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, ad precedent, impact on the community, etc.

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, 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.

Jim Smith