Lincoln Center mega-project raked over coals at hearing
By Jim
Smith
Although the Lincoln Center
project is almost universally loathed in Venice, it's still proceeding on its
merry way through the Los Angeles approval process.
Today's stop was in front of Planning
Department Hearing Officer Jon Foreman in West L.A. He first heard a
well-rehearsed presentation from developer Samuel Adams and architect Jai Paul
Khalsa. It was followed by statements from the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood
Council (GRVNC) and its Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC). Laura Burns and
I were followed by 37 Venetians (some of the approximately 100 people at the
hearing), nearly all of whom made cogent and articulate comments about various
problems with the project, including its size, traffic, pollution, noise, and
its impact on the community.
The
latest formulation of the massive project is 99,000 square feet of commercial
space and 246,860 square feet of residential. The developer is proposing setting
aside 10 percent for low-moderate income units and 10 percent for moderate
income units, but only for 30 years. The buildings on both sides of
California Ave. would be six stories tall, dwarfing everything on Lincoln Blvd.
in Venice.
"We need less congestion,
not more," said Stephen Fisk, who went on to compare this Lincoln Center with
the cultural mecca by the same name in New York City. In all, 35 of the 37 were
opposed to the project by my reckoning. Of the other two, DeDe Audet's comments
could have been taken either pro or con, while Darryl Dufay's were clearly in
support of the development, with conditions. He noted that LUPC had approved the
project with certain minor conditions in October,
2003.
The most eagerly awaited speaker
was probably Kevin Keller, aide to Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski. In his
initial presentation, Khalsa had said that Miscikowski had endorsed the project
at 4:50 pm, the previous Friday.
Keller, who spoke near the end of the hearing, began by stating that Miscikowski
could not support the project "as designed today." What he said next may be
subject to various interpretations. His comments did cause me to look up the
dictionary meaning of double-talk when I got home. One of the definitions is
"Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language." Fortunately there is a videotape
of his remarks.
My notes reflect that
he said words to the effect that the zoning change in contention should be
approved (this would allow the project to go forward), and that the council
office can work with the developer after that to secure changes. I also heard
him say that Dufay's conditions from last October would be a good starting point
for securing modifications in the development. If this turns out to be the gist
of his statement, then Khalsa was correct in saying that Miscikowski had
endorsed the project last Friday.
Hopefully, there is another
explanation...
The record will remain
open until the close of business on March 15 for written comments, which can be
mailed to Commission Secretariat, Room 532, City Hall, 200 N. Spring St. L.A.
90012. Phone: 213-978-1300.
Posted: Mon - March 1, 2004 at 05:41 PM