Zoning Board Rejects Expansion of Venice Gallery in a Decision That Stuns Everyone

In a major victory for a group of Venice residents, the Los Angeles Board of Zoning Appeals has refused to grant a coastal development permit for the much-praised L. A. Louver Gallery expansion project on North Venice Boulevard, a block from the beach.

The 3-1 vote of the board on Tuesday--so unexpected that it stunned both sides--derails a project that had seemed nearly a sure thing. It already had run the gantlet of various city agencies and received the blessing of the Los Angeles City Council and a key slow-growth advocate, Councilwoman Ruth Galanter.

“I’m astonished and pleased,” said Venice resident Bonnie Faulkner. She and a handful of North Venice Boulevard Neighborhood Assn. members attended the public hearing to protest the pro-gallery ruling of a zoning administrator. Nothing in their two-year struggle hinted at the triumph they were handed.

The deciding factors were garbage from trendy Rebecca’s restaurant, on the same block as the art gallery, and the board’s stated opinion that developer Werner Scharff’s “arrogance” must be addressed.

In a flurry of action, board members voted on two variances, moved on to require an environmental impact report and finally superseded those decisions with the strongest action at their disposal--a vote to deny the permit.

Their vote ignored the pleas of Los Angeles zoning administrator Robert Janovici “not to hold the art gallery hostage” because of their pique at the developer.

Scharff said in a telephone interview Wednesday that he has never appeared before the zoning appeals board and never has been directly advised of any permit violations on the Venice property. “If anybody had told me directly, I would have done something.”

Janovici praised the project to the board as a “very unique case” in which an internationally renowned private gallery that had run out of space should be allowed to expand. “The Venice community has long been associated with artists and artisans,” Janovici said. “It’s part of the unique environment of the Venice area,” he said.

After the vote, Janovici said the city attorney’s office would have to determine what--if any--appeal rights the gallery has with the city.

Mary Krushner, a consultant hired by the Louver gallery, said the vote was “a setback,” but not one “that is . . . going to kill the project.” She said there is confusion on the city’s part about whether the permit denial can be appealed to the City Council or directly to the state Coastal Commission, which has joint authority over projects in the coastal zone.

Galanter’s press secretary, Rick Ruiz, said before the hearing that the councilwoman, whose district includes Venice, favored the project “because it really doesn’t do any harm to the community.” Residents disagreed. They complained about gridlock in the area, particularly on beach-weather weekends. Their area had been downzoned because of congestion in 1973 .

The residents’ group is critical of Galanter for supporting the gallery project, and particularly for her endorsement of a “hardship exemption” from the tough interim coastal planning ordinance she authored to restrain development until a permanent plan for the area is completed.

On the block of North Venice Boulevard, between Speedway and Pacific Avenue, an eclectic mix of residences and businesses has in recent years become an almost entirely commercial strip, to the dismay of those neighbors whose dwellings have not already been gobbled up, relocated or demolished.

But the art gallery expansion had its own special cachet--and strong support. At two public hearings, a string of prominent artists, museum directors, art patrons and community leaders said the Venice community would benefit by having the prestigious gallery consolidate its four locations under one grand roof.

Angry at Developer

Zoning appeals board members were more concerned, however, with garbage from Rebecca’s than with a showcase for pricey paintings. The connection between the restaurant and the gallery is developer Scharff, who co-owns the land on which the proposed gallery was to be built. At the hearing, Scharff’s partner, gallery owner Peter Goulds, several times seemed to avoid pointed questions from board members who asked him to identify the owners of the land on which the gallery was to be built.

Scharff, a clothing manufacturer and one of the biggest property owners in North Venice, owns most of the rest of the block, including the buildings that house Rebecca’s and its equally tony neighbor across the street, the West Beach Cafe.

With Scharff not present at the hearing, board members directed much of their anger at the restaurant managers.

They said they were offended by Scharff’s “arrogant” violation of a 1983 ruling requiring him to provide space for Rebecca’s garbage dumpsters in a parking structure he was building next door. The dumpsters wound up fouling an alley next to people’s homes. Garbage trucks rumbled through and noisily ground up the refuse each morning at sunrise.

James D. Leewong, chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, said he was not impressed with testimony from Krushner, the gallery’s consultant. Krushner said Scharff had built an alcove for the trash, but the success of the restaurant rendered it inadequate.

‘Plays Many Tricks’

“Mr. Scharff knows better than that,” Leewong said. “He’s been here many times and he plays many tricks.”

Board members also scoffed at purported “progress” in dealing with Rebecca’s garbage by lugging it across the street to be consolidated with the West Beach Cafe’s trash--where, Leewong said, it “stinks even more” in a different alley next to residences.

“Where is the trash now?” asked Leewong. “It’s at the West Beach Cafe. That’s great. That’s really great. . . . They can’t haul the trash to the corner, but they can haul the money to the bank,” he said.

Managers of the two restaurants explained that their trash haulers said the bins could not safely be kept in the parking structure because they were so heavy they could careen down the ramps.

But Faulkner of the neighborhood association told the board the same trash hauler had told her just the opposite--that it was possible to keep the dumpsters in the parking garage, but the restaurant operators didn’t want to subject their patrons to the odor.

Gallery owner Goulds balked at a compromise solution in which he would settle the trash wars by housing Rebecca’s garbage on his property.

Won’t ‘Condone It’

“Some people in this society don’t give a damn,” said board member John Mack. “I for one am not prepared to condone it.”

Board member Joseph Mandel said Scharff “thumbs his nose at the system” then comes back before the same board seeking concessions.

Mandel said the L.A. Louver Gallery project finally presented the five-member board, four of whom were present, with a situation in which it could do something about someone who has acted as though he was above the law. He voted to sidetrack the project for an environmental report, but later was the only dissenter when the board voted to deny the permit.

Gallery consultant Krushner repeatedly attempted to avoid pointed questions about Scharff’s involvement, trying to present the gallery project on its own merits. She also invoked Galanter’s name--and support--frequently.

Asked by board members about Galanter’s stance, residents quoted a letter she sent them saying she wouldn’t live in their neighborhood--or other densely built beach enclaves--”if you paid me.”

‘It Fell Today’

Galanter’s deputy, Jim Bickhart, who did not attend the hearing, said Galanter did not send a representative to the hearing as an advocate because, after she was satisfied the project addressed her concerns, such as parking, she decided to let the plan rise or fall on its own merits. “If it’s going to fall, it’s going to fall, and it fell today,” Bickhart said.

Board members were unmoved by Krushner’s recitation of the project’s merits and her references to the councilwoman’s support. “Somebody better answer this today,” said board member Nikolas Patsaouras, interrupting Krushner’s presentation. “I’m convinced Rebecca’s and the West Beach Cafe and everything else is intertwined.”

Paradoxically, at least three of the board members contended that they generally favored the gallery project, but said Scharff’s “blatant” violations were too great a problem to overlook.

Goulds “got in bed with the wrong person,” Leewong said. “If this property is being held hostage it’s the proper property to be held hostage--because it belongs to Mr. Scharff.”