Street parking is meant to be public. You see plenty of neighborhoods where a permit is required to park at certain hours. This takes those spaces out of public use, even in parts of the city where the houses have driveways. In any case, the homeowner isn’t entitled to park in front of their house. This is of course not the expectation of some house-buyers, who experience a change in physiognomy upon their purchase, undergoing a transformation where the city block they may have easily walked as a renter will now prove fatal.
Joking aside, the kind of East Coast-style neighborhood restaurants/bars, which are actually integrated into otherwise residential areas rather than being separated into driving-required commercial zones, are often desired here but feel unlikely to ever really take off.
And I would argue that it’s the attitude expressed above that further angers the neighbors.
Yes, I’m well-aware that one isn’t entitled to park in front of their own house. I don’t see how that’s relevant to some neighbors being upset. Emotions are often not particularly rational.
I don’t know if “campaign[ing]” for resident parking permit only is going to be that helpful since, when I asked the city about that a few yrs ago (not at all related to Beethoven Market or the area it’s in) was literally “this would require completely recreating the PPD which is a long and arduous effort that requires multiple phases.” But maybe the process is diff in areas don’t have a PPD to begin w/.
I think the Sawtelle area has had some of its side streets re-districted over the past few yrs. When I walk or drive in that area, I have on more than one occasion almost been hit or been crashed into by cars driving at overly high speeds at night looking for a scrap of parking in a horribly under-lit area on streets that haven’t been properly designed to prioritize pedestrian safety and discourage overly fast driving. So, yeah, having to walk one more block does actually become a problem, and it’s not b/c someone became a homeowner. It’s b/c LA generally sucks at designing spaces for pedestrians.
As far as the whole “pretend-it’s-a-city” thing, is anyone really going to try to argue that that area of LA resembles anything in, say, Manhattan?
Before this goes any further, asking a server about the operations of a business is rarely a reliable source of information. Most servers have no idea how a restaurant operates on the backend they are just there to work.
Temporary license? They are probably misspeaking, misheard, or just saying something random to answer your question so you stop bothering them.
Let’s not act like any reliable information was gleaned from this.
All due respect chef, no one was bothered. We know the server from past visits and had an ongoing talk throughout our meal. Of course, I understand the server’s knowledge is limited. This was nothing more than dinner conversation.
you really need to go and see for yourself. Hypotheticals are nice but it’s pointless arguing when you’ve never been.
Also i know quite a few people who live within a 3 block radius of the restaurant, they’ve all stated they love it and most of the people they know around also love it. The complaints have been stemming from two people that everyone knows on Nextdoor.
As i said previously, nearly the same thing happend with Good Neighbor Bar in Altadena, in that case it was one person with massive complaints.
Hmm that was not coming up when I searched the other day, but I do see it now when I search.
However I’m not sure if it fully explains things. The letter revoking Beethoven Market’s RBP explicitly mentions that the city does not show Beethoven Market as having any other authorization to sell alcohol including a CUP. Does a Temporary Permit override normal requirements for a CUP?
To quote the letter from the city again:
Any continued alcohol service without valid City authorization may result in additional enforcement actions. Moreover, as of the date of this letter, no other valid City authorization for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages applies to the site, including a Conditional Use Permit per LAMC Section 12.24 W. 1 and any kind of administrative authorization
I have never been involved in opening or running a restaurant in any capacity so I may be missing something here, but the city seems to be expressly claiming that BM has no current authorization to sell alcohol.
Either:
(A) The Temporary Permit does grant BM the legal right to continue the sale of alcohol and City Planning is incorrect with their assertion
(B) The Temporary Permit does not grant BM the legal right to continue the sale of alcohol and City Planning is correct
(C) The Temporary Permit does grant BM the legal right to continue the sale of alcohol but City Planning is unaware that BM has a Temporary Permit
I’ve dealt with City Planning before, and while they are certainly not infallible, they are generally very careful to make sure what they do is legally supported. City Planning (and the city generally) are super concerned about getting sued and many things go through one or multiple reviews with the City Attorney before being promulgated to the public.
I strongly doubt that City Planning is incorrect about whether a Temporary Permit does or does not override traditional CUP requirements, so I think (B) or (C) are the only plausible answers.
ABC is state agency ,City planning is local. Wouldn’t be surprised if the City has no clue what the state has approved. As someone that’s been applying for an alcohol license- i’ve had zero interaction with the city through this process.
RBP is a city wide initiative so not surprised by this
However, as a somewhat analogous counterpoint, I’ve been involved in real estate developments in LA that were crafted using state Density Bonus law. Throughout the entitlement process, City Planning demonstrated a thorough understanding of the relevant state laws and how such state laws interact with (e.g. by setting minimum standards) local statutes.
I certainly hope that BM prevails here. The 2 neighbors you mentioned are, in my view, malignant forces acting in complete bad faith. I don’t think there’s anything Beethoven Market could do to appease those specific neighbors other than shut down.
A legitimate complaint. I live on a fairly quiet residential street a block from a busy business street and on street sweeping days—when only one side is available—a lot of residents had to move their cars blocks away because business employees and customers parked on our street. This didn’t sit well with the residents. We didn’t complain—instead we took our street back by going thru the long process of getting designated a PPD. But! nobody complains about the noise (because L.A.), and we like it when new restaurants open in our hood—it sucks what happened to Beethoven Market.
It is completely nonsensical to split this off from the Beethoven Market thread. These posts are not a generic “liquor license tangent” as the thread has been renamed, nor is this a “non-regional discussion”. The discussion is explicitly about Beethoven Market’s liquor license and related issues the restaurant has been experiencing with the local community. The appropriate place for this discussion is in the thread for the restaurant.
As a nearby resident I was surprised to see this but I’ve been out of town most of the past couple of weeks. I will say that the NIMBY attitude is very present in MV. Folks get elected on the “transfer my problems somewhere else (i.e. homeless, RV parking issues) rather than working with the city on solutions. If you think you have a solution they vote you out. Not exactly empathetic. These guys decry all of the issues of urban areas because they think they live in a quiet hamlet . . . that was in the off center middle of the 2nd largest city in the USA. Maybe fair but this ain’t Peoria. They’ve also all made $1 million plus equity in their homes over the period. . I know that’s besides the point but as someone who was raised in the metro area and lived in NYC proper for 10 years, with regard to parking and noise, no matter where you are, well hold my beer. Haven’t be to BM in a few months but still disappointed to read all this.
There is also plenty of parking going east on Palms on the south side of the street that if their customers didn’t use it no one would. Plus as others mentioned plenty of other parking not in front of homes on both sides of Palms in both directions. Hey you, don’t park on the busy street along side my garage! The only person I feel for is the homeowner who lives directly South. Maybe they should offer them free food or buy their house. The owner bought it for $229K. Agree that it’s probably just two or three folks taking advantage of the system. PS I don’t even believe most of my rant, just my inner voice talking. LOL
Which is great if you no longer need a home or want to move to someplace much cheaper. Otherwise the capital gains tax can mean trading your existing home for a smaller one and a big tax bill.
. I know that’s besides the point but as someone who was raised in the metro area and lived in NYC proper for 10 years, with regard to parking and noise, no matter where you are, well hold my beer. Haven’t be to BM in a few months but still disappointed to read all this.