Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Association, spoke on KPCC AirTalk with anchor Larry Mantle opposing the City Council’s proposal to waive environmental, height and parking requirements for homeless projects such as those proposed for the Venice Boulevard Median and Thatcher Yard in the Oxford Triangle. To Listen.
Both Marie Hammond and Barbara Gibson provided this list of housing bills passed by the California Legislature this session. The list was produced by the California Association of Realtors.
Legislature Passes Bill Package to Address Housing Crisis
As the first year of the 2017-18 legislative session drew to a close, the Legislature passed a package of bills to address the California Housing Crisis. The bills that passed are intended to streamline new housing developments, enforce the Housing Accountability Act, and provide a permanent source of funding for affordable housing projects. Each of the bills listed below were part of the housing package, were supported by C.A.R., and have passed both houses of the legislature awaiting final approval by the Governor.
AB 72 (Santiago and Chiu) Enforcement of California Housing Laws – The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) only permits a local government to deny a proposed housing development that complies with general plan and zoning standards if the project would adversely impact public health or safety. AB 72 grants the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the authority to find a local government’s housing element out of substantial compliance and requires the HCD to refer those violations to the attorney general. AB 72 would allow for greater enforcement of the HAA.
AB 73 (Chiu) Housing Sustainability Districts – AB 73 would permit developers to voluntarily use an alternate project approval process in a housing sustainability district. Local governments would be incentivized to create these districts and to approve developments “by-right” if 20% of the units are reserved for affordable housing.
AB 678 (Bocanegra) and SB 167 (Skinner) Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Expansion and Enforcement – These bills would ensure that local agencies cannot disapprove housing projects without a preponderance of evidence proving that the project adversely impacts public health or safety. Local governments that fail to comply with the HAA would be subject to fines ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 per unit. AB 678 and SB 167 seek to strengthen the HAA and bring much needed housing relief to the state’s working families.
AB 879 (Grayson) Housing Element: Developers – The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. This bill would require the housing element to include an analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon housing development. AB 879 seeks to identify solutions to the state’s housing crisis using the housing element planning process.
SB 2 (Atkins) Recording Tax – SB 2 seeks to fund affordable housing by imposing a flat $75 per document recording fee on every real estate instrument not part of a sales transaction. The fee would be capped at $225 per transaction and coordinated with other revenue sources. SB 2 would ensure that the fee will not burden home purchase transactions and dedicates 20% of the funds generated to affordable workforce ownership. SB 2 was amended to direct 70% of revenues to local governments using the block grant formula used by HUD.
SB 35 (Wiener) Streamlining Affordable Housing Production – SB 35 would create a streamlined “by-right” approval process for infill projects with two or more residential units or Accessory Dwelling Units in localities that have failed to produce sufficient housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, provided that the project: 1) is not located in a hazard zone (e.g., flood, fire, earthquake, etc.); 2) dedicates 10% of the units to households making at or below 80% of the area median income, and 3) pays prevailing wage to projects over 10 units.
SB 540 (Roth) Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones – This bill would authorize local governments to establish Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones by preparing an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. SB 540 would prohibit local governments from denying developments proposed within that zone for 5 years, provided that the developments contain affordable housing (i.e., 30% for moderate-income households, 15% for lower-income households and 5% for very low-income households) and meet all other specified requirements. Finally, SB 540 would require local governments to approve, or disapprove, a housing development located within the zone within 60 days of the submission of a completed development application. SB 540 would limit unnecessary regulatory costs while speeding up the development process and increasing the enforcement of state housing laws.
By Bradley Morrison, a concerned Venice Resident
As a 22-year resident and property owner in Venice, I feel I have some perspective on the homeless situation and how it’s changed for the worse over the past few years.
No relief for Venice homelessness
I was at the City Council meeting on Sept. 12. It’s focus was to convince everyone that there’s a problem with homelessness, but there were really no answers about how the supported housing projects would specifically help the dire situation we’re facing as a community here in Venice.
I was told by multiple project reps that only about 45 units of the Venice median project would be allotted for the chronically homeless – and there is no guarantee that ANY of the homeless now living in Venice would receive that housing. In fact, statistically, none of the people currently living on the streets of our community would get this housing. Even if 45 out of the over 3,000 thousand chronically people living on in West LA alone were to get that housing, how, in any way, would it help our community? These projects would provide services to not only its residents, but to other homeless people as well. They will act as magnets, drawing even more homeless to the streets of Venice, further exacerbating the problem.
“Better than nothing” …
I asked multiple representatives supporting the project this question and no one had an answer. I also asked how will these projects positively affect our community. The only answer I got was that “…it will get 45 people off the streets.” When I replied that this a statistically insignificant number and that the 45 folks may not even come from Venice, I was told “…it’s better than nothing.” When I said these projects would attract even more homeless to the area, their reply was that “…they will come any way.”
Why not Palisades, Malibu?
I asked why there are 3 projects in Venice, but none in the Palisades, Malibu or any of the other beach communities I was told, “…because they (Malibu/Palisades) will fight the projects more than Venice.” I was surprised by his honesty, but is this how major policy decisions should be made?
Come on … doesn’t affect property values
Another resident of Venice was concerned about his property values. He was told “…statistically, support housing projects have no effect on property values.” I cannot imagine this is correct, or the stat was cherry picked – maybe because on skid row the property values are already low, their not effected by creating supported housing? Personally, I took a huge financial risk buying property in Venice. Most of my wealth is tied up in that property. Why should the property I’ve worked so hard for become the victim of a dubious social program?
I asked, “If we’re really talking about providing housing for the greatest number of people, doesn’t it make sense to create supported housing in areas that have lower building costs, because then you’d be able to make many more units, thus getting more people off the streets? I was told that “…if I had time I could tell you how this works, but I’m never going to convince you anyway.” When I expressed my frustration at his answer, he took a morally superior tone, and I was made to feel like I was a bad person who doesn’t care about homeless people. I do care about homeless people, but the project they’re proposing will not address the current problems and will only make them worse.
How is this acceptable?
All this being said, I might support supported housing in Venice, if there was some guarantee that something would be done about the truly disgusting and dangerous encampments at 3rd and Rose and the boardwalk and Rose. This is what I observed in just 1 week of dropping my 8-year-old daughter off at surf lessons in the parking lot at Rose Ave at 8:45 in the morning (no exaggeration):
A man defecating against a building on Speedway, even though there were open public restrooms less than 100 yrds away.
Two men having a fist fight over a skateboard.
A totally naked man showering in plain view of dozens of small children next to the playground.
Open drinking and drug use – again, in plain sight of kids.
I nearly ran over a man rolling around in the middle of Speedway, totally out of his mind on drugs/alcohol.
When my wife picked up my daughter one afternoon, she found the whole group of kids crying because a homeless man had lit another homeless guys stuff on fire. The fire was so large a fire truck had to come.
How is this acceptable? Why is this behavior condoned? How are these squalid encampments not a health code violation? Why are the laws not being enforced in Venice? The encampment on the beach in the Palisades was removed. I don’t see any encampments in Malibu, or Manhattan Beach or Hermosa? How about Beverly Hills?
Venice bears the brunt …
It is also extremely unfair that Venice is the bearing almost the entire burden of our district’s homeless problem. Why are there no proposed projects in the Palisades, Brentwood, Mar Vista or Playa Del Rey?
Where is our input?
It is also extremely unfair that Venice is the bearing almost the entire burden of our district’s homeless problem. Why are there no proposed projects in the Palisades, Brentwood, Mar Vista or Playa Del Rey?
I pay tens of thousands of dollars in property taxes every year, yet I feel like I have no input in major decisions that affect my quality of life—from the supported housing projects, to the “road diets” to my home being designated a “historic property” without any real public notification or discourse or vote.
Keeps happening with little or no public input
As a true stakeholder in my community, I feel it’s unacceptable that these types of projects that directly affects my life, keep getting approved and implemented with next to no public input. The only chance we have to make an impact is to attend the public hearings that are coming up:
Monday, Sept. 25, 2017
5pm to 7pm.
Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center
First Floor Public Meeting Room 1A/1B
6262 Van Nuys Blvd.
Van Nuys, CA 91401
Thursday, Sept. 28, 2017
5pm to 7pm
Los Angeles City Hall, Room 1060
200 N. Spring St.,
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Comments can be sent to: cally.hardy@lacity.org
I’m going and I encourage all residents of Venice to attend. If we don’t speak up, it’s a done deal.
City of LA Planning is proposing a Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Ordinance that will remove many of the restrictions and fast-track the process for the Venice Median and the Thatcher Yard affordable housing projects. A hearing will be held 12 September, 6:30 to 8:30, at Gateway Apartments, 13368 Beach Ave, Marina del Rey. RSVP is required. Contact Cally.hardy@lacity.org or call 213-978-1643.
LA City Planning Department is proposing this ordinance establishing new regulations to facilitate the production of Permanent Supportive Housing for PSH homeless individuals and families. In general, people who qualify for PSH have a low income and have at lease one disability, such as mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or another chronic health condition, or are just chronically homeless.
The ordinance is intended to remove regulatory barriers that impair the construction of new supportive housing projects by streamlining the approval process to significantly reduce the average time it takes for a PSH developer to begin construction. Additionally, requirements for minimum lot area per unit will be reduced allowing higher density plus parking would not be required for any of the PHS units.
Other ordinances for PSH running parallel to this one are for motels and hotels.
This is the proposed ordinance PSHO Ord and the summary and frequently asked questions PSH Ordinance Summary .
Last issue of Venice Update had erroneous numbers for various Venice organizations finding housing for homeless or reuniting homeless individuals with their families. Since then, each organization has been contacted and below are their figures. Figures for the first six months from January to last of July 2017 were the ones sought.
HomelessTask Force
Regina Weller of the Homeless Task Force said she had found homes for 68 this year as of 31 July. Five of the number were reunited with their families and three were sent to detox. The cost (all expenditures, including labor) to place 68 people this year was approximately $77,000.
VNC Homeless Committee
Will Hawkins, chair of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Homeless Committee, says his group has reunited 12 with their families this year to 31 July with the help of SPY and St. Joseph Center. This is the first time for a neighborhood council homeless committee, an unpaid group, to get involved with reuniting homeless with their families.
St. Joseph Center, C3
Stephen Butler, assistant vice-president of programs for St. Joseph Center, said “Since hitting the streets last November, C3 has been able to get 66 people off of the streets of Venice, and into some type of shelter, recuperative health/mental health setting. They have been able to permanently house 15 people, and have 40 in the pipeline.”
Safe Place for Youth (SPY)
Rachel Pedowitz, director of housing advocacy, wrote “From January to June of 2017, 46 young people who engaged in services at Safe Place for Youth found safe and stable housing or returned home to trusted family.”
Councilman Mike Bonin has written a letter to the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) and to the VNC Homeless Committee updating his plan for “Ending Homelessness in Venice” and has included other projects and programs relating to homelessness. Councilman Bonin presented his program in April 2016 as a Town Hall at Westminster Elementary School.
This is Councilman Mike Bonin’s introduction to his “Ending Homelessness in Venice” Town Hall given last year in April outlining what he planned to do.
This is the letter.
Last year, I hosted a community meeting at Westminster Elementary School to offer updates on plans and proposals to address the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles, and especially in Venice. I am writing to provide the Venice Neighborhood Council with another update on the elements I unveiled a year ago, as well as other homeless projects and programs.
The elements of the implementation plan fall into several categories:
- Preserving Affordable Housing
- Providing More Affordable Housing
- Providing Homeless Housing
- Coordinated Entry System
- Enhanced Outreach and Expanded Services
- Street Strategy
1. PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
While it is essential for Los Angeles to build more affordable and homeless housing, those efforts will be futile if the City does not preserve existing affordable housing stock.
Mello Act Reform — The Mello Act is an important tool in preserving, replacing, and creating affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. The City is currently operating under Interim Administrative Procedures, which implement the provisions of the Mello Act but leave room for stronger protections. At my urging, the City is drafting a permanent ordinance to implement the full protections of the Mello Act within the City’s Coastal Zone areas.
Next steps: A draft should be available for public review by this summer, and I hope for it to be adopted this fall.
Short-Term Rental Regulations —Unregulated short term rentals have an adverse effect on the housing supply and reduce affordable housing stock in our neighborhoods. Working with Council President Herb Wesson, I proposed that the City adopt new regulations for short-term rentals that would protect affordable housing and that would be easily enforceable once enacted. The City’s proposed Home-Sharing Ordinance was approved by the City Council’s Housing Committee last December with some amendments, and is awaiting a public hearing before the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
Next steps: I anticipate the planning committee will hear the matter in June, with consideration by the full City Council shortly after that.
2. PROVIDING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Utilizing Public Land for Affordable Housing: Metro Bus Yard — After the Metro bus yard shut down in 2015, I introduced legislation to the Metro Board, calling on the agency to enter into a joint-development agreement to build affordable housing at the site of the former bus yard. Metro’s policy requires that at least 35% of housing units in its development projects are affordable. While 35% is a good floor, I would like to see a larger number of affordable units in this project.
The process for this property is lengthy and complex — and any proposed project will be heavily shaped by extensive community input. Currently, Metro is working with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the scope and extent of the required environmental remediation of the property. Depending on the environmental findings, remediation could take as little as a year or as much as several years. The remediation will include removing most of the buildings and concrete on the property.
In the meantime, Metro’s will lead community workshops to make sure any proposed project for the site reflects neighbor’s input on density, height, design, parking, and any potential other uses (such as open space or neighborhood-serving retail). Metro will heavily advertise each meeting and step in this process to make sure neighbors have ample opportunities to participate and offer their suggestions. Metro will procure a design consultant and I anticipate the community outreach process on these guidelines will begin in late summer. I will ask ask Metro to begin that process with a briefing for the Venice Neighborhood Council.
Once the community has weighed-in on what they want to see at the site, Metro will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to seek a qualified developer to design a project. Once Metro chooses a developer, that developer will craft a formal proposal, and begin the extensive public process that includes a hearing at the VNC’s Land Use & Planning committee, the VNC Board, the Zoning Administrator, the Area Planning Commission, the CIty Council, and very likely the Coastal Commission. Each body affords an opportunity for public input.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation — For generations, affordable housing advocates have been pushing for legalization of “granny flats,” or “accessory dwelling units,” also known as ADUs, as a quick and easy way to provide low-cost housing. ADUs are small apartment-style living units typically above a garage or in a guest house. For years, the construction of these units has been prevented by onerous development standards, but thanks to changes in state and city law, that is changing.
On January 1 of this year, two state laws (AB 2299 and SB 1069) took effect, mandating that cities allow ADUs without requiring a cumbersome and expensive process. The City is crafting its “enabling ordinance,” outlining how that will work in Los Angeles. The City Planning Commission approved a proposal in December 2016, and the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance in March. The PLUM Committee recommended some changes to the draft ordinance that would further enable the development of ADUs, for example, by increasing the maximum allowable size for detached ADUs from 640 sf to 1,200 sf and by allowing moveable “tiny homes” to qualify as ADUs. The PLUM Committee also directed the City Attorney to prepare a final version of the ordinance, which will be considered at an upcoming Planning Committee meeting and then by the full City Council.
Next steps: The ordinance was recently approved by the Council’s Planning Committee and should be voted on by the City Council in the next few months.
3. PROVIDING HOMELESS HOUSING
Utilizing Public Land for Affordable Housing: Venice Dell/Pacific Parking Lot – Last year, Mayor Garcetti, the City Administrative Officer and I announced that the city would allow nonprofit housing developers to work with communities to prepare proposals for dozens of new housing projects throughout the city at surplus, underused or vacant property owned by the city. One of the potential housing sites identified is the parking lot in the median of Venice Boulevard, between Dell and Pacific Avenues. The City granted Venice Community Housing and Hollywood Community Housing the opportunity to craft a proposal for housing at the site.
VCHC began conducting public outreach, hosting more than 30 meetings and listening sessions over a period of 40 days. VCHC then incorporated feedback from those listening sessions into a conceptual proposal for the site, which they presented to the community on March 9. The concept presented on March 9 does not yet include design or architectural specifics, but rather identifies some of the features the eventual proposal is likely to include, such as: improving the canal banks, and adding neighborhood-serving retail and artistic workspaces along both North and South Venice Boulevard. Additionally, I have insisted that the amount of parking available to the public be maintained in addition to the parking that is required for the tenants.
VCHC is now hosting listening sessions and living room conversations in the area to get feedback on the ideas they included in the conceptual proposal. VCHC will then incorporate feedback the community input into a design for the site, and then formally submit a proposal, and start the development process with the City. That process includes a hearing at the VNC’s Land Use & Planning committee, the VNC Board, the Zoning Administrator, the Area Planning Commission, the PLUM committee of the City Council, CIty Council, and very likely the Coastal Commission, and each step will afford opportunities for public input.
Next steps: VCHC will continue community engagement before unveiling a formal proposal for the site.
Utilizing Public Land for Affordable Housing: Thatcher Yard – In addition to the Dell/Pacific site, the former Thatcher Maintenance Yard was also included in the initial list of underused and surplus city-owned properties available for consideration for homeless housing. The City granted Tom Safran & Associates (TS&A) the opportunity to work with the community and submit a formal proposal for consideration and approval.
Just as VCHC has done for the Dell/Pacific site, Safran and Associates will conduct significant community outreach before designing and proposing a project, which will then go through the city’s normal development process (including hearings at VNC’s Land Use & Planning committee, the VNC Board, the Zoning Administrator, the Area Planning Commission, the PLUM committee of the City Council, CIty Council, and very likely the Coastal Commission, with opportunities for public input at each hearing throughout the process). In total, the process will likely take 2-3 years.
Next steps: TSA will begin and conduct extensive community engagement before crafting and unveiling a formal proposal for the site.
Expanding the Rapid Rehousing Program – One of my priorities has been to find quick and nimble ways to get people off the streets and into housing. While permanent supportive housing is a solution, it is not the only solution, and it is often not a fast solution. Rapid Rehousing is another solution.
Rapid Rehousing programs essentially provide short-term rental subsidies to people who are newly or episodically homeless, perhaps providing a minimal amount of services, allowing people will low barriers to re-entering the housing market to get off the streets quickly.
I have made expanding Rapid Rehousing a priority. In last year’s budget, I successfully advocated for such funding, increasing City funding for RRH from $0 to $6 million. In Venice, RRH was managed by St. Joseph Center, which is the lead agency for homelessness on the Westside of Los Angeles County, and the program has already placed 41 people in housing since the current contract period began last August.
In next year’s budget, the mayor is proposing that Rapid Rehousing be paid for through the new county-approved revenue source, Proposition H.
Next steps: Continue to fight for Rapid Rehousing funds and see that a proportionate amount is spent to alleviate homelessness in Venice.
Using Shared Housing – Another quick and nimble solution is the use of shared housing. It has proven effective here in Venice. Most federally funded housing vouchers require a tenant to lease their own unit. But with as little as a monthly disability check, many people living on the street can be rehoused with roommates.
I am pushing hard for both the county and city to use shared housing more extensively. Last month, the City Council approved my proposal to help the Westside-based Self-Help and Recovery Exchange (SHARE), launch a pilot project in Council District 11. My action provides funding to SHARE to hire more personnel to locate available shared housing.
Next steps: Launch the pilot program with SHARE; elevate shared housing as a strategy citywide and countywide.
Supporting Reunification Efforts – The VNC recently passed a resolution, advancing the Reduce Return Rehouse (RRR) principles put forward by the VNC’s Homelessness Committee. One of the key elements of this strategy is to facilitate family reunification when possible and appropriate.
I applaud the Homelessness Committee for its hard work, and I have pledged a $3,000 grant to get this program off to a healthy start.
Next steps: Continue to support the VNC’s Reduce Return Rehouse (RRR) initiative.
4. COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM (CES)
Venice Forward – One of the key strategies to better address homelessness countywide has been the use of a “coordinated entry system,” a merger of the efforts and the data of all service agencies and government entities to better prioritize and allocate services. While there is an increasingly robust CES countywide, I identified a need for a Venice-centric CES, and formed Venice Forward in 2014.
Venice Forward is a multi-agency collaborative to end homelessness in Venice. Every month, residents, business owners, nonprofits, and government employees meet to discuss increased coordination of homeless services in Venice, and to strategically implement elements of the comprehensive homelessness strategy.
Venice Forward has been successful in some aspects and fallen short in others. Venice Forward has succeeded at improving coordination among service providers, and in identifying new policies that will help get people living on the street the help they need — such as cutting a frustrating amount of red tape that prevented mental agencies and the fire department from sharing information about people in frequent need of services from both agencies.
But Venice Forward has fallen short in its goal of bringing together residents, business people, and members of the faith community to be part of the collaborative. Venice Forward will be recruiting more participating from those communities.
Next steps: Increase participation in Venice Forward.
5. ENHANCED OUTREACH AND SERVICES
Venice City, County, Community, Outreach Team (Venice C3) – Last year, I partnered with Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, the St. Joseph Center, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the Department of Mental Health, Department of Health Services, Behavioral Health Services, Venice Family Clinic, and LAMP Community to launch a County-City-Community partnership (known as a “C3”) to bring services directly to people living on the streets of Venice. This program replaces VCHIP, a program which focused on only the most high-need individuals, with a program that can help anyone with its multi-disciplinary team.
The C3 model was selected for this work because it has been incredibly successful in other areas where it has been used, and five months into the Venice C3’s work, the outreach is yielding results. To date, C3 outreach workers have engaged nearly 200 people, and have helped or provided services to 85 people. C3 has moved more than forty people off the streets and into interim housing, and found permanent housing for 11 people. This program is focused on the 3rd and Rose area.
The program model is most successful when all three Cs’ are participating. To that end, I encouraged the Venice Forward C3 Community Subcommittee to start meeting. This group is the community advisory committee available for those neighbors who want to support the mission of C3 and get people off the streets of Venice. The community engagement component of this C3 has not been as strong as it could be. I encourage anyone with an interest to email Taylor Bazley on my staff (taylor.bazley@lacity.org) to be updated on pending meetings.
Next steps: Continue C3 program at the 3rd and Rose area.
LAPD HOPE Team – The City dedicated a unit of 10 officers and a sergeant to specialize in homeless outreach within LAPD’s West Bureau. Based out of nearby Pacific Division, the unit works in collaboration with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and the Bureau of Sanitation to conduct homeless outreach, and improve the Police Department’s response to homelessness.
With this dedicated focus on improved police response, the HOPE team has helped transport 46 people to shelter, and has helped nine people either find permanent housing or be reunified with their families since August of last year.
Venice Homeless Taskforce – LAPD Chaplains Regina and Steve Weller have impressed residents of Venice with their ability to build a trusting rapport with almost anyone on the street, and with the their ability to convince people who seem resist to leaving an encampment to accept housing. Earlier this year, I awarded the Wellers a $62,000 grant to help fund their work in Venice. With the first $32,000 of this grant, the Wellers have connected 38 people with housing.
Next steps: Once the Wellers exhaust the remaining $30,000, I will be awarding them an additional $50,000 to continue their work in Venice.
Treating Mental Illness: Exodus – The County Department of Mental Health has reopened Exodus Recovery Treatment facility, and now offers Urgent Care beds for those in a mental health crisis, Services include: psychiatric crisis center open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year; mental health assessment; medication evaluation and management; therapeutic interventions; social services and referrals including a variety of discharge plans that range from home to hospital; services provided by an interdisciplinary team doctors, nurses and therapists. The newly operational facility is a critical link in our region’s response to the epidemic of mental illness.
Next steps: Support the continued operation of Exodus.
Education & Youth Employment – I helped secure a new site for Safe Place for Youth (SPY) which now runs, among other programs, an in-house education and employment specialist. This specialist manages a three step program to assist young people in creating and implementing a plan, as well as matching them with employment opportunities.
This program is critical to supporting youth towards housing and towards self sufficiency. In the last year SPY has helped 227 youth and have secured employment for 33.
While their results are impressive they could use help for even greater success. SPY youth often just need the opportunity for an interview to prove their qualifications. By contacting SPY they will identify a youth that might be a good fit and you can interview that candidate as you would any other candidate. Their youth just need a chance to compete and your business could gain a valuable employee which doing some real social good.
6. STREET STRATEGY
Storage – The most controversial element of my homelessness strategy has been my proposed to use the former Westminster Senior Center as the site for voluntary storage so that people living on the streets have an alternative to leaving their belongings in the sidewalk encampments that have proliferated in the community. (See separate story regarding storage.)
In response to my proposal, the Venice Neighborhood Council and its Homelessness Committee asked the City to consider a “mobile storage” option. I asked the City Administrative Officer (CAO), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and Chrysalis (the service provider for voluntary storage in downtown Los Angeles) to evaluate the mobile storage proposal, as well as other suggestions made to VNC and to my office.
I look forward to your feedback on the CAO memo and I am eager to move quickly to implement voluntary storage. At my urging, the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 contains funding for voluntary storage as we cannot continue to wait while people are forced to keep their belongings on streets and sidewalks, and by offering storage options, we can keep our neighborhood cleaner and safer.
Lava Mae Showers – A key part of the street strategy has been to provide access to basic hygiene services. I recruited the San Francisco-based non-profit Lava Mae to expand to the Los Angeles area earlier this year. Lava Mae offers homeless clients on Rose Avenue showers and other hygiene services out of a converted bus once a week. Lava Mae has been working with Venice C3 to encourage their clients to get connected with housing opportunities. The organization, which currently splits its time between Venice and in Downtown LA, is hoping to soon expand and provide two separate trailers — one for exclusive use on the Westside and another for exclusive use downtown.
Next steps: Support Lava Mae in its continued operation in Venice.
Restrooms – I successfully secured funding to allow the Department of Recreation & Parks to keep one of the beach restrooms open for 24 hours. Tourists and people without homes, lacking another option, often urinate and sometimes defecate in public, or even on private property. The bathroom has been slow to open as the City Attorney’s office irons out legal issues, and legislation enabling the restrooms at the beach to remain open will be heard by the City Council in the coming weeks.
Next steps: City Attorney to release draft ordinance allowing the Recreation & Parks Commission to operate selected bathrooms at Ocean Front Walk 24 hours per day.
Safe Parking – People clinging to the bottom rung of the economic ladder and living out of their cars need a safe place to park while the housing they need to get off the street is built.
I have been urging the City Council for years to adopt a Safe Parking program. It is my hope that Los Angeles might establish a program similar to the model used in Santa Barbara where churches, nonprofits, and others have offered parking spots for people who are registered to park in the evening hours. In order to register for the safe parking spot, people must first enroll in available services and sign up for housing vouchers. Once we implement such a plan, this process will reduce our vehicular dwelling homeless population.
For the second year in a row, I secured funding in the City Budget for this program, and LAHSA is seeking a nonprofit to operate the program. LAHSA issued an RFP to identify a nonprofit to manage the program, but did not get any responses. At my direction, LAHSA is rewriting and reissuing the RFP.
Next steps: LAHSA selects an agency to operate the Safe Parking program. —
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to update you on the work I am doing to combat homelessness in Venice. I am enormously grateful for your partnership, as well as the work of terrific local nonprofits such as SHARE!, St. Joseph Center, Harvest Home, Safe Place for Youth, the Homeless Task Force, VCHC, New Directions, Venice Family Clinic, New Directions for Veterans, 1736 Family Crisis Center, Chrysalis, Exodus, First to Serve, and the United Way. The work ahead will be difficult, but I am encouraged by our shared progress and I am excited about the future of Venice.
Councilman Mike Bonin
Note: Darryl DuFay supplied the link and the initial figures to make this story happen.
Santa Monica presented its homeless count figures and homeless data to the City Council last Tuesday (9 May). Los Angeles City and Venice are both awaiting their figures.
The Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA) had volunteers who did the homeless count on the night of 25 January, and then, LAHSA had others who did a “data survey” of those who were homeless, and the latter was accomplished over a period of three days. The data gathered over the three-day period is so much more explanative of those homeless who live in shelters or the streets.
Here are some of the facts gleaned from the Santa Monica count.
- The 2017 point-in-time homeless count total is up 26% from 728 individuals in 2016 to 921.
- The street count is up 39% from 416 in 2016 to 581.
- Individuals sleeping in vehicles/encampments is up 26% from 73 in 2016 to 92.
- Shelter and institution population is up 9% from 312 in 2016 to 340.
Demographic survey shed further light on who is coming into Santa Monica and from where:
- New to Santa Monica – 29% report being in Santa Monica for less than 1 month.
- Originate outside the City – 46% come to Santa Monica from other parts of Los Angeles County; 32% come from out of state.
“The Santa Monica ‘Out of State’ 32% figure should give us concern and reinforce our contention that there is a movement from out of state, from other areas in Los Angeles County 46% and the rest of the state 15%,” wrote Darryl DuFay. “We need this kind of homeless information for Venice.”
“I am suspect of the 46 percent figure for Los Angeles County,” said Reta Moser. “I suspect they were in Los Angeles County a short time before having come from outside the state. I say this based on those I have talked with in Venice. People will go where the weather and benefits are. Back in the 60’s people were bussed here from southern states because welfare benefits were greater. It doesn’t seem to matter to the heads of City and County. Los Angeles is taking the responsibility for housing and helping all, indiscriminately. But as Santa Monica has found, it does exhaust the system.”
Santa Monica has taken, as has Los Angeles, the strategic approach of assisting the homeless that are the most vulnerable first: those suffering from chronic homelessness, acute medical needs, or disabilities. According to the report, the growing regional demands has pushed Santa Monica’s homeless service system beyond capacity, leaving the most vulnerable unsheltered and without adequate care.
Santa Monica Homeless Count History — Both street and shelter count.
Santa Monica “Street” Homeless compared to SPA5 which includes Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Marina Del Rey, Santa Monica, Venice, Westchester, and Westwood.
This is where they stay in Santa Monica.
Tellling Overall Statistics
This lists all the demographic data collected this year for the homeless in Santa Monica. A sample (188 in 2017) of those homeless are surveyed.
Note: In order to explain the 136-unit resident selection for the Venice Median, DuFay explains the types of housing provided—Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Affordable Housing (AH) as well as goes into detail on median incomes.
By Darryl DuFay
Affordable Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing
Affordable housing is both the title for several types of housing and one of the categories of a type of housing. Confusion is often created when the categories are grouped together.
Basic Idea
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is based on a demonstrated homeless condition. Affordable Housing (AH) is based on how much money you make.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)
PSH is for the most needy “unsheltered” homeless. They are identified as Chronically Homeless and having one disability. The person has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or having four or more episodes of homelessness within 3 years. Living on the streets or in an emergency shelter and includes living in places not meant for human habitation, such as a tent, vehicle, shed, or abandoned building. You cannot be denied PSH housing if you don’t have any money.
Affordable Housing (AH)
Affordable Housing (AH) is a separate type of housing, which affords housing based on a person’s Median Income.
Currently Proposed Units
136 units are proposed. They will be divided into 68 units of Permanent Support Housing (PSH) for individuals and families in studios and 1- or 2-bedroom units, 34 units of “Low Income” Affordable Housing (AH) units for “artists,” and 34 “AH” units for lower wage households. They did not say if these lower wage units were “Low Income or Very Low Income.” The type of units for AH were not given.
Selection Process
Each one is different. They are different. PSH requires being part of the Countywide “Coordinated Entry System” (CES). AH may use CES but also use advertising of available housing.
Median Income
Calculating the median. Make a list of incomes, lowest to highest. The number in the middle is the median. The lowest PSH half of all the incomes are used to calculate Affordable Housing eligibility as shown below.
There are three Median Income descriptors: “Extremely Low Income,” which is an income of 0% to 30% and used for PSH. AH has two descriptors: “Very Low Income” is a range of 31% to 50%. ” Low Income” is a range of 51% to 80%.
The geographic areas he/she is in or the geographic location of the proposed housing will determine the base dollar amount, but it is not clear how large an area is legally required. There are dollar amounts based on the number of people involved. Below are the numbers for 1 – 3 persons.
Median Incomes for Geographic Areas
A geographic areas’ median income will determine the qualifying dollar amounts. Below are the income dollar amounts for the categories of “Extremely Low to Low.” It is unclear which area must be selected for the project. These estimates may vary by source and year.
Venice Community Housing (VCH) had another meeting of the community for “community input” for the Venice Median project. Next meet will be held 15 April on the site. The meet was held at the VCH office on Rose Tuesday evening and about 15 attended.
Questions Asked
People mentioned that the project, which consists of two buildings in the North and South Venice Blvd median, should be scaled down both in height and density, that the percentage of PSH (permanent supportive housing) units to affordable should be minimalized, that the Venice Canals maintenance area next to Grand Canal, was not shown, and that the final design should be more friendly, more reflective of the surrounding neighborhood. The question was asked if this project would follow and be committed to the Venice Specific Plan and Becky Dennison, director for VCH, said it would.
Dennison answered the oft asked question regarding selling the property and building somewhere else to provide more housing for those in need. She said that the VCH had a two-year commitment to come up with a plan. After that, she said it could be sold but that, she said, is up to the City.
Parking for Affordable and PSH Different
The question was asked regarding parking. Dennison said parking requirements for affordable and PSH units were less than the normal parking requirements of the Venice Specific Plan. She said that PSH units would be 1/2 parking space per unit and affordable, would be one. Based on this criteria, 68 PSH units and 68 low-income affordable-type units would require 102 parking spaces. The project is required to replace the 188 existing beach parking spaces. This totals 290. This figure does not include parking for any commercial spaces that might be added to the project. The figure of 450 had been stated before so the 290 figure gets closer to what can work.
Dennison made the statement that provisions would be made for the houses on the North Venice Blvd to enter Dell and South Venice Blvd.
Tenent Selection for 136 units Differs
Of the 136 homeless units, 68 will be permanent supportive housing (PSH); 34 will be Affordable units for low-income artists; and 34 will be for affordable low-income wage households. People wanted to know about the selection process.
The Coordinated Entry System (CES) will be used for the selection of tenants for the 68 PSH units. The CES is a question and answer summary of the person’s history and needs. Those most needy, based on CES, will be selected first. CES prospects are selected from County’s Service Planning area 5 or SPA5, which services the cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, Malibu, Santa Monica, and the communities in Los Angeles Council District 11 of Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Playa del Rey, Mar Vista, West LA, Venice, etc. The Affordable unit selection will be by advertising for the available units.
Will this remove former Venice residents from street; Will this eliminate homeless from Venice streets
Residents have made it clear that they want these projects to be offered to Venetians who are homeless. This is very contentious subject with residents of Venice. There are Venetians who may be homeless somewhere. The people on the streets in Venice are not from Venice; they are transients from all over the United States. Others assume these costly projects will end homelessness in Venice as Councilman Mike Bonin stated. The CES application taken in Venice will show they are from Venice even though they may have lived in North Dakota the day before. So whether they are transients on the streets of Venice or former Venice residents, selection will still be based on CES need.
Provide Input, Not a Speech
At these meetings everyone is afforded the opportunity to be heard. It is a basic misconception by some at these meetings that those who live near, or even not near, the project and make comments are against helping the homeless.
“To ask questions, make suggestions, and ask for clarifications strengthens the project,” said Darryl DuFay.
“There is an erroneous judgment call that prevails during these discussions and this should be stopped or filtered,” said Reta Moser. “Those making long statements why they like the project or give “How I helped the homeless” testimonies, not only take time from those who sincerely want to provide input or ask questions, but they try to lay a guilt trip on those asking questions. The program says “provide input.”