May 11, 2016
Councilman
Mike Bonin, Chair, Transportation Committee
Members of
the Transportation Committee
City Hall
200 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
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.
Sincerely
yours,
Mark
Ryavec
Mark
Ryavec, president
