Venice Plan Has the Town Talking --and Talking

The Venice crowd was out in force Wednesday night doing what they do best: speaking out on their vision--and their fears--for the future of their colorful oceanside community.

And how they did go on. Sixty-six speakers stepped up to the microphone at an almost five-hour public hearing to comment on a long-awaited Los Angeles City Planning Department draft of a land-use plan for the Venice coastal area. About 150 members of the community attended the hearing at the Venice High School auditorium, sometimes cheering, sometimes jeering and frequently being reminded by the hearing officer that their reaction impinged on the speaking time available.

The speakers, a veritable “Who’s Who” of Venice activists, spoke on everything from how long it would take a developer to get a project approved to feeling like a local endangered bird, the least tern, that has no place to nest. At least no place he can afford. “Whenever I look for a place to land, I can’t find one,” the man lamented.

City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who represents the area, and several of her staff attended the hearing. So did Mary Lee Gray, County Supervisor Deane Dana’s deputy, who may have her eye on Galanter’s council seat. Activist Jerry Rubin testified about why the down-and-out Venice Pavilion should be rescued. Venice Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Marge Alatorre said it should be razed.

Neither the president of the slow-growth Venice Town Council nor the president of the more development-oriented Venice Action Committee was happy with the preliminary draft of the land-use plan.

There were, in fact, few kudos for the report that set out a number of broad, philosophical policy goals for Venice’s future. Most speakers called for a delay of its approval or its withdrawal until its shortcomings can be addressed. The land use plan will be coupled with a more detailed implementation plan that is not yet completed.

Like a persistent drumbeat, the recurring issues that arouse the Venice community reverberated through the public testimony: gentrification, affordable housing, beach access, traffic and, as always, parking, parking, parking.

“No one but my Domino’s deliveryman can seem to find parking within three blocks of my apartment,” said Phil Hopkins. Or as architect Jonathan Hankin put it: “As residents, we are basically held hostage for fear of losing our parking places on the weekend.”

Several members of the Venice Town Council made a plea to the Planning Department to consider making use of a provison of the Coastal Act that they said can protect any one beach from being inundated beyond its capacity. As Southern California’s No. 2 tourist attraction after Disneyland, Venice beach qualifies as a beach that draws more people than it can actually handle, they said.

“North Venice is probably the most congested area of the entire California coast, yet the land use plan is written as if North Venice is a lonely, deserted private beach that needs more attractions to get more people here,” Nancy Kent said.

Protesting the continued commercialization of Ocean Front Walk, Kent said the law protects people’s rights to “go to the beach, not their right to shop at the beach.”

Another property owner suggested following the lead of his hometown of Newport Beach by instituting permit parking throughout the area and standing firm. “Over the course of time, we won’t have a tourism problem,” Joe Davis said.

Among the panoply of opinions, there was one recurring complaint: The Planning Department had not adequately reflected community input from a series of 1988 workshops.

Galanter joined the chorus, urging the Planning Department to bring the preliminary plan back to the community before sending it to the Planning Commission for review, as is the department’s normal practice.

The state-mandated coastal plan originated with the 1976 Coastal Act. The Venice plan got under way in the early 1980s but was tabled in 1983 when the city and the Coastal Commission failed to reach accord; Galanter restarted the process in mid-1987.

In 1988, a series of 27 workshops drew more than 1,000 Venice residents, who gave their vision for the community. A related group of study groups met during the same time period and relayed their findings to the larger group.

Then, according to Jim Bickhart, Galanter’s planning deputy, progress on the plan was stymied for nine months because of staffing changes in the Planning Department. The community, meanwhile, waited for a response.

Bickhart said he felt some of the community’s current upset stemmed from a mistaken notion that their contributions would be in the umbrella document released 20 days ago, rather than in the detailed companion documents that are yet to come.

Galanter and Bickhart were criticized because they were blamed for the inclusion in the plan of a proposal made by a private nonprofit group. The group, the Venice Resources Corp., headed by former Venice Town Council President Dell Chumley, is seeking funds to start a beach shuttle. Its proposed route is included in the plan, which critics viewed as an endorsement of the group.

Bickhart has contributed money to the Venice Resources Corp., although he said his check was never cashed. Both he and Galanter insisted that there is nothing wrong with the contribution, one of many Bickhart said he makes to community groups, including the Town Council.

“He’s free to do whatever he wants with his money,” said Galanter outside the hearing, and denied having anything to do with getting the group’s proposal into the plan.