Transportation committee adopts motion to pursue housing on Lot 701 and study mobility-hub feasibility for Lot 731; 2-1 vote

The Transportation Committee, meeting jointly with the Public Works Committee, voted Feb. 12 to adopt a motion by Council Members Tracy Park and Josh Nazarian directing city staff to study the feasibility of developing affordable housing on Parking Lot 701 and to identify steps for a cohesive mobility hub on Parking Lot 731 in Venice; the motion passed on a 2-1 roll call vote.

The motion matters because the two city-owned lots sit across from the Venice boardwalk and have been the subject of an eight-year dispute between a 100% affordable housing project (referred to repeatedly in testimony as the Venistel project) and a Board of Transportation Commissioners finding that Lot 731 is better used as a mobility hub. Supporters and opponents told the committee the decision affects coastal access, parking for beach visitors, affordable housing supply, and potential legal exposure to existing developer contracts.

Committee discussion and legal briefing

Council Member Park summarized the Board of Transportation Commissioners’ unanimous recommendation and argued the report gives the city “a viable pathway for affordable housing in Venice while maximizing the number of units, enhancing coastal access, protecting our city fiscally, and moving Venice towards a multimodal green future.” City Attorney Mike Nagel cited Los Angeles Administrative Code §22.484(g)(7), telling the committee the Board of Transportation Commissioners has authority over management and control of special parking revenue lots (including Lot 731) and that the board had been required to be consulted about the lots’ use. Nagel said the board’s decision was now final because council did not challenge it within the code’s specified period.

Ken Husting of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) told the committee the project’s long history and changes contributed to confusion about when the matter should go before the Board of Transportation Commissioners. “It was murky in the beginning,” Husting said, and the department learned from the case that certain projects should be referred to the board earlier in the process.

Public comment: split testimony, legal warnings

Speakers at the meeting included residents, neighborhood‑council leaders and attorneys who urged opposite outcomes. Becky Dennison of Venice Community Housing, identified herself as the nonprofit developer selected for the Venistel site, said the project was approved and funded and urged the committee not to delay housing. “This circular pattern of trying to stop people from moving from the streets into housing needs to stop,” Dennison said, citing prior approvals and a development contract.

Faiza Malik, managing attorney for housing justice at Public Counsel, told the committee she represents clients in litigation over the city’s actions and warned the motion could increase legal exposure. “Lot 731 is not available for the development of a mobility hub as referenced in the motion. It is the site of Venistel,” Malik said, and urged council to reject any action that would undermine existing approvals and contracts.

Other public commenters split across neighborhood and visitor‑access concerns: some Venice residents and the Venice Neighborhood Council speakers supported the mobility‑hub study and shifting housing to Lot 701 to preserve visitor parking and reduce traffic impacts; others urged that the preapproved Venistel housing project should move forward on Lot 731 because, they said, it will replace current parking and provide supportive housing.

Formal action

The clerk read the item as council file 15-1138‑s42, a motion by Council Members Park and Nazarian “relative to the feasibility of developing affordable housing on Parking Lot 701 . . . and the steps needed to create a cohesive mobility hub . . . on Parking Lot 731.” No mover and seconder were recorded in the public roll call. The formal vote on the motion was: Council Member Heather Hutt — Aye; Council Member Tracy Park — Yes; Council Member Gil Hernandez — No. The clerk announced, “2 ayes and 1 no. The item is adopted.” The motion also was noted as referred to the Housing and Homelessness Committee.

What’s next

The motion directs city departments to pursue the feasibility work described in the file and requires interdepartmental coordination; the committee did not adopt a detailed implementation schedule at the meeting. LADOT officials and the city attorney said the city will need to review existing contracts and agreements tied to the Venistel project before staff can finalize recommendations. The committee’s action does not itself change any existing permits or development agreements; speakers repeatedly noted that further legal and administrative steps will be required before construction or lot reuses occur.

Ending

Committee members also agreed to continue related items to the Feb. 26 meeting to allow additional departmental work and public review. The matter remains active with pending litigation and further department reports expected before any physical changes to either lot move forward.