Please enter your information (below) and submit to share your concern and send the email (“Subject: Public Comment on June 2025 Agenda W18a No.LCP–5–VEN–23–0037–1”) to the Coastal Commission.

You will be copied on the email that is sent.

Email to be sent to Coastal Commission:

Dear Coastal Commissioners:

Subject: Public Comment on June 2025 Agenda W18a No.LCP–5–VEN–23–0037–1

I oppose this motion for extension of approval of suggested modifications to the City of Los Angeles Venice Certified Land Use Plan (LUP) amendment allowing for the creation of a new subarea for 40 lots a block from the beach for purposes of the Venice Dell project. The initial December 2024 approval was premature and should not have occurred due to the City’s ultimate denial of the project, and the extension is also wrong.

The Commission has already acted inappropriately as it has gone to extraordinary lengths to work with the developers to approve this blatantly flawed project, even posting the project on the Commission’s website as if it was an approved project, prior to the actual hearing.

During the hearing, despite extraordinary evidence of the many fatal issues related to the parking, none of the Commissioners asked a single question of the City staff available on the call regarding the City’s serious concerns on the parking element (1/3 of the project) that was determined by the City’s Department of Transportation and the Transportation Commission to be infeasible. The parking garage was to be built at the center of the tiny, $1.2 million per average 460 sq.ft. units. It was made clear the City’s cost for the garage would exceed $22 million, with annual operations and maintenance expenses of an estimated $1.5 million, which was prohibitive due to the City’s financial condition.

The Transportation Commission findings further revealed that a natural disaster could lead to structural damage to the garage, leaving the City responsible for additional costs of relocating tenants during repair. Other considerations of the dangers of housing units sharing a wall with the parking structure were ignored by your staff.

The City Attorney reached out to you with the request to wait for the hearing results from the City’s Transportation Commission, a required step in the approval process as highlighted by Judge Chalfant in LA Superior Court and agreed upon in court by all the lawyers including both the City and the Developers’ lawyers, yet you chose to ignore this request and proceed with the premature December 11th hearing.

The request for an extension to this flawed decision is a further waste of City time and taxpayer money. The City did indeed communicate its rejection of the Commission’s modifications to the LUP in adhering to the Transportation Commission’s expert decision. There is no further need to keep this LUP amendment open as it would only serve to expose the City to additional, frivolous legal actions by the opportunists the Coastal Commission would be enabling.

If the Coastal Commission is true to its mantra of “never denying an affordable housing project” it should be moving on and supporting the alternate site proposed by the Transportation Commission and Councilmember. The feasibility study of adjacent lot #701 (without the unnecessary commercial element) has been requested and must be completed. This motion for extension promotes further delay of this smart alternative project and ignores the fact that Venice is in much need of the use now proposed for lot #731, a “Mobility Hub” which would facilitate beach access for visitors from Los Angeles and throughout the world, including for the upcoming Olympic events being hosted by Venice.

The City Council has already lost the ability to reconsider this project under Charter Section 245. The window for revival has closed. Continued action by the Coastal Commission to keep this amendment alive only serves to block progress on more sustainable housing solutions. There is no “good cause” to extend a deadline for a project that no longer exists.

We urge the Commission to deny this extension and allow the City to redirect its efforts and resources toward housing that is actually feasible, affordable, sustainable and buildable.

Sincerely,