California Coastal Commission Nixes Overnight Parking Districts in Venice

The vote was unanimous.

The California Coastal Commission Hearing. Credit: Bernard Green
The California Coastal Commission Hearing. Credit: Bernard Green

The California Coastal Commission voted unanimously against Overnight Parking Districts in Venice at its meeting on Thursday.

The 14-0 vote was welcomed by many organizations that made the trek down to Long Beach to voice their opposition.

While many Venice residents were in favor of OPDs, they were outnumbered at the hearing  by those that opposed them.

Following the meeting, Venice resident Cindy Chambers wrote the following on her Facebook page:

Thank you, California Coastal Commission for doing the right thing!! 

Well done, Venice!!!!! No OPDs once again!!!! Thank you, Linda Lucks, Colleen Saro, Lydia Ponce, Debra Gavlak, Daryl Barnett, Steve Clare, Peggy Kennedy, Preacher, Sue Kaplan, Sylvia Aroth, Jed Parker, Jim Smith, Frank Lutz, David Busch, Kay Gallin, Deborah Lashever, Jataun Valenin, Barbara Peck, Bill Pryzlucki, POWER, Surfriders Foundation, Beachhead and all the others who got out there, walked the streets, spread the TRUTH, fought the good fight and made this happen!!!!!!! Without your selfless efforts, time, commitment, energy and in some cases, money, we wouldn't have won today!!! I'm with you in spirit and so thrilled to hear the news!!! THANK YOU!!!!!

What do you think of the Commission’s decision? Tell us in the comments section.



carolyn rios June 14, 2013 at 04:31 PM
Wonderful news! Thank you to the real Venice for showing up!
catman June 15, 2013 at 09:55 AM
Mark Ryavec and the developers that write his paycheck don't like to lose. Guarantee his lawyers are already preparing a lawsuit to try and circumvent this ruling.
David Ewing June 20, 2013 at 02:42 AM
It was a tough call for the Coastal Commission, considering they had a gun to their head in the form of the VSA lawsuit. What's interesting is that these were not the same commissioners who nixed OPDs the last two times. All but two of them had joined the commission since the last go-round. When the City has an illegal curfew on the beach for all the OPD hours and more, that makes it a little hard for Commissioners to swallow the idea that the City is providing beach access by supplying parking spaces. Once you've parked your car and walk to the beach, you get a ticket or handcuffs, depending on how hard you try to assert your right to stay there. So the coastal access mitigations were strictly make-believe. The City thought it could bully its way through, using the VSA lawsuit to intimidate the Commission into ignoring this sleight of hand and much more. It was so arrogant, or maybe just lazy, that it refused to do a basic parking study to support the application as the Commission had directed three years ago. This may have worked on conflict-averse staffers, but it's not their decision to make. And the Commission is not allowed under California law to make the decision behind closed doors. It has to be done in a public hearing, which the plaintiffs apparently found it inconvenient to attend. VSA is already claiming on its website that the Commissioners acted in bad faith. Why? Because they responded to the evidence they finally got to hear. Because the fix wasn't in after all. After four years of arm-twisting by the VSA and the City, which at one point actually tried to get the California Coastal Act changed to give the City special treatment just for this OPD, after three years of secret back-room wheeling and dealing between VSA and City officials, and after still more exclusive meetings with the Coastal staff, and after VSA hired one of the most expensive coastal lobbyists in the state, if not the most expensive, to personally work the Commissioners, the bullying and the sleight of hand backfired. Caught with its pants down, the VSA's leader once again resorts to the smear game, pointing an accusing finger at all twelve Commissioners (not 14), even though ten of these are the very Commissioners VSA was so confident would vote against their predecessors. And then he says Rosendahl took a dive. He points the finger at everyone except himself. When someone claims to represent the majority of Venice stakeholders but can't deliver more than a dozen of them to the most important public hearing in a four year campaign, after spending thousands of dollars of other people's money, and can't even get those few there on time, maybe the finger's pointing in the wrong direction. Did the VSA leader take a dive?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »