The Los Angeles Board of Transportation Commissioners was scheduled Thursday to undo its December 2024 vote blocking the use of a city-owned Venice parking lot for the Venice Dell affordable housing project. Judge Curtis Kin ruled in May that the Board lacked the authority to make that decision and said it must vacate the vote. Mayor Karen Bass asked the commissioners to comply, LADOT recommended that they comply, and the court entered judgment in favor of the project’s developers on August 10.
Instead, the commissioners postponed the matter until they can receive a confidential legal briefing.
The August 13 agenda listed the issue as Item 7: “Vacate Board Prior Decision on Proposed Redevelopment of Municipal Parking Lot No. 731 in Venice for Affordable Housing.” Venice Dell would provide 120 affordable and supportive homes near the Venice Canals while replacing the existing surface parking with 200 spaces in two structures.
Before the commissioners acted, John Heath of City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office told them that his office had “important legal advice” about the judgment entered Monday. Because the litigation remains pending, Heath said the advice could only be delivered in closed session. Thursday’s agenda did not include notice of such a session, so several commissioners said they wanted to postpone the item until one could be scheduled.
Anna Hovasapian, representing Bass, urged them to proceed. She said the mayor’s position had not changed, emphasized that the mayor-appointed commission is an extension of the mayor’s executive authority and explained that vacating the vote would allow the City Council to address the remaining decisions about the project.
“Our recommendation would still be to proceed with vacating today,” Hovasapian said.
The commissioners chose to wait.
The August 10 judgment did not introduce a new legal issue. Kin decided the central question on May 26, ruling that the Transportation Commission exceeded its authority when it attempted to deny the use of Lot 731 for Venice Dell. The court found that the property had already been designated for affordable housing and placed under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Housing Department.
Kin granted the developers’ petition and said a writ would issue ordering the Board to vacate its December action. What followed was the normal process of turning that ruling into a formal judgment and writ. Under court rules, the developers had to prepare the proposed documents, serve them on the city and allow time for objections before submitting them to the judge.
The City Attorney’s office therefore had nearly three months to analyze the ruling, review the proposed judgment, raise objections and brief city officials. Entry of judgment was the expected formal result of Kin’s May decision, not a surprise requiring the city to begin its legal analysis again.
It also removed the procedural caveat noted in LADOT’s report. The report stated that, as of August 3, the court had not yet entered judgment or issued a writ. But LADOT did not cite that as a reason to wait. Even without an entered judgment, the department recommended that the commissioners voluntarily vacate their vote based on Kin’s ruling. Once judgment was entered, the legal basis for acting became stronger, not weaker.
The City Attorney may want the City Council to consider an appeal, seek a stay or make another decision about the litigation. Hovasapian acknowledged that the Council will ultimately determine how the city responds to the case. Heath, however, did not say publicly that an appeal or stay was being considered. And the Transportation Commission was not being asked to decide the city’s litigation strategy. It was being asked to undo an action the court found it lacked the authority to take.
Vacating the December vote would not have allowed construction to begin immediately. Bass’s June 26 letter identified the ground lease and public parking plan as remaining matters for the City Council, both tied to financing for the parking structures incorporated into the development. Hovasapian made the same point Thursday.
Even LADOT’s proposed action would leave another potential obstacle in place. Its report says the Board’s separate recommendation to study relocating the housing to nearby Lot 701 “stands.” Moving Venice Dell to a different property could require the developers to restart years of planning, environmental review, permitting and financing.
The report also repeats LADOT’s concerns about parking revenue, construction costs, maintenance and coastal access. It estimates that the city would lose approximately $605,000 in annual parking revenue during construction and places the cost of replacement parking between $19.5 million and $22.1 million. Those questions may be relevant to a future parking agreement and financing plan, but Kin ruled that they did not give the Transportation Commission authority to reject housing on Lot 731.
Venice Dell has been in development since 2016, when the city selected Venice Community Housing and Hollywood Community Housing Corporation to develop the site at 200 North Venice Boulevard. The City Council approved the project in 2021 and authorized a development agreement in 2022. The California Coastal Commission unanimously approved it in December 2024, and the development later secured nearly $45 million in conditional state and county funding.
Those approvals have been followed by years of obstruction. Councilmember Traci Park took office after promising to “squash” Venice Dell and subsequently pushed proposals to replace it with an unfunded “mobility hub” or move the housing to Lot 701. The City Attorney’s office has repeatedly sought additional taxpayer funding for outside lawyers handling litigation over the project, with the city’s Nossaman LLP contract growing beyond $1.2 million.
On December 10, 2024, one day before the Coastal Commission approved Venice Dell, the Transportation Commission convened a special meeting and voted against allowing the development on Lot 731. Park celebrated the decision and declared the project dead. Kin later ruled that the Board never possessed the authority to kill it.
Erika Lee, co-executive director of Venice Community Housing, told commissioners Thursday that 611 days had passed since that meeting and urged them to recognize the consequences of continuing to stall permanent housing.
“Delaying this project has real human costs,” Lee said.