Tag Archive for "Venice Median Parking Lot"

Santana Says Venice Median and Thatcher Yard to be Developed; Names Developers

Posted by :reta On : November 17, 2016

19

Category: City Administrative Officer, City Property, Councilman, Homeless, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Uncategorized, Venice Median Parking Lot

Tags:CAO Miguel Santana, homeless, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Venice Median Parking Lot

Venice Median

Thatcher Yard

Note: This announcement is almost verbatim from the Council Office and written by David Graham-Caso, communications director.

The City Administrative Officer (CAO) Miguel Santana is recommending that eight city-owned parcels throughout Los Angeles be the first wave of properties considered for housing development.

In Venice, the CAO is recommending that Thomas Safran & Associates be given the chance to work with the community to design a proposal for the old Thatcher Yard, and that the team of Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and Venice Community Housing Corporation be given the chance to work with the community to design a proposal for the Dell Pacific parking lot.The size and type of housing in each proposal will be determined following the community input process that Mike has insisted the developers conduct.

Once Thomas Safran Associates or Hollywood Community Housing Corp/Venice Community Housing Corp. create and submit their proposals, they will be subject to the same process as any development proposal in Venice – which includes review and public input at the neighborhood council, through the Department of City Planning, the full City Council, and most likely, the California Coastal Commission.

Thomas Safran & Associates has three properties on the Westside: Del Rey Square, 124 units of low-income housing for seniors, including 30 formerly homeless seniors, in Del Rey; Redwood Village, 50 units of low-income senior housing in Marina del Rey; and the newly opened The Woods at Playa Vista, 83 units of senior low-income housing in Playa Vista. (Thomas Safran & Associates was also selected to create a proposal for a former animal shelter in West Los Angeles.)

Venice Community Housing & Hollywood Community Housing have a recently opened building in Del Rey, the Gateway Apartments, offering 21 units for formerly homeless people. VCHC operates more than 16 buildings and offers more than 200 units of housing on the Westside. Hollywood Community Housing Corporation has more than 20 buildings and 700 units of housing, mostly in the Hollywood area.

“Thomas Safran & Associates and the team of Hollywood Community Housing and Venice Community Housing are already part of the solution on the Westside, and I am excited to learn there is a potential for these organizations to provide more housing here for those who most need it,” said Councilmember Mike Bonin. “Voters just approved Proposition HHH, allowing us to help build 10,000 units of affordable or homeless housing in Los Angeles. I hope Thomas Safran & Associates, HCHC, and VCHC will be able to be among the first to help fulfill the voters commitment. I look forward to the start of their community outreach efforts, and I am eager to see what sort of proposals they offer.”

The types of housing that the CAO recommends be included in the proposal include: permanent supportive housing, affordable multi family housing, mixed income housing, affordable homeownership, and what the CAO describes as “innovative methods of housing.” Innovative methods of housing in this case are described as “modular, prefab, or micro units.”

Two Lots in Venice for Homeless are Talk of the Town–Venetians Have Questions

Posted by :reta On : August 28, 2016

1

Category: Homeless, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Uncategorized, Venice Median Parking Lot

Tags:Thatcher Yard, Venice Median Parking Lot

Venice median. Property is between North and South Venice Blvd and between Pacific and Dell.

Thatcher yard is on Thatcher Ave in the Oxford Triangle. (Fence is finished.)

By Reta Moser with special assistance by Darryl DuFay

Note: If you have questions, please submit to Update and they will be presented to the proper authorities and reprinted in Update with the answers. Venetians want to know. Submit questions to VeniceUpdate@gmail.com.

The topic for the day in Venice, and obviously for days to come, is and will be the status, disposition of the two Venice City properties destined for homeless, affordable housing.

Venetians cannot put their finger on why the City would even question not selling these two properties to the highest bidder, take the money and build somewhere else and many more than these two properties would yield in Venice. These two properties are prime to say the least. They are less than a 1000 feet from the water, where only a few Venetians can afford to live.

So the people who wrote the Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P) from the City Administrative Officer (CAO) were queried. Cielo Castro, Transparency Officer for CAO, willingly answered the questions. Perhaps, this will answer some questions, perhaps it will bring up more.

A couple of the questions have been restated to make them clearer. The answers are verbatim.

1) What are the city’s options for these properties?

Answer: The sites will be developed into affordable housing or they will be sold to generate funds for affordable housing.

2) What is the criteria you plan to use for whether it is better to sell or lease?

Answer: The decision will be made based on the proposals for the site that are received through the RFQ/P, or through subsequent Requests for Proposals or Bids. Decisions on the disposition of each site will be made in coordination with the City Council.

3) Apparently the money will be considered part of the $138 million Mayor Eric Garcetti budgeted for homeless this year. If you lease the property how do you figure its values for the $138M figure?

Answer: A calculation will be used to determine the present value of a future stream of lease payments.

4) When will property be rezoned?

Answer: The timeline will vary based on the development strategy selected for a specific site.

5) If you do not get a prospective bidder on a site, what will you do then?

Answer: Decisions on the disposition of each site will be made in coordination with the City Council.

6) Have these properties been declared surplus. Will the proceeds go to the 138M homeless fund?

Answer: These properties have not been declared as “surplus properties.” The City has elected to actively leverage its real estate assets to achieve a number of public benefits including but not limited to affordable and permanent supportive housing.

Proceeds from the sale of any of these specific surplus properties that are sold during Fiscal Year 2016 – 2017 will go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Proceeds from properties sold within Venice would be earmarked for use for affordable housing in Venice.

Councilman Meets with Canal Residents about Venice Median

Posted by :reta On : August 24, 2016

1

Category: Councilman, Homeless, Venice Median Parking Lot

Tags:Councilman Mike Bonin, Venice Canals, Venice Median Parking Lot

By Darryl DuFay, editor Voice of Canals

“I’m Done With Something Not being Done,” said Councilman Mike Bonin.

I start this Informative with that statement from Councilman Mike Bonin.

On Tuesday evening, August 23rd, Councilman Mike Bonin held a public community meeting in the Venice Canals on his proposal for Homeless Housing on the public parking lot on Venice Blvd. between Pacific Ave. and Dell Ave. The meeting was with the leadership of the Venice Canals’ two community organizations, the Voice of the Canals (VOC) and Venice Canals Association (VCA). Twenty-three people attended at the home of the president of the VOC Marjorie Weitzman. Also attending, was Josie Scibetta, president of the VCA. Mike’s staff was in attendance: Taylor Bazley, Venice Field Deputy, Debbie Dyner, District Director, Ezra Gale, Senior Planner for Projects, and Chuy Orozco, Del Rey/Playa Vista Rep. Also in attendance was Will Hawkins, VNC At-Large Officer, who lives in the canals.

The hour and a half was filled with Mike’s opening presentation and wide ranging question and concerns from the audience. Here is a “brief” summary in no special order:

—Mike gave an historical background on homelessness in Venice with emphasize that homeless population has changed. It is younger and less “rooted” to the community.

—LA has the largest unsheltered homeless population in the country. There has been an 87% increase in encampments in LA. Note: The 2016 Homeless Survey listed the top four reasons for homelessness in our Council District 11: Mental Illness, Substance Abuse, Physical Disability, and Domestic Violence. Venice, one of the 10 communities of CD11, has 35% of the CD11 homeless.

—Court decisions, especially in the “Jones” case, say that homelessness cannot be criminalized. A settlement outside of a trial to provide 1,250 units to allow the City to return to some enforcement towards sleeping on sidewalks, public land, etc. is still in flux. Attorney Carol Ann Sobel and Community Activist Mark Ryavec are at odds on this issue. The City remains “handcuffed” in enforcement options.

—There is an absolute need to provide more permanent homeless housing. The City of Los Angeles has sent out to builders, contractor, etc. a “Request for Qualifications and Proposals” RFQ/P for “Affordable Housing Opportunity Site for 12 properties. Two are in Venice. Venice Blvd parking lot and Thatcher Yard in the Oxford Triangle. The proposals are to be returned on September 15th. No one knows what they will be, nor their size. Mike has said those proposals that meet the construction specifications will be “vetted” by the communities and Venice Neighborhood Council for their practicability, location’s desirability, and type of homeless population to be served. That will be an “interesting” undertaking. There was an observation that the Venice parking lot could take up to three years to develop. This is partly because it is the “dual jurisdictional” area of the City of Los Angeles and Coastal Commission and that takes time. However, no one really knows. Some developer might have it “all together” and you could see something happen in a year or so. Time is money.

Mike discussed “intermediate” and “long range” actions. Intermediate to involved a move from 12-hour Shelters to 24-hour “Bridge Housing.” The Storage of homeless belongs such as at the Westminster Senior Center is part of this effort. Emphasis however is on “long range” permanent housing. He spoke very highly about the “HousingFirst” concept of housing with services. Also of note, a recent decision by the Federal government to terminate funds for “transitional housing” and focus on “permanent housing” is of concern. He also had photos of three projects in Venice of permanent housing.

Discussion of “housing and service resistant” homeless people. Many are afraid of their fellow comrades in close quarters, some just want to be “out and about.” Also discussed the “transient/vacation” homeless. No good statistics on this, but that is not to say it is insignificant.

The City and County are now working together on Homelessness. A multiple strategies document has been produced. It it “mammoth” in its reach. The costs over ten years is way over one billion dollars. The County is responsible for health services, the City the structures involved.

Question asked about selling the parking lot property. Such a sale has a number of number of steps. First choice on the property are other agencies within the city government for their use. If the property is sold the money will go into the long existing Venice Surplus Fund. This fund can ONLY be used for projects in Venice.

Will Hawkins asked probing questions about what can be done now, mentioning illegal drug violations on the beach as something that should be enforced. This then led to a discussion of the present atmosphere surrounding law enforcement in general and specifically their interaction with the homeless. The situations are so fluid, atmosphere often hostile with media attention overwhelming, and potential lawsuits possible. If there is some reluctance to enforcement it is understandable.

The successful work with the homeless of the Foursquare Weller Chaplains and Laura Burn’s Teen Project among others was mentioned. Also, there is a brand new program of the LAPD called “HOPE” for working with the homeless. Don’t know much about it.

The Business Improvement District (BID) program, with 74% participation, will be approved.

It was a good and informative meeting. And, use of the word complex to describe it is an understatement.

Mike announced that he will have another community-wide meeting at Westminster School on Homelessness in early September.

Pardue Analyzes Eight Properties to be Built On/Sold for Homeless

Posted by :reta On : July 27, 2016

3

Category: Homeless, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Triangle, Venice Median Parking Lot

Tags:8 Lots, Councilman Mike Bonin, Thatcher Maintenance Yard, Venice Median Parking Lot

By Kip Pardue

This is an update about the proposed developments in Venice (and beyond). I hope this helps all Venetians understand this process a bit better…

The city has sent out a sort of “bulk” request for proposal in the name of expedition. They combined all 8 of the city properties they want to develop into housing for the homeless. This RFP is open ONLY to pre-approved developers – they are pre-approved based on past work they have done for the city or for private affordable housing projects.

These developers will then look at the list of properties and will make proposals on one or even all the lots. The proposals are due in mid-September sometime. These will not be detailed drawings or include things like EIR’s or mock-ups or models…it sounds like they will be a bit broader in spectrum. The city will then look at these bids and select the ones they like best or the ones they feel are the most feasible (the public info has zero explanation on this process). After that, the public process SHOULD begin – more detailed information will start to come to us on what the city has determined (things like number of units, type of person living there, if there is a commercial element, etc).

Bits I took away from the RFP that I find interesting:

There are 8 lots on this list. They continue to say they might be used to build on or they might be sold depending on feasibility.

Here is a breakdown of the list:

The first property is actually 5 contiguous lots east of the 5 freeway in Lincoln Heights. It’s a commercial district – lots of retail and close to transportation hubs, employment opportunities, and services. To my eyes, this is a perfect place for a large mixed-use development that includes housing for the homeless.

The second is an undeveloped plot of land in Sylmar, north of LA. It’s in a lightly populated area – somewhat close to a few apartment complexes – that borders the 210 and the Angeles National Forest beyond that. Pictures show it as a hill next to a highway…Tough to say how close it is to transportation or services but a large development there would seemingly have very little impact on current residents of Sylmar.

The third is a smaller lot near the 110 freeway. It currently sits as an empty lot in a commercial district with no residents in shouting distance. The highway is just to it’s west. Because it is small, the city is recommending stacked housing or even micro-units on this site. This lot has seemingly zero value as of now but could be a great place for this type of development.

The fourth through the eighth are comprised of the four CD11 lots and one in CD15. These five lots represent a VASTLY different perspective from the first three.

The Thatcher Yard is obviously in a 100% residential district, surrounded almost entirely by single family homes.

The Venice Blvd Median lot is in a 100% residential district, surrounded almost entirely by single family homes in the heart of Venice’s tourist district. The area is congested as is – crushed by tourists, residents, and an already-huge homeless population.

Neither of the Venice locations are close to transportation hubs or commercial areas that might better provide employment opportunities, shopping alternatives, and easy assimilation for a transitioning formerly homeless individual. The Venice properties also have the California Coastal Commission to contend with (and the Venice Specific Plan). The Venice properties also happen to have real estate values that dwarf any of these other properties – almost comically so. These two properties are easily worth a combined $100 million (more depending on rezoning potential) that, if sold, could be used towards housing the homeless (in fact, the city’s well-publicized $138 million budget to combat homelessness INCLUDES the sale of properties – thought none have been sold as of yet).

The sixth property is a parcel in WLA – just off Bundy near Olympic Blvd. The area is a mix of commercial and residential, quite near single family homes. The lot is currently occupied by a former animal shelter. It is close to the new Expo Line station and does have access to commercial spaces. The land is certainly valuable from a financial prospect, but not anywhere near the Venice lots. This location – if handled delicately – could be a nice location for a mixed development – one that serves the current residents and provides a combination of low-income and housing for the homeless.

The seventh property is an abandoned fire station in Westchester that has been vacant for over 10 years (??!!). This property is also in a residential district – surrounded by single family homes. It is somewhat close to the more commercial Sepulveda Blvd, which provides some transportation and employment opportunities, but is by no means “part” of that area. The property is in a quiet neighborhood that would certainly be impacted by a development for housing homeless.

The final property is another abandoned fire station (??) in San Pedro. This lot is also in a very residential area and surrounded by single family homes and multi-unit structures. It has relatively zero options for employment, transportation, or commercial opportunities.

What will happen now:

According to the RFP and per Mike Bonin, the city will conduct feasibility studies of ALL the properties in August. I hate to assume anything, but it sure seems to me like the first three properties have far fewer hurdles than the final 5 and also happen to be far less valuable if sold. Hopefully the feasibility study will agree. I will do some research to try and learn more about this study but do not have high hopes for it being a “transparent” process.

The “scoring” for the returned RFP’s will be on a 100 point scale – with 60 points awarded to the developer based on PREVIOUS projects and 40 from their idea for the lot (or lots) on this list – which seems utterly shocking to me given the obvious hurdles ALL of these project will face.

Every private developer, architect, engineer, and real estate person I have spoken with is quick to say just how difficult it would be develop the two Venice lots. Both are so large and so detailed they would far surpass the abilities of most “not-for-profit” developers.

This process is certainly moving forward per the city…but I just cannot imagine how the feasibility of the these 8 lots – when compared to each other – could put the solution in Venice. The money, the CCC, the size, the already huge and terrifying homeless population, the growing population of families with children in Venice, the lack of transportation access, lack of employment opportunities, the lack of reasonable shopping alternatives, the tourists, the parking…all of it HAS to be taken into account. The first three are more ideal in EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY.

This is, of course, my opinion…but as a resident who will potentially be affected in myriad ways, I hope it holds some weight.

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.