The 15-unit at 522 Venice Blvd was defeated last Wednesday. The Los Angeles Planning Commission voted unanimously not to approve the project. Following is a description of the project and proceedings by Darryl DuFay. Following that is a commentary by Robin Rudisell, newly elected to the Land Use and Planning Committee. Both Darryl’s and Robin’s comments have been trimmed.

NOTE: Jake Kaufmann, head of Land Use and Planning Committee, said it and it will be repeated many times in Update: “Venice is one percent of the LA population, yet has 10 percent of the building permits.” Venetians do your homework. Perhaps, planning will learn to listen. In the past, planning has had its way with concerned Venetians. Am sure each reader has his own story. Venice has a strong neighborhood council and land use and planning committee to back up the Venice Specific Plan. This was a great win for the community.

By Darryl DuFay
The project consists of 15 units in ten dwellings, five single-family, and five detached duplexes. As proposed, the building covers all the land, with almost no setbacks. The land is zoned RD 1.5 and would normally have three units. However, the applicant has proposed to subdivide the land into 10 small lot sites pursuant to the existing Small Lot Ordinance. Because of the inclusion of two very low units he garners a bonus density and 35% height increased. The total height of the project, including roof deck accesses, is 43 feet, 9 inches (see photos below).

A large contingent, looked like as many as thirty to thirty five people, of very concerned community members were in attendance and opposed to the project.

Over two hours was spent on this project. The planning staff made their report, the applicant’s representative made a presentation, and then the public spoke starting with the appellants. The applicant’s representative had an opportunity to rebut or add to his presentation. Then, the commission members discussed the project.

1. The Appellants were well prepared and made excellent verbal and visual presentations.

2. The Public spoke forcefully and emotionally against the project, especially emphasizing the size, height and how out of scale the project was with the surrounding community. The negative effect on traffic safety was emphasized over and over. No one spoke in favor of the project.

3. The Applicant inferred/stated/questioned that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over matters that the LA Planning Commission, City Attorney, and Zoning Administrator had already made a determination upon.

4. Thomas M. Donovan, Commission Vice President began with an electrifying statement when he referred to the Planning Departments overall handling of the project as “Byzantine.”

For those not familiar with the term it ranges from: excessively complicated, typically involving a great deal of administrative detail, to characterized by intrigue, scheming or devious, and usually surreptitious manner of operation. Reference was made to unexplained delays, meetings with city officials that were not make public, notifications of meetings that were never sent, people who should have been contacted and were not, a refusal of the applicant to meet with the Land Use and Planning Committee of the Venice Neighborhood Council, lack of outreach to the community, etc. and on and on.

5. In questions to Mr. Tokunaga from the Commissioners it was evident that he had less knowledge than you would have expected about the surrounding neighborhood. It reinforced the concern that the Planning department’s focus is primarily with the developer and the rules and regulations of planning and less with the effects of a project on the community.

6. Tricia Keane, Planning Director, for Councilman Mike Bonin read a statement from the Councilman. Mike OPPOSED the project with the emphasis that it is out of scale with the surrounding community. That statement was well received by audience.

By Robin Rudisill
Although it will probably be appealed, this is a very important win against an unfair process and inappropriate project. But I also think it was a strong message to city planning that they really need to be sure that they are listening to the Community, adhering to laws on informing and seriously considering input/evidence from the public/community, and working/communicating respectfully with their neighborhood council’s for the purpose for which they were formed:

So that local neighborhoods have a much larger role in reviewing proposed local developments and are involved in early discussion and cooperation between neighborhood groups and developers (like we thought we had done with Simmzy’s, until the City threw all our hard work out the window…..), and thus have significant impacts upon the success or failure of private development in their neighborhoods.

That is why we have neighborhood councils, including the neighborhood committee, the land use and planning committee, and all of the other wonderful related committees.

But, if the City does not honor and respect the neighborhood councils (NC) or the purposes for which the NC’s were formed, we become impotent (no way, not Venetians!) and powerless, and all we do is just for our own entertainment…..and the developers are “laughing all the way to the bank” as “they” say.

Jay Cole is absolutely right, thecity planning staffrecommended a vote against what the community strongly wanted, and even against what the councilman wanted.

How “weird” and “wrong” is that? What’s going on?

As I said in my public comments at that hearing, the City needs to quit making “promises” (or assurances of any type or at any level) to developers, especially prior to involving the community, as it puts everyone in a very difficult position when something like this happens, as much work has been done and a lot of money spent, by City, developer and community alike, and it could have and should have been avoided if we follow our own City’s rules and processes.

We need to get the powers that be to think hard about all this.

Challis Macpherson reminded Venice Specific Plan trumps the Municipal Code!

And Councilperson Bonin sent his head of Planning, Tricia Keane, to read his statement that he is opposed to the project and it is out of scale with the surrounding Community.

As I’ve said many times, “community planning” is not something that takes place in high rise offices or at a public counter downtown. But the City really thinks that they should be doing it without us and demonstrates that view often. Only once we get this idea of the community being truly and meaningfully a part of community planning really drummed into their heads (also using drums or drum sticks perhaps?), can we have more control over the future of our precious, one-and-only, “protected species,” diverse, nationally known as the “coolest and most hip neighborhood in the U.S.”: The City of Venice.

City!

Now there’s an idea!!