Last spring Venetian residents and small business owners had the opportunity to directly shape their community by speaking at the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council’s Land Use and Planning Committee against East Coast developer Samuel Adams, whose proposed "Lincoln Center" development was to be a glorious oversized testimonial to Spanish Revival architecture. Over 200 people arrived to voice objection to the seven-story monument. Adams’ generous concession to human rights amounted to giving 20% of its upper level apartment units to the affluent poor, adding insult to injury by making them available only for an initial period of fifteen years. When the LUPC began voicing objections, the number of “affordable” units offered began to dwindle. Until recently, accepting this kind of forced gentrification has been customary among members of the GRVNC board.

In December stakeholders again turned up to protest to the LUPC against the Trammell Crow project scheduled to occur in Venice’s Oxford Triangle. Its development was postponed mainly due to a plan which offered no affordable housing at all. The LUPC approved the project provided it found an access to Lincoln Blvd, which it did. But the GRVNC board voted to overturn the LUPC’s approval. And yet given the board’s limited authority to affect direct legislative action upon its own environment, commercial real estate companies like Texas-based Trammell Crow, which don’t receive full board cooperation, can still be approved by the West LA Planning Commission. Following a December GRVNC board meeting in which the Council refused recommendation, and after an initial public hearing before an Area Planning officer in which constituents continued to issue objections, the matter will be taken up by the entire Planning Commission at an as-yet unscheduled time. Before last June’s Grass Roots election when Progressives swept an impressive 60 percent of the vote, the majority of board members were somewhat in thrall to developers, slow to refuse outside investment or select those congruous with Venice’s irregular, funky personality. While this year’s incoming Progressives give a majority of twelve to nine on a twenty-one member board, it’s a fleeting upper hand, for each term lasts only two years, permitting forward-thinking endeavors to be promptly canceled next time with the return of traditional candidates. These latter are unfortunately indifferent to the consequences of exclusive financial programs, and their corporate opportunism leaves those in the more vulgar reaches of economic reality, literally, out in the cold.

In an effort to arouse community discourse on architectural and planning values, particularly in light of the “Lincoln Center” assertion, newly strengthened Progressive Grass Roots members decided to endorse an Envision Venice Planning Workshop. Held this past November, local citizens were encouraged to articulate the kind of urban development they would like to see occur in Venice. The workshop included participation from regional architects, planners, business groups, city officials, and residents, both renters and landowners. Among the priorities, development with pedestrians in mind was of primary interest, along with maintaining the city’s singular character and achievable commercial and housing facilities aimed at the whole economic spectrum. Clear criteria were established to ensure improvement of street life. In this way a multiple block environment like Lincoln Boulevard could provide outdoor plazas, benches, places for people to meet and grab something to eat. Store architecture constricted to a pedestrian scale, designed for pedestrian needs and interests, allows for an influx of people by multi-modal means. Traffic likewise should be improved so that bus shelters and bike lanes are included, enhancing mobility throughout the corridor. Prospective planners will be able to understand the community wants to keep Venice realizable for everyone in terms of purchasing power. Market driven investors accustomed to pushing a well-heeled sense of entitlement won’t find a responsive, instrumental community in their corner.

Saint Joseph Center now seeks to improve its main facility. The nonprofit social service agency that provides education and assistance for low-income and homeless families and individuals currently rests in a dingy 40 yr. old one-story elementary school turned community center and parish office-space for an adjacent St. Clement Church. Currently both Center and Church share classrooms and are forced to disassemble project material each day after closing so that incoming parishioners can conduct classes and meetings in the evenings. Such a high infiltration of people extends probability of tampering, misplacement, and inefficiency; not to mention inhibit the number of clients the Center can capably serve. The new Saint Joseph Center, sitting on five contiguous lots owned for decades by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, will have a separate wing from the church Parish Center. The structure itself will be distended by 16,000 square-feet, jumping from a congested 11,000 to a modest 27,000. A full second story will enable senior staff to have offices for the first time independent from the frenetic activity of client programs. Also new will be Donor Relations, Facility Operations and Finance offices.

Despite today’s still cramped arrangement, family services like the Infant Toddler Development Center, Child Care and Parenting Program, Culinary Training Program, Family Center and Food Pantry provide working poor families and single mothers a friendly, reliable environment to learn marketable skills while their children are competently cared for.

The Monetary Advisory Program (MAP) teaches fiscal management to the persistently mentally ill. It aims to increase self-sufficiency and capability. All services are free The philosophy among staff members is that by enabling people with a sense of self-respect through learning skills and practices which foster stability and improvement, the entire community will benefit from the productive, contributing member it now receives. The current Homeless Service Cente offers showers, laundry and mailbox services in addition to individual case management, and housing and employment placement. St. Joseph’s also hosts the restaurant-styled Bread & Roses Café, located on 220 Rose Avenue, which serves hot meals to people otherwise in want of them.

St. Joseph Center clientele are not only the luckless but also those most susceptible to societal adversity and derision. Southern California basin towns along the Los Angeles County coastline, Marina del Rey, Venice and Santa Monica to name a few, all have substantial homeless populations and yet legislation is typically designed against them making opportunities severely limited. Certainly, it is still better to own than rent, despite renters composing 74% of the population in Venice. The Center on Hampton Drive would like to consolidate its facilities and increase space for new and existing programs. Its new two-story, green-friendly building will provide greater room for food storage, clothing donations, and group meetings for children and families. It will relocate its other off-site facilities like The Culinary Training Program and Affordable Housing Program to its Hampton Drive location. An expansion on the Early Learning Center means a second classroom for an all-day, licensed toddler daycare program. Extending the Food Pantry will provide a separate kitchen beside the storage pantry for volunteers to properly prepare the week’s groceries. The relocated Housing Program will continue to support clients in securing permanent housing at its new base on Hampton.
In contrast to both the Lincoln Center and Trammell Crow proposals, St. Joseph Center is not a commercial enterprise. Unlike its neighbor, the ever-bustling Main Street, whose primary theme of Bobo consumerism soaks up far more than it returns, St. Joseph’s wants to improve the quality of life for the community as a whole by raising the standard of living for those whose need is greatest. To convey an interest in neighborhood concerns and questions, which might arise from such an undertaking, SJC executed several outreach initiatives, including six community-wide Open House sessions and numerous door-to-door visits with immediate neighbors. Dialogue ranged from personal one-on-one conferences to Question and Answer Sheets written directly in response to Open House gatherings. The Center hired a community relations firm of Consensus Planning in May 2002 and completed an independently administered parking analysis in April of the following year The plans met amicably with Venice’s Land Use and Planning Committee and a formal request has already been submitted to GRVNC to meet and present the project. St. Joseph’s Operations Director, Amy Amsterdam, enjoys participating in workshops like Envision Venice and finds them, “interesting and progressive. I definitely got the sense that most people [at the workshop] felt it was important to include low income, accessible housing for families, individuals and seniors and that the Lincoln corridor should also have a social service component to it.” A community-supported Center is important to St. Joseph personnel and construction designs for the new building reflect considerable effort to account for the demands of divergent interests.

On November 7 and December 17 of 2003, the West LA Planning Commission held hearings to decide whether two variances from the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan will be approved for St. Joseph’s. The first variance concerns total height of the new structure, which will exceed the 25’ restriction by sixteen feet due to the topography of the site (it lies on a 10’6” incline). Three and four story buildings already litter the surroundings, making the 41’ proposal scarcely a contradiction to the visual tone of the area. The second variance pertains to the merging of the Center’s five lots. The Venice Specific Plan permits consolidation of no more than three lots on a given site. However, these five lots are the same that have accompanied the property since the elementary school was erected in the 1960s. The new St. Joseph Center, upon adjoining the lots, will simply make fuller use of already existing space. On February 18 2004 the Commission finally voted to approve St. Joseph Center design plans, making a step toward securing client support.

However, the Center is not without its detractors. Some opponents of the St. Joseph Center plan feel the organization acts as a magnet to the placeless, encouraging “disheveled and disorderly” residents into yielding “unsolicited interactions” with locals The stretch of city block in question borders a trendy hub on the edge of Venice and Santa Monica proper. Many nearby home-owning dwellers are not without means. The opponents at the Planning Commission hearing all acknowledged how much they appreciate the good work of St. Joseph’s, if only it could be transplanted to an industrial complex somewhere downtown. Another item of contention was parking. There isn’t enough of it. And what’s new St. Joseph’s going to do about it? Crain & Associates, the independent parking analyst employed by St. Joseph Center, concluded the existing parking planned for the new facility adequately meets the legally required need for Center and Church. And yet some on hand grumbled despite gaining ten new spaces and a shared-use parking permit which grants public use of the lot for parking during spans when it is not being used by either Church or Center. Those unsatisfied with the arrangement neglected to mention what Main Street a half block away contributes to obstructed traffic and gridlock parking.

While the subjects of public health and safety are undoubtedly merited at times, a refusal to tolerate and incorporate the assorted social textures present in a city like Los Angeles only depletes the integrity, humanity and assets of all its citizens. It also begs the question, to whose rights do we adhere? Urban developers like Samuel Adams and Trammell Crow generally have cooperative legislation already. Though a small hamlet like Venice may object to corporate submersion, in the end it must still accept whatever higher, more financially resourceful powers deem. At least as of this writing. Similarly, the opponents of the St. Joseph Center proposal are largely comfortable in their beachside quarters and California dress code. Should their discomfort with poverty impede the care and service thousands of their neighbors desperately need? It would be a Venice frivolously envisioned if so.

NOTES

1. Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council acts only in an "advisory" capacity to the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission. It is the latter that actually legislates.

2. June 2003 ten seats for the Council were up for re-election. Since Progressive Grassroots candidates won all ten seats, it gave already existing Progressive council members a three-person lead. At this year's next election eleven seats are open for retrieval. To seize the majority, Conservatives will need to take all eleven seats. GRVNC is a twenty-one member board whose posts are re-elected on an alternating schedule of ten one year and eleven the next.

3. Envision Venice: A Community Planning Workshop sponsored by the Venice Community Coalition and GRVNC. Held Saturday, November 15, 2003, United Methodist Church, Venice.

4. Some of St. Joseph Center services require verification of eligibility due to their funding sources. To receive Food Pantry services, for example, one must provide rent receipts or other verification of financial condition.

5. The Homeless Service Center on 4th and Rose will continue to operate and offer showers at its present location once the new Hampton Drive facility has opened. The Affordable Housing Program will be relocated to the Hampton Drive site. The possibility of showers, while never promoted for the prospective Hampton structure, will now definitely not occur due to opposition which was swift, unyielding and organized. Of those most opposed there appear to be a vocal core who have attended all St. Joseph Center Open House meetings and West L.A. Planning Commission hearings. One is an ex-GRVNC board member with ties to the Los Angeles City Council and Planning Commission.

6. In July 2002, the Bayside District Corporation, a nonprofit group who oversees the business district of the Third Street Promenade, asked the Santa Monica City Council to restrict the Outdoor Meal Distribution Programs because it feels such services attract the homeless to Santa Monica. On October 8, 2002 Santa Monica passed two ordinances seeking to “limit free outdoor meals by requiring groups serving 150 or more people to adhere to community event laws and county health standards. The second ordinance, passed unanimously, makes it illegal to sit or lie in downtown doorways from 11PM to 7AM if the business owner posts a sign to that effect.” CNN, October 9, 2002. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4202A.

7. “May 2002 St. Joseph Center hires community relations firm of Consensus Planning. July 22, 2002 St. Joseph Center and Consensus Planning meet with Kristen Montet and Sandy Kievman of Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski’s Office. Sept 9, 2002 Public information piece announcing SJC’s plans is mailed out to area residents. September 11, 2002 Executive Director Rhonda Meister meets with President of Grassroots Venice Neighborhood Council to discuss project and request meeting to present project. September 18-19, 2002 SJC plans are presented to immediate neighbors during door-to-door visits. October 3, 2002 SJC continues to present plans to immediate residents via door-to-door visits. October 2002, Geo-technical Investigation completed. November 12, 2002 SJC hosts community-wide Open House to present plans for replacing its administration building. November 14, 2002 Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski tours SJC. April 2003 Parking Demand Analysis completed. July 28, 2003 SJC sends formal written request to Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council requesting meeting to present project.” Community Outreach Timeline, St. Joseph Center.

8. A City of Santa Monica initiative on Public Health and Safety entitled, “Perceived Threat to Personal Safety in Public,” states that “although people have grown accustomed to the increasing numbers and visibility of people living in our streets, many people are frightened by appearance, behavior or stereotypes which they attribute to homeless people Public perceptions of threats to safety by some homeless people may include the following: disheveled and disorderly appearance; threatening and unpredictable behavior by a minority of people with severe and persistent mental illnesses; unsolicited interactions; non-aggressive panhandling; groups of homeless people congregating; and people sleeping in parks and other public places.”

REFERENCES

Bernard, Sheila (December, 2003) “Venice Envisioned – Community looks at Lincoln Blvd,” Beachhead.

Bernard, Sheila (June, 2003) “Toward a Philosophy of Renter Rights,” Beachhead.

Bernard, Sheila (November, 2003) “Thinkin’ about Lincoln – An interview with Jack Prichett and Barbara Milliken,” Beachhead.

Bernard, Sheila (2003) "War and Democracy in Venice," AMASS, vol.12, no.3.

City of Santa Monica, website: http://www.santa-monica.org/cm/

Envision Venice Planning Workshop (December, 2003) “Lincoln Center NOT Moving Forward,” Beachhead.

GRVNC (2001) Bylaws.

Haskell, Joyce M. (May, 2003) “$2 Million Condos on the Boardwalk?,” Beachhead.

Hulme, Theresa (June, 2003) “Daniel Freeman Hospital: Battle may be won but War is far from over,” Beachhead.

Jaffe, Jerry (December, 2003) “Do Not Let This Happen,” Beachhead.

Kennedy, Peggy Lee (November, 2003) “STOLEN: Free Public Parking in Venice,” Beachhead.

O’Kane, John (2003) “Venice Speculations,” AMASS, vol.12, no. 3.

Smith, Jim (May, 2003) “PEOPLE WIN! Lincoln Center Project Not Approved,” Beachhead.

St Joseph Center (2002) Annual Report 2001-2002.

Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (December 22, 1999), A Part of the General Plan – City of Los Angeles.

Thanks to Amy Amsterdam, Carol Beck, Dennis Hathaway, Peggy Lee Kennedy, Rhonda Meister, Jenny Scanlin and Laura Silagi for valuable correspondence.

Copyrights © 2003, Amass. All Rights Reserved Contact Administrator