NEWS ANALYSIS : ‘Fun Zone’ Foes Aren’t Laughing : Development: The city’s plan to install an amusement park on the pier rankles many residents, who say their concerns have been ignored.

During a break in a public hearing last week, with dozens of speakers waiting to have their say on the Santa Monica Pier plan, City Councilman Kelly Olsen was asked to gauge how the council might vote.

“I think the votes were taken a long time ago,” he said, then volunteered a strikingly specific prediction: “It’s going to be a 6-1 vote (in favor of the plan), and I’ll probably be the one.”

The statement--in essence an acknowledgment that the hearing is no more than a cover for a fait accompli-- might seem uncharacteristically cynical coming from a top elected official in a city that often sees itself as a font of egalitarianism.

But it echoes what many in town are saying about a procedure that sometimes seems noticeably absent of any meaningful interplay between the council and the public.

“I think it’s a dog and pony show,” project opponent Donna Alvarez said of the hearing, which will resume Tuesday night and most likely will decide the future of a proposed “fun zone” on the pier. Mistrust toward the council has taken several forms during the debate on the city-backed plan to install a 115-foot Ferris wheel, a roller coaster and other amusement rides on the pier.

A number of residents have complained that several council members--particularly Dennis Zane, Mayor Ken Genser and Tony Vazquez--have asked questions to elicit desired responses rather than impartially gather information.

Similarly, they say, the council has routinely let project supporters circumvent council-mandated time limits at the microphone by asking for additional information, yet refused to make similar accommodations when opponents need time to elaborate.

“There’s no way any public input is going to sway (the council),” said Chris Amos, a resident opposed to the project. “This (project) is obviously an idea that somebody really wants or a group of people really wants.”

The hearing is the result of an appeal filed by neighbor Diane Simpson after the Planning Commission’s approval of the zone last month. Neighbors’ concerns range from worries about extra traffic and noise to forecasts that the rides will lure gangs and other criminal elements into the area.

Detractors also say that the Environmental Impact Report for the project is based is flawed and that the council will open the door for even more development on the city-owned pier by approving it.

“This has been ramrodded over and above the residents’ head, and it makes me wonder what’s underneath,” resident Jeri Jackson said.

The sense of something occurring beyond the public’s view has been heightened by Jackson’s assertion that two council members have a conflict of interest regarding the pier: Abdo because her campaign treasurer is Russ Barnard, who wants to open a large restaurant there, and Zane because he accepted $5,000 in campaign committee contributions from the Santa Monica Pier Businessmen’s Assn.

City Atty. Robert M. Myers has declared that both members may vote on the fun zone, but Jackson and others insist that even if the two are not technically in conflict of interest, their ties to pier interests raise ethical questions about their ability to be objective.

“I’m not saying it’s corrupt per se, but it doesn’t look good,” Amos said.

Zane and Abdo dismiss the issue, with Zane noting that his interest in developing the pier extends to the early ‘80s.

“My interest and support isn’t new and is not affected one way or the other by that contribution,” he said.

Zane also denied that the council is asking leading questions and defended his line of inquiry as an attempt to “be sure the project is properly before the council.”

“In (the opponents’) view it’s leading. In other people’s view it’s clarifying,” he said.

The hearing has also resurrected the complaint that the city-established Pier Restoration Commission, in its role as pier developer, failed to adequately notify neighbors about the project in recent years.

Although widely attended public workshops helped shape the project in the early ‘80s, residents had little opportunity to contribute once design guidelines and a development program were approved in 1988 by state and local boards.

Many residents believe that changing times, particularly with regard to drugs and gangs, warrant re-evaluation of the plan.

Others contend that the city should have canvassed neighbors just as private developers are required to do.

“You broke every rule and standard that you hold private developers to,” Planning Commissioner Sharon Gilpin told the council last week.

Meanwhile, numerous supporters of the fun zone, 700 of whom have signed a petition in favor of the project, say a well-run pier will reduce rather than increase crime, provide a source of affordable entertainment for families and youth, and remain consistent with the pier’s history as an amusement center.

“A lot of these neighborhood opponents see the beach as their own personal property,” said Councilman Herb Katz, a proponent of the plan.

The hearing is scheduled to resume at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday.