Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Venice residents, advocates urge council to stop spending on litigation and allow Venice Dell to proceed
Summary
Multiple Venice community speakers and housing advocates appealed to the council to stop allocating more funds to fight the Venice Dell affordable‑housing project, warning further litigation spending risks the city's pro‑housing designation and delays a shovel‑ready development.
A string of public commenters told the Los Angeles City Council that the city should stop spending public funds to litigate against a shovel‑ready affordable‑housing project in Venice (referred to in public comment as Venice Dell/Venistel). Speakers representing Hollywood Community Housing and Venice Community Housing said the project has city entitlements, state funding and prior council approvals, and asked the council to cease allocating additional outside counsel resources to oppose construction.
Sarah Letts, executive director of Hollywood Community Housing, told the council to deny a request to spend $760,000 to pay outside counsel to fight the creation of affordable housing at the parcel known as Lot 731. "There is no fraud," Letts said of claims in briefs challenging the project's appraisal; she said earlier appraisals reflected open‑space zoning before rezoning and changed project entitlements. Allison Riley of Venice Community Housing urged the council to "live up to your commitments," saying co‑developers have followed the city's entitlements and invested millions; she warned that continued legal fights could prompt the state's Housing Accountability Unit to remove the city's pro‑housing designation, costing the city funding.
Multiple speakers reinforced the same themes: the city has already incurred legal costs (speakers cited $620,000 and additional requests of $760,000), the project provides 100% low‑income units and zero cost to the general fund, and further spending was described by residents as "wasteful" and damaging to housing trust. Council members who received these comments did not immediately reverse votes on the pending transfers; the City Attorney's office subsequently received council authorization to increase outside‑counsel funding for ongoing matters.
Speakers urged the council to prioritize funding for housing construction rather than litigation. The council heard these appeals during the public‑comment period and before votes on related contract transfers and settlement items.
