Coastal Commission’s Revised Findings Refute Key Claims in OPD Lawsuit

Posted: September 3, 2010 in Free Speech at the Beach
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The California Coastal Commission released its revised findings for their June 10, 2010, denial of permit parking in Venice. The report, issued last Friday, cites the availability of preferable alternatives to solving the problems associated with homeless people sleeping in vehicles.

The findings refute two key claims repeated by the City and the stakeholders group in their lawsuit against the Commission. First, they provide evidence that parking does indeed meet the definition of development according to the Coastal Act, and repeated application of that doctrine up and down the state creates ample precedent to justify the Commission’s decision.

Second, the findings contradict Bill Rosendahl’s “equal rights” claims that Venice is being unfairly targeted by the Coastal Commission. Rather, there appears to be a pattern of the City failing to properly present an OPD application before the Coastal Commission. Venice’s own Land Use Plan, which Venetians rely on the Coastal Commission to uphold as a safeguard against overdevelopment, requires 1:1 replacement parking in order to adopt restricted parking. Venice Action’s review of surrounding coastal communities revealed that Santa Monica, Hermosa Beach and Capitola all replaced visitor parking at a 1:1 ratio. The City’s two failed tries for Venice are just the most recent. Previously, the City failed in its application for Santa Monica Canyon/Pacific Palisades by ignoring the same requirement to provide adequate replacement parking.

Finally, the Commission suggested implementation of programs targeted at alleviating problems associated with homelessness and the use of vehicles as housing before considering measures that would threaten public access to the beach. Streets-to-Homes (S2H) is part of a comprehensive program to provide off street parking and services in exchange for compliance with strict community safeguards and police oversight.

To read Venice Action’s news release on this subject, click here. To read the Coastal Commission’s findings, click here.

Contact the Coastal Commission to support the revised findings at their September 15 meeting.

From Venice Action Alliance

  1. heidiinvenice says:

    You forgot to include this part:
    “… The City can pass an ordinance that bans vehicles that exceed a certain size, as other cities have done. The City can address problems such as sleeping in vehicles, littering, public intoxication and dumping through enforcement of the City’s existing police authority. None of these measures would exclude the general public from parking on the streets that support coastal access. Therefore, the Commission denies the proposed project because of the availability of environmentally preferable alternatives. “


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s