Browse wiki

Issue:Dunes Development (Venice)
DecisionType Appeal  +
IssueImage Screen Shot 2016-08-01 at 5.55.43 AM.png  +
IssueMonth July  +
IssueOutcome Bad  +
IssueOutcomeDescription Following a comprehensive presentation by
Following a comprehensive presentation by Deputy Director Steve Hudson outlining why the project didn’t meet Coastal Act Standards and explaining how staff had determined the minimum number of additional parking spaces (22), discussion from Commissioners began. Commissioner Vargas strongly questioned Staff’s findings and the need of parking spaces with comments such as “Sometime we get stuck in this idea that parking is everything,” pointing out the photos submitted by the appellants showed “a lot of people riding their bikes” and stating that “… A restaurant in the Coastal Zone is access to the coast.” Commissioners Uranga and Luevano also thought public transportation was sufficient in this case. Commissioner Shallenberger pointed out that the Commission’s standard “is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act” – in other words, the question isn’t how Commissioners feel about providing parking, the question is whether or not the project complies with the Coastal Act. Commissioner Shallenberger also noted that people’s access to visitor services such as a restaurant “isn’t the same as public access to the beach.” Even acknowledging the burden that such a decision would place on staff, Commissioner Vargas moved for a continuance with McClure seconding, stating more “studies” were needed. Commissioners voted 6 - 5 to continue the item.
ssioners voted 6 - 5 to continue the item.  +
IssueReason This project and comments made by Commissi
This project and comments made by Commissioners are important to highlight due to the primary concern raised: If Commissioners aren’t going to apply the Coastal Act as the standard against which projects are reviewed, then how can the public be assured the Coastal Act is being upheld?
e assured the Coastal Act is being upheld?  +
IssueSummary This item is an appeal of a Coastal Develo
This item is an appeal of a Coastal Development Permit approved by the City of Los Angeles to change a commercial retail space to a 2,831-sq.-foot restaurant. A key issue with this CDP is the lack of sufficient existing or proposed parking. Staff recommended that the Commission determine substantial issue based on the project not being consistent with the parking requirements of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). The lack of parking would adversely affect the public’s ability to access the coast. Additionally, approval of a development that worsens Venice’s current parking shortage in Venice will impair the City’s ability to prepare a certified LCP due to the project’s inconsistency with the LUP because it will generate increased parking demand and adversely impacts public access.
emand and adversely impacts public access.  +
IssueYear 2,016  +
Lobbyist City Land Use  +
Opposition Coastal Commission Executive Director, James Murez, Robin Rudisill, James McCullagh, Maripaz Maramba, Marie Pabianova, Kimmy Miller, Roxanne Brown, and Ilana Marosi  +
Policies Chapter 3 Policies  +
StaffRecommendation Finding of Substantial Issue  +
StaffReport http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/7/th24a-7-2016.pdf  +
Has query
This property is a special property in this wiki.
Issue:Dunes Development (Venice) + , Issue:Dunes Development (Venice) +
Categories Issues
Modification date
This property is a special property in this wiki.
25 August 2016 18:15:17  +
hide properties that link here 
Vote:Vote 24qpq4zd2 + , Vote:Vote 29y9m6t8g + , Vote:Vote 33ctw3gk6 + , Vote:Vote 4xr9is1bo + , Vote:Vote de5y98vna + , Vote:Vote e1igq2gyl + , Vote:Vote h2lf3pgeh + , Vote:Vote t65mcvtve + , Vote:Vote tfizb0y9q + , Vote:Vote waa20wwge + , Vote:Vote x93d9iko9 + VoteIssue


Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.