By Darryl DuFay, concerned Venetian
I attended the first of two public meetings to hear input on the Venice Neighborhood Council’s Ad Committee’s Draft Report on “Mass, Scale and Character.” The Draft Report deals only with R1 single family homes in the Venice Coastal Zone, which is west of Lincoln Blvd.

The meeting was held April 28th, at the Foursquare church, 1400 Riviera. The church is very pleasant with great seating and not congested. Sue Kaplan, chair of the Committee, moderated, along with the committee seated on the stage. Second meet will be Monday (2 May), 7:30 to 9:30 pm at Vera Davis Center, 610 California Ave, 90291.

Overall impression: The Draft Report ran into a buzzsaw.

The Meeting:
About twenty-five people attended. Over and over the speakers pointed out, in various degrees of concern and anger, that the proposed Floor Area Ratio, FAR .45 is unfair and unrealistic. For example Joel Shapiro, owner of the Electric Lodge, stated he would have to move his family and close the Lodge if such a constrictive measure was implemented. The other speakers reflected general concerns, including Jay and C.J. Cole, Mark Ryavec, Glen Irani, Frank Murphy, Yolanda Gonzalez, etc. and myself..

It became very clear that the Committee had not researched the consequences of a 0.45 FAR on the Venice Coastal Zone. For your information: a FAR is how much space you can have in your home. In this proposal you multiply the area of your lot by .45. A 30 x 90 foot lot is 2,700 sq. ft. lot. It would allow a home with a total floor area of 1,215 sq. ft. Not enough for a decent one story home, even if you include some challenging small incentives that are proposed for additional square footage.

The Venice Coastal Zone does not have a FAR. Most likely because we have the Venice Specific Plan under the 1976 Coastal Act. For forty years, the City and Coastal Commission have been unable to agree on an implementation agreement.

The Ad Hoc Report imposes a FAR. The Draft Report justifies a 0.45 because they say that is what the City of Los Angeles is using but that use is outside the Venice Coastal Zone. How could such a misjudgment of the effect of a FAR 0.45 on our Coastal Venice be made? An observation is that the City’s 0.45 percentage is based on a STANDARD lot size, prevalent outside the Venice Coastal Zone. That size is 50 feet wide and between 100 to 150 feet deep, 5,000 – 7,500 sq ft. Take those sq. ft. figures and multiply them by 0.45 and you get: 2,250 – 3, 375 sq. ft. of floor area for a home.

However, the majority of lots in the Coastal Venice Zone are SUBSTANDARD meaning they are less than 50 feet wide. Narrow lots are characteristic of early coastal area development where small, part-time or a vacation homes were built. Most of those homes no longer exist yet the same size lots remain but are now worth fantastic prices.

For example, there are 375 lots in the Venice Canals. 95% of the lots are substandard 30 feet wide and 90 or 95 feet deep. A FAR of 0.45 allows you only a 1,283 sq. ft home on a 30 by 95 foot lot. To obtain parity with a standard size lot you would need a FAR of 1.0 resulting in a 2,850 sq. ft. home. This would allow you to have a reasonable size two-story home, especially if you have a family.

Maybe the suggested FAR should be removed from the Draft Report. One size does not fit all. How about identifying the “excessive” size buildings and the causes for the excess. Then, modify the existing building regulations as contained in the Venice Specific Plan through open spaces, setbacks, and heights to correct the excesses.

Other criticism/observation that were raised were the lack of the visual evidence of photos and diagrams showing exactly where and what the problem is. In other words, reference is made to something but the reader is never shown what they are writing about. Also, questions were asked about the reason and need for imposing specific architectural features like setbacks, porches, facades, balconies, original house incentives, etc. It was commented that the Draft Report basically created an imposed community as imagined by the committee.

Ms. Kaplan discussed the state of the Report and how it would be applied. They had worked on it for at least two years. It is not as complete as they would like to have had but wanted to present it for comment. They indicated that they did not really have enough resources and expertise to do what they wanted to do.

The question was raised about where the Report’s recommendations fit. There are two main documents. The Los Angeles Zoning and Planning Code and the Venice Specific Plan. Ms. Kaplan said they were not sure but believed it would be an addendum to the Venice Specific Plan.

Ms. Kaplan said that the Committee welcomes the public’s comments and suggestions.