This week Councilman Mike Bonin made a motion at the City Council to look at the in-lieu and grandfathered parking situation that Venice has. Jim Murez was asked to comment on the motion for the Update. Murez is a long-time Venice resident, former member of Land Use and Planning Committee and provider of input to the original Venice Specific Plan. Venice Update has used Murez many times to explain or interpret certain meanings involving Venice’s governing documents. See “Bonin Acts to Protect Parking in Venice.”

By Jim Murez
I do not know a lot about it? The $18k fee was established in 1988 and has never been adjusted. It does not reflect the real cost to create such a space and ignores the simple fact without creating the space in the proximity of the development or offer a solution to how a space that is created across town is going to service the property that is requesting it, the entire community loses.

The wording in the Specific Plan does not match the wording in the Land Use Plan which causes conflict for people seeking permits and poses the City agents the State in the permit process.

What is the benefit of the In-Lieu fee in the first place? LAMC allows a project to park up to 750 feet away from their project. This code exists without the Specific Plan. So what does the In-Lieu option get us here in Venice that the rest of the City does not already have… The right to place a dollar value on the space and leaves the issue of proximity open for other definitions in the Specific Pan to address – namely a shuttle service and the idea of creating public parking lots with these funds.

If you do not take the Land Use Plan as a whole (it is more descriptive than the Specific Plan) you end up with a broken solution. This is what we have seen the City implement for years, they take the In-Lieu fees and don’t create the parking or the shuttle services. This causes an out of balance solution. One can’t work without the other for very long!

I noticed Mike is considering removing the Grandfather Parking Credits. I think this would be a mistake on the surface. It will create an unfair burden on property owners that have older (historic) properties. For the most part, it will push them into purchasing In-Lieu spaces or demolishing their buildings. And so many properties have already received these credits that it would be very unfair to now only apply such a reform to the new comers.

Grandfather rights are a much deeper issue in my opinion, for example what about a building that is higher than current code would allow… we have plenty of them in Venice. If you take away the grandfather rights for parking an apartment building that is taller than code allows would you be forced to remove your top stories or leave them empty because you don’t have parking for them? What about the single family house that wants to remodel but does not have three parking spaces, are they going to be forced to demo and build new because they can only provide two on site spaces. It is not just a commercial property issue and opens many doors that have to be considered. Just because the code is revised to new standards are we now going to force all the old permits into the new code or allow them to continue with their grandfathered rights (and parking is only one of many rights that are grandfathered).

With respect to his asking City Council to pass a motion to amend the Specific Plan, we have been told for years it can’t be done without opening the entire document up for public input. I wonder how that story has now changed?