Category: » Westminster Senior Center

Town Hall Shows Venetians Not Happy with Procedures, with Results

Posted by :reta On : September 9, 2016

1

Category: Affordable Housing, Councilman, Uncategorized, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:CAO Miguel Santana, Councilman Mike Bonin, Venice Neighborhood Council, Westminster Senior Center

Many Venetians had to stand Thursday night for the town hall homeless meet at Westminster Elementary School.

Councilman Mike Bonin provided status updates to a packed audience of Venetians and listened to Venetians explain that they, for the most part, did not appreciate his system of “non-participation” with the residents or resident-participation after the fact.

Bonin came with representatives from the county, the mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, head of Los Angeles Housing Services Authority, and head of the new police task force called Hope.

Bonin explained with visual aids the situation and then CAO Miguel Santana explained how it was going to work.

City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana explains how the RFQ/P (request for proposal) works.

City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana explains how important it is for homeless to be housed first and then get the services.

City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana explains why the homeless housing has to be spread throughout Los Angeles as opposed to selling in high income areas and purchasing “more for the buck” is lesser income areas.

There were about 80 speaker cards and all were allowed to speak taking the town hall to 11 pm.

One lady near the end said she used to be an appraiser for industrial/commercial properties and she said it was evident that the properties in question could produce more facilities if properties in question were sold and properties were purchased where land was more reasonable.

The two properties are prime, less than 1000 feet from the water, and are where many a tax-payer could only hope to live. Santana then explained that one could not sell all the expensive property and buy where it is cheap. See video.

Homeless Storage for Westminster Senior Center Next Town Hall Meet, 15 September; Comments by Homeless Committee Chair

Posted by :reta On : September 9, 2016

17

Category: Councilman, Homeless, Uncategorized, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:City Attorney Mike Feuer, City Councilman Mike Bonin, Westminster Senior Center

Westminster Senior Center for storage of homeless “stuff” will be discussed at the next town hall forum which will be 15 September 6 to 8 pm, Westminster Elementary School, 1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd. Previous time stated 7 to 9 pm.

Councilman Mike Bonin mentioned at the homeless input meet Thursday (8 september) at the Westminster School that he planned to look into the Mobile Storage proposed by the Venice Neighborhood Council Homeless Committee. He also made the statement that the City Attorney Mike Feuer had looked over the deed restrictions of the senior center, gave no statement regarding such, and indicated that he would continue to plan on using the senior center.

David Graham-Caso, communications director for Councilman Bonin, said that Bonin was investigating the Mobile Storage Program but would continue with updating the senior center anyway. It needed updating either way, he said. When asked about the agreement with Chrysalis to manage the storage, Graham-Caso said that it was not to happen until November.

Although it was not to be the subject of the Homeless Town Hall held Thursday, the Westminster Senior Center kept creeping into the comments. People kept commenting that they could not understand why Bonin planned to use the senior center. The Venice Neighborhood Council, advisory to the Councilman, voted “no” overwhelmingly regarding using the senior center for storage … the deed was specific regarding the restrictions … and the Homeless Committee had come up with a Mobile Storage Program, yet Bonin was moving forward. Bonin said he would definitely look at the mobile storage program proposed but that he was going forward with the senior center.

Many people voiced their concerns and opinions that this was all a done deal. All said they were just told it would be used for storage and the work began. There had been no input from the people.

Comments made by the chair of the VNC Homeless Committee, following Kip Pardue’s take on the meeting:

For those of you who missed Bonin’s meeting at Westminster Elementary School last night, you missed the Councilman state that his plan for utilizing the Westminster Senior Center for homeless storage was moving forward, regardless that an alternative mobile solution has been presented by the Homeless Committee that could not only be be up and running within 60-90 days, but would also provide more caseworkers and services for the homeless community than the original plan and could be executed much more efficiently and economically.

For Councilman Bonin to say that the VNC failed to present alternative options when we voted down his Senior Center plan last month is incredibly misleading and irresponsible, as we had just recently been sworn in and the homeless committee had just been formed a week prior. The VNC election results were challenged and we were not confirmed by the city until just days before being sworn in, which also delayed our ability to form and confirm committees.

When the VNC finally met as a unit, I was voted as the committee chairman and I brought together a killer team of experienced and brilliant people with an incredible depth of knowledge of the issues we face with homelessness. Our team met for the first time a few weeks later and brainstormed ideas. We came up with our superior mobile storage plan (along with a workable budget) in lightening speed, presented that plan at our next meeting where it found incredible support from the community, passed unanimously and will be presented to the VNC 9/20. This work was all done in less than 45 days of our committee being formed, and Bonin wants to makes it sound like we were all sleeping on the job when the truth is that we’ve all been hard at work since day one trying to undo the debacle he created.

The Westminster Senior Center was not built, nor intended, and is legally prohibited from being utilized for this purpose and ultimately this location is inappropriate and unsafe for this homeless storage program. Whether that plan is temporary or not, it’s ill-conceived. The Homeless Committee rejected it, the Venice Neighborhood Council rejected it, the community as a whole rejected it and common sense rejects it as irresponsible, unsafe and reckless.

The Homeless Committee supports the need for some form of a storage program, but we highly recommend the mobile plan we’ve presented as the safest and most efficient option for all involved. Our plan not only includes much needed storage, but also includes on-the-ground caseworkers that provide daily services to the homeless community and it also includes funds to employ a number of un-homed individuals to assist in the program as well as working daily to keep our streets, sidewalks and alleys clean.

Around the world Venice is known to be a community of creative and innovative people. Doesn’t it make sense that the solutions to the issues we face as a community be creative and innovative as well? Let’s think big and be outliers and leaders in solving these types of problems. Let’s create the kind of solutions that inspire and influence other communities and municipalities to think outside the box too.

Thanks to the incredible members of the homeless committee who have worked painstakingly to create this plan.

When thoughts of conspiracies run into reality … VNC Item 15 on Agenda — What happened to It?

Posted by :reta On : July 23, 2016

0

Category: Venice Neighborhood Council, Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA), VNC Meet, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:Mark Ryavec, Venice Neighborhood Council, Westminster Senior Center

Westminster Senior Center

By Darryl DuFay, a Concerned Venetian

Sunday, June 5th, a political tsunami swept through the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) election. Two years of “stability” were gone and would need to be rebuilt. A majority of officers and At-Large representatives were replaced. The first meeting of the new VNC was long, involved, often confusing, and necessary. The second meeting on July 19th was the same.

This definitely was not the meeting to expect a first time in-depth discussion by the VNC on Item 15, the future use of the vacant Westminster Senior Citizens’ building as a homeless storage location. It also involved the ever unpredictable “legal issue.”

On Monday, July 11th, the Administrative Committee (AdCom), set up the July 19th VNC Agenda. And, there was Item 15, “Opposition Use of the Westminster Senior Center for Storage” (Mark Ryavec). It was the last item. Set for 10:06 p.m. with a 45-minute discussion period. It was at the end of the Agenda because it was “New Business.”

It was never heard. At the beginning of the meeting Ira Koslow, VNC President, announced he had just received two letters from lawyers asserting that the proposed use of the building was illegal. Based on that he asked that Item 15 be removed from the Agenda and sent to the Homeless Committee.

The Board voted to do that. However, there was no Homeless Committee to send it to. That didn’t happen until one was created later in the evening as an AdHoc Committee.

It was also “interesting” that the letters, which were sent by Ryavec’s lawyers, should arrive right at that time and had not been included sooner in the Board’s documents.

Mark states that Ira said there would be a legal representative of the City Attorney at the meeting. Ira comments that he made attempts to get such a representative, but received no reply.

Mark said he had parents from the adjacent school at the meeting ready to be heard. That would have been between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. But, by that time there were not many people left. The meeting had started at 6:30, which was thirty minutes earlier. The VNC was exhausted.

The reality is that Item 15 should receive the attention that it deserves. That could probably be in August after being review by the appropriate committee and presented to the VNC Board.

Local Architect Proposes New Community Center, Dog Park — Westminster Senior Center

Posted by :reta On : July 10, 2016

17

Category: Uncategorized, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:Architect Mehrnoosh Mojallali, Dog Park, mehrnoosh mojallali, Venice, Westminster Senior Center

Overview of the two-story community center building with satellite seating areas. Two round areas are individually for small dogs and children, while a larger area is for larger dogs.

“I have seen major changes here in Venice Beach related to private properties; however, so little attention has been given to existing public spaces,” said Mehrnoosh Mojallali, local architect and member of the Land Use and Planning Committee.

“These spaces in Venice Beach should serve the community with activities that promote social synergy.”

Venice resident Mehrnoosh is an architect dedicated to changing the public spaces in Venice to better serve the community — to beautify them and make them more useable, resident friendly, and desirable. This is her “redo” of the Westminster Senior Center, Dog Park.

“As an urban designer I am a strong believer that collaborations of art, architecture, landscaping and planning can blur economic and cultural boundaries and enhance life in cities such as Venice Beach. Communities come together at public spaces and improve quality of life for all,” she said.

Mehrnoosh received a Masters of Architecture & Urban Design degree from Harvard University Graduate School of Design and is past president of Association of Women in Architecture L.A.

For this purpose, she has proposed a design for both the Windward Center and the Westminster Community Center/Dog Park at existing Senior Center. The design for the Windward Circle will be in a future Update.

The dog park is totally self-sustained. The design provides a special place for meetings, for children, for small dogs and for large dogs. The plan would be to raise money to help Department of Recreation and Parks bring this to Venice.

Closeup view of two-story civic building and children’s play area.

Bonin Responds to Westminster Deed Restriction

Posted by :reta On : June 6, 2016

24

Category: Councilman, Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA), Westminster Senior Center

Tags:Venice Stakeholders Association, Westminster Senior Center

“We have a choice between the status quo of allowing sidewalks and streets full of encampments, or offering people a safe place to keep their personal belongings while getting them connected to the services that will get them off the street permanently,” said Councilman Mike Bonin in response to seeing the deed for the Westminster Senior Center and the letter from the Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA) attorneys.

“The Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA) is fighting to keep clutter on neighborhood streets in a misguided attempt to deny services to the homeless.

“That is a status quo that I, and many neighbors in Venice, find intolerable. I was well aware when I initially proposed my plan to address and reduce homelessness in Venice that there was going to be controversy over some of the solutions that I offered. But controversy is better than inaction, and the only thing I am not willing to consider is allowing the status quo to continue.

“I have asked the City Attorney to assess the validity of the VSA letter. While that is happening, we will move forward with an open and transparent public process that will evaluate the variety of solutions I have offered in Venice, including expanded storage that provides a real solution to the problem of growing encampments on neighborhood streets.”

Property Deed Restricts Use of Westminster Senior Center for Homeless Storage

Posted by :reta On : June 6, 2016

27

Category: Uncategorized, Westminster Senior Center

Westminster Senior Center at Pacific in Venice. Attorneys say deed restricts property use to “public playground and recreation purposes.”

Tipped off by a long-time Venice resident, attorneys working for the Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA) have discovered that Councilman Mike Bonin is prohibited by a deed restriction from using the former Westminster Senior Center for the private storage use of homeless campers.

A local resident recently alerted VSA supporter Kip Kolodziejski that when the City acquired the Westminster Center block 65 years ago a restriction was placed on the deed. Mr. Kolodziejski researched the property title and discovered that in a July 5, 1950 order the Los Angeles Superior Court condemned the land to the use of the City of Los Angeles and dedicated it to public use for public playground and recreation purposes. (See Attorneys’ letter.)

“It is well settled California law that where land is conveyed for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of that conveyance cannot be used for another, different purpose,” VSA attorney Robert Glushon wrote in a letter to Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, chair of the City Council’s Arts, Parks and Rivers Committee.

“Accordingly, where land is conveyed to a city with a restriction upon its use—as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park—the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant.”

The letter concludes with a demand that the City cease consideration of use of the Center contrary to the purposes for which it was condemned and put the City on notice that the VSA will pursue legal action to protect the dedication of the property to park and playground use.

“This park has been a crime generator for years. Bonin’s plan to attract hundreds of transients to the site to store their stuff would have just exacerbated the problem,” said Mark Ryavec, president of the VSA. “Residents are relieved to hear that the deed prevents this inappropriate use in their residential neighborhood.”

Heidi Roberts Replies to Councilman Bonin’s Email

Posted by :reta On : May 20, 2016

0

Category: Councilman, Homeless, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:City Councilman Mike Bonin, Westminster Senior Center

Thank you for responding. Interesting that you are only now responding to me since I have been sharing with you my concerns about Venice Forward for months only to be met with the sound of silence. As a resident of Venice and one who helped you found Venice Forward, I would have expected the courtesy of a response earlier. Water under the bridge at this point I suppose since you have finally put so much energy into your response.

To be clear, there are no “misstatements” in my letter. You may disagree with my perspective and opinions, but they accurately reflect my experience. And though I am pleased by the housing numbers you have presented, I must question them – it has only been four months since I stopped attending Venice Forward meetings and those two year housing numbers you’re reporting on behalf of St. Joseph’s Center are not consistent with what was reported in those Venice Forward meetings. In fact, I recall that when statistics much lower than those were shared, many participants cried foul and some even threatened to resign as a result. They believed that the numbers were inflated and that St. Joseph’s was claiming success for clients that they had simply been in contact with but not housed – others had. I also recall examples of specific housing success stories, but then ironically, I would run into those same people back on the streets – in once case, the very same day. I brought this to your attention at that time but never received a response.

However, if the state of success has shifted dramatically in the last few months and the numbers you have shared are indeed accurate, it would be wonderful for the community to be presented with a summary of them so that they can be duly acknowledged and celebrated. I would also suggest that St. Joseph’s update the front page of its website, for here is what it currently claims:

St. Joseph Center helps the most vulnerable homeless individuals move from the street into permanent supportive housing. Since 2009 we have helped more than 250 chronically homeless men and women from Santa Monica and Venice move into their own apartments, with a retention rate of 94%. We also offer street outreach, emergency services, crisis intervention, case management and referrals in Venice, Santa Monica, Culver City, and other Westside communities.
http://www.stjosephctr.org

I strongly resent your attempt to link my concern about the Senior Center conversion with its proximity to my home. Note that my home is equal distance to the MTA bus yard and Ocean Front Walk. Painting this as a NIMBY issue is simply wrong, especially since you know that I have personally housed homeless people – in my own home – who have been on a path shifting off the streets of Venice. Clearly, it’s not that I do not endorse a program that truly helps the homeless near my home. It’s that I do not endorse the program that has not proven effective at half its size a few blocks away (the OFW storage program that has been in existence for years). As you and I both agree, more of the same creates more of the same.

Again, thank you for your energetic response. I look forward to more dialog in the future and I certainly hope that my opinions and the state of homelessness can be shifted in the coming years.

Councilman Bonin Answers Heidi Roberts’ Accusations Regarding Venice Social Service Organizations

Posted by :reta On : May 20, 2016

1

Category: Councilman, Homeless, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:Councilman Mike Bonin, End Homelessness, Westminster Senior Center

Thank you so much for your thoughtful email. I respect your commitment to improving Venice, and I value the considerable contributions you have made to help end homelessness in Venice – especially helping me found Venice Forward. While we clearly disagree on my proposed plans to implement the City’s Comprehensive Homelessness Strategy in Venice, we certainly share the same goal of ending homelessness.

With that in mind, I wish to correct a number of your misstatements, especially the claims that Venice Forward is not focused on a Housing First, Home for Good/United Way model, and the claims that the St. Joseph Center (SJC) and Venice Community Housing Corporation (VCHC) are perpetuating the problem of homelessness in the community. Those claims are simply untrue.

Firstly, Venice Forward is fully integrated with and consistent with the United Way/Home for Good “Coordinated Entry System(CES).” Venice Forward uses the same methodology and resources, and key players in Home for Good and CES are part of the Venice Forward initiative and its efforts to house people. Like in Home for Good and CES, participating agencies meet regularly to discuss “Hot Lists” of people who are homeless in the community, and work to develop individualized strategies to get them into housing as quickly as possible.

You justifiably cheer the United Way and the Home for Good Initiative, and suggest Venice-based programs, like those offered by the St. Joseph Center, are inconsistent with that model. On the contrary, St. Joseph Center is a prominent and crucial part of the Home for Good collaborative, and is the lead agency for the Coordinated Entry System for the entire Westside. In that capacity, SJC has led 22 other agencies in working together to end homelessness. St. Joseph Center has also hired Courtney Kanagi, who coordinated the PATH programs you witnessed in Hollywood, to better coordinate its own programming and its CES efforts.

I also must dispute the contention that St. Joseph Center and Venice Community Housing Corporation do not effectively house people, and instead sustain the problem of homelessness in Venice. In fact, the efforts of both St. Joseph Center and Venice Community Housing Corporation to end homelessness have been considerable. In just the past two years, St. Joseph Center has been responsible for housing 500 family members, helping contribute to an 18% reduction in family homelessness. St. Joseph Center has placed more than 200 chronically homeless individuals from Venice into housing, and 93% of them remain in housing – a remarkable success statistic. This year alone, St. Joseph Center helped move 80 veterans out of homelessness, and connected 119 people with new Rapid Rehousing assistance, which will get them off the street and into apartments.

VCHC, for its part, has as its core mission the very thing you identify as the proper solution to the homelessness crisis – providing housing. VCHC provides 216 units of affordable housing in Venice and surrounding neighborhoods. Just last month, VCHC and Hollywood Community Housing Corporation opened 20 units of permanent supportive housing in nearby Del Rey (with the supportive services being provided by St. Joseph Center). VCHC and St. Joseph Center also collaborate in operation of another 20 permanent supportive housing units on Horizon Avenue in Venice — a building where more than half the tenants are from Venice hot spots, including the boardwalk. VCHC also operates short-term transitional housing for homeless women and their children, in a 32-bed building that can serve 8 families simultaneously. All told, VCHC operates more than 16 different buildings. It is a testament to their success that their facilities blend into the neighborhood and remain largely under the radar because they do not cause problems for their neighbors.

In the past five years, Home for Good and its partners – including St. Joseph Center and VCHC – have housed more than 27,000 people countywide. Yet homelessness continues to grow because each month more and more people become homeless in Los Angeles. That is precisely why both the City and the County of Los Angeles homelessness strategies include programs and efforts to prevent homelessness. Both the City and County recognize we need to provide more education, job training, financial counseling, wellness programs and more. Both the St. Joseph Center and VCHC provide those types of programs – and have been recognized and awarded for the success of those programs.

Venice Forward has many partner agencies, including several social service agencies with vastly different missions and strategies. We are fortunate to have the services not just of SJC and VCHC, but also of: The Teen Project; Regina and Stephen Weller of Venice Foursquare Church; Self-Help and Recovery Exchange (SHARE); Safe Place for Youth (SPY); New Directions for Veterans; the 1736 Family Crisis Center; Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health; Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and others. We need all of them; there is no one agency that has a silver bullet. We need the agencies that quickly link people to shared housing, and we need agencies that provide far more costly permanent supportive housing. We need agencies that can do the nimble work of getting someone who just lost their job into an apartment with a short-term rental subsidy, and we need agencies that can make the significant, long-term investment of building trust with someone who is chronically homeless or mentally ill and resistant to services. We need all of those agencies, all of those models, and all of those approaches. It is counter-productive to vilify some agencies for having a different mission or model in what is a shared effort to help people move out of homelessness. We need the unique talents and contributions of every organization.

You state — and I agree — that “it’s a fundamental truth that more of the same simply creates more of the same.” This sentiment has guided me in addressing homelessness in Venice. For decades, we have suffered from a paralyzing inaction, which is causing our neighborhoods and the people who live in them –whether housed or unhoused – to suffer. I do not intend to let that paralysis continue to harm the people and the neighborhoods I represent. I am not going to pretend that LAPD can be called upon to make homelessness disappear. We need to provide housing and appropriate services – and now, countywide, we have a blueprint to follow in doing so.

In February, the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles approved a Comprehensive Homeless Strategy. You can read that full City plan here, and the full County plan here. At the end of March, I unveiled my proposed strategy for how to implement that plan in Venice. You can read it here. Consistent with the City and County strategies, It is an 18-point plan, which focuses on: preserving affordable housing; building affordable housing; building homeless housing; the Coordinated Entry system; enhanced outreach; enhanced and expanded services; and a “Street Strategy.”

I knew when I proposed my plan that the elements of the “Street Strategy” – storage, bathrooms showers, safe parking – would be the most controversial. But until sufficient housing is built and available, people are going to sleep on our sidewalks in encampments. I cannot ignore that problem – and neither can the schoolchildren who walk by the encampments, the business owners who have people sleeping in their doorways, or the residents who find human feces in their carports or on their parkways. I would much rather provide storage, giving people a reason and opportunity to not leave their belongings in the public right of way. I would much rather provide access to restrooms than force people to defecate and urinate in public.

While we disagree strongly on elements of the “Street Strategy” – particularly the proposed storage facility near your home at the former Westminster Senior Center – I’d ask one thing: please don’t hold my proposals or actions against the agencies that do so much good work in Venice, and please do not hold them against Venice Forward or its contributing agencies. The accountability for those proposals is mine, and any disagreement with my proposals should not distract from the broader mission of Venice Forward or its participants.

Heidi Roberts Tells About the Venice Social Services System and Why It Won’t End Homelessness — It Nurtures Homelessness

Posted by :reta On : May 19, 2016

6

Category: Homeless, Westminster Senior Center

Tags:St. Joseph's Center, Westminster Senior Center

Heidi Roberts, long-time resident of Venice, worked on trying to bring a system to end homelessness to Venice. She came with experience and after a year and a half of working to initiate and implement Venice Forward, a system to end homelessness in Venice … Well, this is her story.

I am a resident of Venice and am keenly interested in ending homelessness. After witnessing the same people rotting on the streets for 14 years, I invested a significant chunk of time to study, understand and support solutions that were truly effective at shifting people from the misery of the streets to a more promising future under a real roof. I helped Bill Rosendahl gain community support for the Streets to Homes program – with the condition that people were actually moved into housing rather than parking lots. Once I saw how effective PATH was at housing people rather than sustaining them on the streets, I then volunteered to work at PATH’s Hollywood center. Essentially, I created my own internship to learn from both PATH and the people they helped – those who were on the streets, those transitioning off the streets and those who had successfully re-booted their lives. It was during this time that I also became a member of Hollywood 4WRD and witnessed the power that commitment and collaboration against a common goal had to actually END HOMELESSNESS. With that experience and insight under my belt, I began to dig into what was different about Venice. How could Venice learn from a similar Los Angeles community that was doing it right?

Monies Used to Accommodate Continued Living on the Street
I learned that millions of dollars were being raised and funneled to Venice social service organizations (predominantly St. Joseph’s and Venice Community Housing) but that those organizations were not housing people with success commensurate with their funding. Rather, their homeless support strategy was to offer services that accommodated living on the streets and made it more comfortable. While generous in spirit, it seemed to me that this strategy only makes it more difficult to shift people off the streets and uses an immense amount of valuable city and community resources to sustain homelessness, prolonging the misery.

We Took on the Challenge to Make a Difference But …
This perspective drove my thinking when Mike Bonin asked me and a small group of community and business members to recommend solutions on homelessness in Venice to him. We willingly and enthusiastically took on the challenge. After months of research and planning, we recommended that we recreate the successful Hollywood 4RWD model here in Venice and work to align all service homeless organizations against a single and focused mission: END HOMELESSNESS. The strategies we recommended were very much aligned with the Housing First model and the United Way’s Home for Good initiative – shared housing and small space housing with wrap-around supportive services in lieu of support in place. Our recommendation was far more efficient than status quo and far more effective at getting people off the streets.

Our recommendation was to change the system, but unfortunately, the system ended up taking over our recommendation to justify, promote and celebrate more of the same.

One Plus Year Later … Homelessness Worse … More Money Spent for Street Services that have Never Proven Effective
Fast forward a year and a half. While Venice Forward is up and running, it has not replicated either the spirit or success Hollywood 4WRD. Venice Forward has not managed to shift the mission of its participants to ending homelessness and therefore, has not worked to implement coordinated solutions that shift people off the streets. In fact, homelessness and its impact in Venice has only been exacerbated since its formation and millions of dollars continue to be spent on funding more street services that have never proven effective. To be blunt, just more of the same. The collective focus on sustaining life on the streets is a tragedy for all, the homeless and Venice residents alike.

Westminster Senior Center

Westminster Senior Center
With that background, I’ll share with you why so many residents (me included) are against converting the Westminster Senior Center into storage and intake services for the homeless. Wherever a service organization sets up shop in Venice, the immediate residential community suffers greatly. And as history has proven time and time again, the residential community has no one to turn to for help.

Communities Surrounding St. Joseph’s are Permanent Encampments
The communities surrounding St. Joseph’s three outposts in Venice are permanent encampments – they’re dangerous and tragic for all. When neighborhood residents call LAPD for help and support, they’re informed that the LAPD is no longer guided by the LAMC (Municipal Code) but rather, is hamstrung by the City Attorney’s office. They shrug their collective shoulders and do nothing to help. And when we ask questions or for support from the council office, we get no response. It is this dilemma that causes people like me to withhold our support for yet another inefficient and ineffective service to move into the heart of a Venice residential neighborhood.

It’s not that we don’t want to help the homeless, it’s that we don’t want to support services that don’t work to end homelessness.

And since the City and LAPD have proven that they’re unwilling to help protect us from the negative impact of homeless encampments in residential neighborhoods, why on earth would we look forward to importing one more? It’s as simple as that.

If the City and LAPD were willing and able to assure and prove to their citizens that they could and would actively protect the them from the very real and present dangers, you’d see more optimism and acceptance.

And if social service organizations would shift their missions to end homelessness rather than maintain, sustain and nurture it, you would witness more support.

Fix both problems and you’ve got a solution. Without these two critical elements, you will continue to see resistance, anger and frustration.

It’s critical that you all understand that we residents are resisting status quo – we are not resisting positive effort to create change. We in Venice are realists with twenty years of evidence to prove that the City’s failure to implement solutions that truly work to end homelessness (as have been successfully implemented in other cities throughout the country) is not working.

It’s a fundamental truth that more of the same simply creates more of the same.

I have contributed years of work, an immense amount of energy and abundant enthusiasm to help end homelessness in Venice and I would really appreciate someone from the City responding to me. I continue to welcome the exchange of innovative ideas and solutions that have the potential to work for all and will continue to fight against the adoption of social services that only serve to prolong and magnify the tragedy of homelessness in my community.

VSA Counters Both Westminster and Venice Median for Homeless Use

Posted by :reta On : May 14, 2016

0

Category: Homeless, Venice Stakeholders Association (VSA), Westminster Senior Center

Tags:Councilman Mike Bonin, Mark Ryavec, Venice Median Parking Lot, Venice Stakeholders Association, Westminster Senior Center

Governor Jerry Brown backed a 2-billion bond plan for homeless housing. According to LA Times, the 2-billion bond would be repaid over 20 to 30 years with funds provided under Proposition 63, “the millionaires tax” for mental health that voters approved in 2004.

The money from the bond together with federal and local funding would finance 10- to 14,000 new housing units for the 116,000 homeless people. All that money, and yet it is incapable of more than 10-percent decrease in homelessness. Will this solution of permanent housing keep up with the increase in homelessness?

Meanwhile in Venice
Meanwhile in Venice, two issues are foremost in the minds of Venetians–the use of the Westminster Senior Center for storage and the building of affordable units on the median between north and south Venice Blvds. Councilman Mike Bonin has asked for a request for proposal (RFP) for 90 units on the median between north and south Venice Blvds.

Westminster Senior Center

Venice parking lot on Pacific between North and South Venice Blvd.

The only group, organization so far visible showing any opposition to either project has been the Venice Stakeholders Association, headed by Mark Ryavec. Kip Pardue, as an individual, is gathering momentum with his campaign. (See Comments for Kip Pardue.)

Venice Stakeholders attorneys have filed a legal challenge to conversion of Westminster Center to storage use and Mark Ryavec claims the proposing of units for the median between north and south Venice Blvds brings several concerns that have not been addressed. Below is the letter from the VSA attorneys for the Westminster project and the letter by Mark Ryavec concerning Venice Blvd media, now used as a parking lot.

LUNA & GLUSHON
A T T O R N E Y S
Councilman Mitch O’Farrell
Chair, Arts, Parks and River Committee
Los Angeles City Council
City Hall
200 North Spring Street, #480
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: CF 15-1138-S8/Change of Use of Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Avenue to Storage Use

Dear Councilman O’Farrell and Members of the Committee,

Our firm represents the Venice Stakeholders Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of the Venice community. The Association is opposed to the proposed conversion of the Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Avenue, in Venice, for use as a storage facility for private individuals (“Project”), which the City is attempting to accomplish by the mere modification of an existing contract between it and Chryalis, a non-profit organization, which will operate the Project.

The City’s proposed actions to approve the Project do not conform to State and City laws, including due process.

1. The Project Requires a Project Permit pursuant to the Venice Local Coastal Specific Plan and a Coastal Development Permit

Pursuant to the Venice Local Coastal Specific Plan, no certificate of occupancy may be issued for any Venice Coastal Development Project unless the project has received a Venice Coastal Specific Plan Exemption or a Project Permit pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) §11.5.7 [Section 6]. Here, the Project does not fall into any of the enumerated projects eligible for a Venice Coastal Specific Plan Exemption [Section 8.A], and therefore must receive a Project Permit pursuant to LAMC §11.5.7 [Sections 8.B, 8.C] prior to being issued a certificate of occupancy for the proposed change of use.

Similarly, both the State Coastal Act and LAMC §12.20.2 require a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) to be obtained for an intensification of a nonresidential use (intensification includes increase in parking need, increased impact to potential traffic generation, noise, smoke, glare, odors, hazardous materials, water use, sewage generation, etc.). Over the last five years, the Westminster Senior Center has been only used sporadically for public meetings. Accordingly, the attraction of hundreds of people on a daily basis during the winter when the Winter Shelter program is operating constitutes an intensification of use requiring a CDP.

2. The Project Must Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), environmental review is required for all “projects,” i.e. activities which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment undertaken, supported, or approved by a public agency. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1171. The definition of “project” is given a broad interpretation to maximize protection of the environment. Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156.

Under the definition provided by CEQA, the Project, which will change the use of the Westminster Senior Center, requires environmental review prior to approval. Such environmental review must include the impacts on noise (a storage use will undoubtedly attract scores of transients to camp adjacent to the facility, both on city park property and adjacent sidewalks and alleys, causing late night noise to the surrounding residential community).

3. The Recreation and Parks Department Must Hold a Public Hearing

The Ralph M. Brown Act serves to facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decisionmaking and curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies. Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment Dist. II Business Improvement Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 868. It requires that proceedings of public agencies, and the conduct of the public’s business, take place at open meetings, and the deliberative process by which decisions related to the public’s business are made be conducted in full view of the public. To this end, the Brown Act requires, subject to narrow exceptions, that most meetings of a local agency’s legislative body1 be open to the public for attendance by all. Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 533; Epstein, supra, (the Brown Act must be construed liberally as to accomplish its purpose).

Similarly, due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest. Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612. Land use decisions which “substantially affect” the property rights of owners of adjacent parcels constitute “deprivations” of property within the context of procedural due process. Id. at 615.

The Project has not been vetted with the community or the Venice Neighborhood Council even though approval thereof will undoubtedly substantially affect the owners of the adjacent residential neighborhood. As such its secret approval would constitute both a violation of the Brown Act and general due process.

In the interests of transparency, the City Council must demand that the Project be presented to the Venice Neighborhood Council and that the City’s Recreation and Parks Department hold a hearing regarding the Project at which the affected neighbors can voice their concerns.

If the City fails to abide by law, the Venice Stakeholders Association will pursue all administrative and legal avenues to require such compliance.

The following letter, along with Mr. Ryavec’s testimony, was delivered to Mr. Bonin before the City Council’s Transportation Committee.

May 11, 2016

Councilman Mike Bonin, Chair, Transportation Committee
Members of the Transportation Committee
City Hall
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: CF 15-1138-S9/Opposition to Release of Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide Housing for 90 Chronic Homeless Individuals on Beach Parking Lot in Advance of Public Hearings

Dear Councilmember Bonin and Members of the Committee,

Venice Stakeholders Association is a non-profit public benefit organization dedicated to civic improvement and public safety.

We are opposed to the release of a Request for Proposal to provide housing for 90 chronic homeless individuals on beach parking lot #731 in Venice for several reasons:

1. There have been no hearings in the community on this concept; it has not been submitted to either the Venice Neighborhood Council or the Venice Canals Association.
2. Additional resident and visitor parking is sorely needed at this location. The highest and best use for this site is as an automated parking facility which would triple parking capacity at this location and advance the California Coastal Commission’s objective of greater public access to the beach and ocean.
3. Other homeless serving facilities in Venice have a long history of being an extreme burden to nearby residents. For example, this past Sunday a client of the St. Joseph Service Center on Lincoln Boulevard started a fire which damaged part of a nearby residence and forced the pregnant owner to evacuate her home due to lingering fumes. Residents living adjacent to the subject parking lot on Venice Boulevard are already burdened by break-ins, assaults, sidewalk blockage, harassment, and late night noise caused by transients living in the area. There is no requirement in State or City law for the operator of the proposed housing to provide 24/7 security in perpetuity to protect nearby residents from similar noxious activities by the occupants of the proposed facility, so we conclude that this project will place an unacceptable burden on residents and thus should be sited elsewhere.
4. There are many other less utilized and more isolated city parking lots in other areas of Council District 11 and, indeed, elsewhere in the City that would be better suited for the proposed project.
5. The release of an RFP puts “the cart before the house.” The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the concept of housing on this site – a significant change of use – receive an environmental review in advance of the City starting down the path to construction of a structure by releasing an RFP.

I have attached for your consideration a recent article from The Argonaut that speaks to these concerns in more detail. I would ask that the City Clerk make this letter and attachment a part of the council file. Thank you.

By Darryl DuFay, a Concerned Venetian

Comments

Archives