disapproval by immediate neighbors and others who are affected daily. Councilman Bonin has come out in support of the community to oppose the project and alcohol service at Gjusta. We are grateful for the Councilman’s support. Yet the blight marches on with no regard for the laws or for the neighbors — just as Camaj does at his other locations at Gjelina, GTA, the Black Beast (1305 abbot Kinney), and the future restaurant at 259 Hampton where Sauce is currently.
Gjusta had a traffic hearing at the West LA Area Planning Commission on July 15, 2015. The day prior to this at City Hall, Concerned Neighbors discovered different (unseen) plans and expansion paperwork, in the zoning file, which incorporated the chiropractic office upstairs/next door and the use of its grandfathered (invisible) parking. (The chiropractor was still a tenant at this stage, and unbeknown to him, was about to be evicted to make way for Camaj’s latest ‘scheme’.}
This expansion alone should have been enough to warrant a new traffic study, further community outreach, and another zoning hearing. Concerned Neighbors advised the Planning Commission of this, yet City Attorney Cathy Phelan recommended the hearing go forward regardless. The now irrelevant traffic study was then accepted without any community consideration and without an accurate traffic assessment. The traffic at the immediate intersections was not studied, neither was rear alley egress, nor were the busy times of the day and week documented … yet the city went ahead and approved this? It seems the community’s best interests and safety do not factor in.
So where is our city when they should be representing the community? Or is that representation reserved for a certain moneyed few? Gjusta is 13-1/2 feet (alley width) from neighbors homes and children’s bedrooms in a residential community. The Alcohol Beverage Control regulation 61.4 states that alcohol shouldn’t be served within 100 feet from residences. The city of LA seems to think that alcohol service on an outdoor patio until 1 am, a mere 13-1/2 feet from residents, is okay.
What do you think? Would you like a rowdy bar as your next door neighbor? Or would you like your voices heard and our laws upheld? We all have the right to peace and quiet enjoyment in our homes. Let’s speak up now, and forever have our peace!
(Photo courtesy of Roxanne Brown.) Photo shows the traffic that 320 Sunset vehicles must back into.
By Roxanne Brown
On January 9th, Friday, at approximately 1 p.m., there was an accident at Gjusta, 320 Sunset. I spoke with the driver (of a Mercedes sports car convertible). She said she was approaching the entrance to Gjusta when Gjusta’s parking attendant directed her to move forward. She thought he was telling her to back up. She did so and hit the parking enforcement vehicle behind her, driven by Officer Martinez.
No one was hurt. An LAPD police officer and Parking Enforcement (Officer Martinez and her supervisor, Sergeant Rice) talked to Gjusta’s parking attendant and the driver. A police report was filed. No tickets were issued.
We know the parking lot at 320 is dangerous, since drivers back out of the lot into oncoming traffic. This accident underscores why Gjusta’s should not be granted change of use to restaurant serving alcohol with late night hours.