Venice public commenters clash over plan to convert Site 731 into mobility hub, citing approved affordable-housing project

Dozens of Venice residents, a nonprofit housing developer and neighborhood leaders urged Los Angeles officials during public comment to either reject Motion 3 or clarify its effect on a separate, years-old affordable-housing project tied to Site 731.

Becky Denseni Circun, a representative of Venice Community Housing (nonprofit developer), told the meeting: “Estoy aquí para hablar sobre Punto Tres.” She said she submitted written materials to the record and expressed frustration that the city had not moved forward on homelessness and housing she said the developer had already prepared for the site. “Después de que estábamos mano a mano con la ciudad defendiendo los derechos de este programa por los cuales nos cobraron quinientos mil dólares… esto tiene que parar,” she said, faulting what she described as delays and costs imposed while people remain unhoused.

Supporters of keeping or creating a transportation or parking facility at Site 731 also spoke. A commenter who identified herself as Marjorie Westman welcomed a Department of Transportation report and said Venice needs more public parking and better access: “Venice es el destino de turismo más grande en Los Ángeles… todos sus ciudadanos merece accesibilidad aquí.” Several other speakers described persistent parking shortages, cited Olympic and event-related pressure, and urged the council to approve a mobility site or at least study parking needs before moving forward with housing.

Why this matters: The dispute centers on whether Motion 3 — described in public remarks as a council action to pursue a mobility/transportation site at “seven thirty-one” (Site 731) — would conflict with a long-planned, developer-backed affordable-housing project that speakers said already has approvals, funding commitments and a contract. Multiple speakers said the housing project has been in development for about eight years, that it is intended to deliver about 120 affordable units, and that opponents previously lost litigation attempting to block the housing plan. Opponents of Motion 3 called replacing or delaying that housing unfair and harmful amid a citywide homelessness crisis; proponents said immediate public parking and transport access are urgent.

Speakers on both sides invoked prior approvals and legal determinations. Several commenters said the Coastal Commission and other bodies have previously approved the housing plan; others cited Administrative Code language on parking and the authority of transportation commissions, and urged clearer interagency coordination with Metro and LADOT. One speaker asked the city attorney to clarify whether the transportation commission’s decision supersedes or affects the council’s authority on the site.

Public comment highlights and factual claims presented to the council: - Venice Community Housing (speaker Becky Denseni Circun) said the developer submitted documentation and that the project already had funding; she said the developer had been charged about $500,000 related to the project and described ongoing delays. (Statement attributed to Becky Denseni Circun.) - Multiple speakers said the housing project had been in planning for about eight years and would provide approximately 120 affordable units. (Statements attributed to public commenters.) - Several speakers, including Marjorie Westman, requested a city parking study they said was promised five years earlier; proponents of a mobility site cited Olympics- and event-driven parking pressures and comparisons to Santa Monica’s parking supply. (Statements attributed to public commenters.) - Commenters invoked agency approvals and legal history: at least one speaker said opponents had lost two lawsuits aimed at stopping the housing project; others referenced the Coastal Commission’s prior approval. (Statements attributed to public commenters.)

What officials said at the meeting: Members and staff present asked procedural questions about jurisdiction and authority. A speaker identified in the transcript as the city attorney (unidentified by full name in the record) was asked whether an outside commission’s decision is final and whether the council or the relevant commission holds ultimate authority over parking decisions. Members present (referred to in the transcript as Member Park and Member Hernández) were named near the close of the record; no final action or recorded roll-call vote on Motion 3 appears in the transcript excerpt provided.

Next steps and context: Public commenters repeatedly asked the council to clarify the relationship between any motion to convert or study Site 731 for mobility and the existing developer plan for affordable housing. At the time of these remarks the council had not announced a final vote on Motion 3 in the provided transcript. Commenters urged either preserving the approved housing project or ensuring any mobility plan includes clear, documented coordination with the housing developer, LADOT, Metro and relevant permitting authorities.

The dispute reflects a recurring tradeoff in coastal and high-demand neighborhoods: short-term access and parking for residents and visitors versus the longer-term delivery of committed affordable housing. Speakers on both sides framed their positions as serving the public interest — either by protecting an approved housing commitment for low-income residents or by addressing pressing parking and transportation access that residents say affects safety and daily life.