Events

Upcoming events

[R]Green Living Workshops in Venice(Event)(7 hours)
VNC Administrative Committee Meeting Agenda(Event)(5 days)
Land Use and Planning Committee Meeting(Event)(7 days)
[R]Green Living Workshops in Venice(Event)(7 days)
Rally to Save the Venice Post Office(Event)(10 days)
VNC Board Meeting Agenda(Event)(13 days)

Navigation

VNC Board Meeting Agenda

Submitted by joedmurphyvnc on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 8:36pm.

Start: 08/18/2009 - 7:00pm

End: 08/18/2009 - 10:00pm

Westminster Elementary School (Auditorium)
1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd, Venice, 90291
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM

BOARD MEETINGS: The Venice Neighborhood Council holds its regular meetings on the third Tuesday of the month and may also call any additional required special meetings in accordance with its Bylaws and the Brown Act. All are welcome to attend.
TRANSLATION Services: Si requiere servicios de traducción, favor de notificar a la oficina 3 días de trabajo (72 horas) antes del evento. Si necesita asistencia con esta notificación, por favor llame a nuestra oficina 213.473.5391.
POSTING: The agenda and non-exempt writings that are distributed to a majority or all of the board members in advance of regular and special meetings may be viewed at Groundworks Coffee (671 Rose Ave Venice, CA 90291), Abbots Habit (1401 Abbot Kinney Blvd. Venice, CA 90291), the Venice Library (501 South Venice Boulevard, Venice, CA 90291), Oakwood Recreation Center (767 California St. Venice, CA 90291), the VNC website (http://www.venicenc.org), or at the scheduled meeting. For a copy of any record related to an item on the agenda, please contact the VNC secretary at secretary@venicenc.org.
PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is requested to fill out a “Speaker Card” to address the Board on any Old or New Business item on the agenda and the Treasurer’s Report. Comments from the public on these agenda items will be heard only when that item is being considered. Comments from the public on other agenda matters or on matters not appearing on the agenda but within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction will be heard during the Public Comment period. Public comment is limited to two (2) minutes per speaker, unless modified by the presiding officer of the Board.
DISABILITY POLICY: The Venice Neighborhood Council complies with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and does not discriminate on the basis of any disability. Upon request, the Venice Neighborhood Council will provide reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Award Certificates of distinction and appreciation to:
Dexter O’Connell: for service to VNC
Andi Murez: for competition with distinction at the 2009 Maccabiah (sp?) games in Tel Aviv, Israel. Andi, a recent graduate and record holding swimmer at Venice High, won (5) gold medals in swimming, breaking records at the Maccabiah Games in July, 2009. She will begin studies and Stanford University in the Fall.
Zac Murez: graduate of Venice High, competed in the Maccabiah Games in Tel Aviv, Israel and represented the United States with distinction. Zac is a 2nd year student at Yale University who swims for the school.

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Approval of any outstanding minutes submitted by the Secretary

July 21, 2009 Board Meeting Minutes
(see http://venicenc.org/files/090721VNCBoardMinutesRev.doc)

[Committee Reports are provided in written form when available]

4. Consent Calendar

A From LUPC

I LUPC motion regarding 301 – 305 Lincoln Blvd, ZA 2008-3448 CUB
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org): At a regular LUPC meeting July 22, 2009 it was moved and seconded that LUPC recommend that the VNC Board of Officers accept the LUPC staff report & recommend approval of the project as presented with specific conditions set upon it. Motion was denied: 3 for, 4 against, 0 abstentions.
II LUPC motion regarding 13480 Maxella Avenue, CPC 2005-1138 GPA ZC CDP SPR ZV ZAA
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org): At a regular LUPC meeting July 22, 2009, it was moved by Matt Geller, seconded by Kelly Li and passed 3 for, 1 against and 3 abstentions that LUPC recommend that VNC Board of Officers move to support our sister neighborhood council, Del Rey NC, in their support of this project. LUPC notes that there are 24 (10%) low affordable units, project will apply for LEED silver certification and there are electric car plug-ins.

5. Treasurers Report – expenditures for July 2009 See Exhibit A accept report as presented

Not all expenses for the 2008-2009 fiscal year have been reported as yet as several of the community improvement projects have received extensions. A final report for last year will be available when completed.

6. Scheduled Announcements (no more than 1 minute per report unless otherwise stated)

A Governmental Reports

• DONE: Deanna Stevenson (Deanna.Stevenson@lacity.org): Michele Siqueiros, the newly appointed president of the BONC, and BongHwan Kim would like to make a presentation at your next board meeting on Tuesday August 18th. Michele will be talking briefly about the commission’s policy agenda for the next year. BH will talk about our department’s strategic planning process and upcoming survey.
• LAPD: Officer Peggy Thusing, Senior Lead Officer
• State Assemblyperson Ted Lieu: Jennifer Zivkovic, Field Representative (310-615-3515; Jennifer.zivkovic@asm.ca.gov)
• Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Jennifer Badger, West Area Representatives (310-479-3823; jennifer.badger@lacity.org)
• City Councilperson Bill Rosendahl: Arturo Piña, Field Deputy
• LADWP Representative: Simone Taylor (213.792.5627; simone.taylor@ladwp.com)
• LADWP/MOU: VNC Representatives DeDe Audet & Challis McPherson

B Ivan Spiegel (310-821-9556; ivan13147@verizon.net): Report on completed events (Venice Beach Music Festival & Community BBQ) and Announcement of upcoming events (Impromptu Gilbert & Sullivan Musical & Basketball Festival).

C Ethics Training Compliance Update
Linda Lucks (VicePresident@VeniceNC.org)

D St. Joseph Center Progress Report on VNC Service Registry Project
Judy Alexander (310-396-6468 ×306; jalexander@stjosephctr.org) on behalf of St. Joseph Center: Report on the outcome of the VNC Service Registry Project that identified the most highly vulnerable homeless people in Venice. This report will be a summary of the Community Presentation of July 2.

E Park Day
James F Merced/ Fruit Gallery (310-452-3034; fruitgallery@yahoo.com): The Fruit Gallery and the Westminster Avenue Merchants, between Speedway and Ocean Front Walk, request the Venice Neighborhood Council to co-sponsor Westminster and park day. The Westminster Merchants are willing to work with the Venice Neighborhood Council and Shawn Simons, NANDC President, Park Day LA NC Project Coordinator to make this event possible for the greater purpose of our community.

F Update on Marina del Rey Hearing
Marc Saltzberg (outreach@VeniceNC.org)

7. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda
[15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person – no board member announcements permitted]

8. Old Business

A Close nominations and hear statements from candidates for vacant Community Officer position
Mike Newhouse (president@venicenc.org): Call for nominations & close of nominations. Each candidate will have 3 minutes to:

a. introduce him/herself – a general statement including qualifications and why s/he is interested in serving on the Board.

b. answer the following two questions.

1. A community officer is required to attend the monthly Board meeting on the third Tuesday of each month, occasional Town Hall meetings, an annual Board retreat and active participation on at least one committee (http://venicenc.org/Committees). Board members are also asked to volunteer occasionally to staff the VNC table at the Friday Farmer’s Market and First Fridays on Abbott Kinney Blvd., and to be the conduit for information on VNC activities with neighbors and friends in Venice. With this in mind, what committee would you envision working on, and why? If your interest is in forming a new committee, please describe what you envision.

2. The Venice Specific Plan has been the blueprint for land development since 2000. The VNC is asked to consider variance requests and other modifications to the VSP. Keeping in mind that this is one of the more controversial issues in Venice, please tell us your insights and thoughts about the VSP (http://venicenc.org/files/VenCoastal.pdf) and how it should be enforced (strictly, loosely, etc).

B From Board Member

I Presentation by Dr. Susie Baldwin and Motion to support Single-payer healthcare
Marc Saltzberg (310-305-9660; mas_marina@yahoo.com)

Presentation (10 minute slide show & 5 minute Q & A): Advantages of a Single Payer Health Care System, a presentation from Dr. Susie Baldwin. Dr. Baldwin is a board-certified preventive medicine/public health physician and a proponent of single payer healthcare. She is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). PNHP is an organization of over 16,000 American physicians advocating for single-payer national health insurance. Dr. Baldwin’s fact-filled slide presentation will cover some of the most striking advantages of a single-payer healthcare system.

Motion:

Whereas the out -of-control health care costs are projected to rise 70% between 2008 and 2014, reaching 20% of GDP by 2017 and government spending on health care will rise from 6% of GDP today to 15% of GDP by 2040 and,

Whereas the United States spends twice as much on health care as most other industrialized nations and therefore US businesses suffer from a competitive disadvantage in world markets due to the fact that insurance premiums for employer based health care have risen 114% in the last decade and,

Whereas around 50 million Americans, nearly 19% of the US population under age 65 are without health insurance and for profit heath insurance providers often attempt to increase profits by delaying payments to insured individuals, denying payments to insured individuals, canceling policies and general abuse of practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage for “unapproved procedures and pharmaceuticals,” and rejection of insurability due to “uncertain underwriting risks” and,

Whereas the Congress of the United States will be considering several health care reform measures intended to contain health care costs, end the abuses of health insurance companies and provide coverage for all Americans through a combination of existing health insurance plans and a newly created Government provided insurance plan referred to as the “Public Option” (See Exhibit B for a Summary of the GAO’s analysis of these bills)

Therefore be it Resolved the Venice Neighborhood Council supports reform efforts in the US Congress that will provide affordable health care coverage to all Americans, including the so-called “Public Option” (while we understand that the “Single Payer” model to be the most complete and broad reform, it is not one of the primary bills being debated in Congress). We therefore encourage the City Council of Los Angeles to pass a resolution transmitting our support for such reform efforts to the United Stages Congressional Delegation from California and ask the Mayor of Los Angeles to vigorously advocate for such reforms if a resolution of the City Council is passed.

II. Motion to rescind the HVOC Motions II, IV, VI, VIII as amended and adopted at the July 21 Board Meeting and to consider the original HVOC Motions II, IV, VI, VIII at the Board’s September 15 Board Meeting

Stewart Oscars (310-305-8248; stewart.oscars@gmail.com): Please consider my below letter as an official motion for rescission:

————— Forwarded message —————
From: stewart oscars
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Subject: regarding the july vnc board meeting
To: board

Dear fellow Venice Neighborhood Councilmembers,

I was comparing the minutes of the June Board meeting with the agenda of the July Board meeting, and I am disturbed with the changes that were wrought on the motions brought by the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Occupation (HVOC).

There were eight motions brought to the June Board meeting. Motions I, III, V, VII were passed at the June
Board meeting. Motions II, IV, VI, VIII were postponed to the July board meeting.

By the time the agenda was published for the July meeting:
1) Motion II had numerous strike outs eliminating content along with three lines completely eliminated.
2) Motions IV and VI had undergone the same strike out procedure.

3) Motion VIII was changed from the original motion to continue the work of the committee to a Motion to Table Indefinitely the life of the HVOC.
4) Each of the motions was followed by a “Rationalization for the Removal of the Disputed Part(s) of the Motion” written , as I understand it, by a non-committee member.
5) The “Rationalization for Retention of the Disputed Part(s)” included none of the supporting HVOC Report as presented to the Board.

I believe these changes to the original motions were: 1) Probably illegal as the strike outs and verbiage removals were performed without a committee being involved, nor discussed in public hearings. 2) Tailored to eliminate discussion of the HVOC report or direct the flow of discussion, if any were to occur. Designing the agenda as it was gave an air of authority to the strike outs and the “Removal” statements following the modified motions. 3) Disingenuous: in the “Rationale for Removal…….” for Motion II, paragraph 2, it states in the last sentence, “At least it (Venice Community Housing Corporation) should have the opportunity to discuss the issue.” Terry Simons from VCHC actually was a member of the HVOC committee, and I believe Steve Clare was invited to join said committee. 4) Inflammatory and disrespectful: in the “Rationale for Removal…..” in Motion IV, paragraph 2, it is inferred that there is an “obvious” character flaw in the committee and its members. When questioned what that obvious flaw is, Mr. Clare stated the committee was, “anti-homeless.”

I believe the VNC Board needs to reconsider the motions presented at the July Board meeting and replace them with the original motions as presented by the HVOC and the Administrative Committee along with the full Vehicle to Housing Transition Program report as part of Motion VI.

Thank you, Stewart Oscars

III. Motion to reconsider HVOC Motion VI as adopted July 21, 2009
Marc Saltzberg (outreach@VeniceNC.org)

Whereas the following motion was passed at the Venice Neighborhood Council Board Meeting held on July 21, 2009:

Motion to Create Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program
Mark Ryavec (310 392 4843; delphiassociates@ca.rr.com) & Carolyn Rios (310-821-7922; crlynrios@ca.rr.com) Co-Chairs: Request that the VNC recommend that the City of Los Angeles establish a program, funded by the City, County and possibly private charitable sources, and operated by a non-profit social service provider, to provide sites and services to assist vehicular dwellers, on a voluntary basis, find affordable housing.

And, whereas Marc Saltzberg voted in favor of said motion,

And, whereas, the motion as passed ignored the specific work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Occupancy which brought the motion to the Venice Neighborhood Counsel,

Therefore, be it resolved that the motion referred to above be reconsidered,

And be it further resolved that the motion as passed be replaced by the following:

The Venice Neighborhood Council suggests that the most successful program be flexible in its approach to homeless individuals and that the initial program be a “Pilot” program. This suggests that that program specifics not be codified by ordinance but rather would be determined by any contract the City of Los Angeles concludes with the non-profit social service provider selected to operate the program. It is further suggested that the City of Los Angeles and its contractor consider the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Vehicular Occupancy – which are presented in Exhibit C and which are research findings of the Committee and have not been endorsed by the Venice Neighborhood Council Board.

C From Rules & Elections Committee

I Bylaw amendments
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org):

1. Amend Article III.A. to read:

A. Stakeholders: “Stakeholders” are defined as individuals who live, work, or own property within the Venice Neighborhood Council boundaries and also to those who declare a stake in the neighborhood and affirm a factual basis for it.

2. Amend Article III.B. to read:

B. Voting Members: Any non-factual basis stakeholder who chooses to register may become a “Voting Member.” Voter registration shall be conducted in accordance with Article VI, as interpreted by the Rules and Elections Committee. Proof of Stakeholder status shall be required for voting rights to be effected.

3. Amend Article IV.A. to read:

A. Governing Body: The Governing Body of the Venice Neighborhood Council shall be the Board of Officers. The Board of Officers shall establish policies and positions of the Venice Neighborhood Council at its regular meetings and review and recommend actions to governmental and other entities on issues affecting the Venice community. The Board of Officers is comprised of twenty-one (21) voting Officers, elected from and by the population of Voting Members and factual basis stakeholders, as follows:

• Seven (7) Executive Officers
• Fourteen (14) Community Officers

4. Amend Article IV.C. to read:

C. Community Officers:

(i) Thirteen (13) Community Officers are elected at-large. Each Voting Member shall cast one vote from a ballot listing all candidates for Community Officer. The thirteen Community Officer candidates with the highest vote totals shall be elected.

(ii) Factual basis stakeholders shall be entitled to run for and elect a factual basis Community Officer, If more than one factual basis candidate is on the factual basis ballot, the factual basis candidate with the highest vote total shall be elected. In the event that there are no factual basis candidates, the Community Officer receiving the next highest vote total shall be elected.

Community Officers shall serve on at least one Standing Committee and shall serve on and/or chair other committees.

5. Amend Article VI. To read:
ARTICLE VI — ELECTIONS

A. Timing: Beginning with the City Clerk conducted election held between March and June of 2010, a board member’s term shall be for the duration of two years or until a successor is elected or appointed. The only order of business at this Election Meeting shall be the election of the Board of Officers. The Election shall elect all twenty-one (21) Officers. Additional Election Meetings may be held during a Stakeholder or Board of Officers meeting as specified elsewhere in these bylaws.

B. Administration of Elections and Board Terms: The Neighborhood Council’s election will be conducted by the City Clerk every two years in every even-numbered year in accordance with the rules and regulation promulgated by the City Clerk. The City Clerk will hold these elections between March and June of the even-numbered years. The rules and regulations developed by the City Clerk shall take precedence over any inconsistent language in the Neighborhood Council bylaws. All current board terms which end prior to the 2010 election shall be extended until after the certification of election results or the resolution of all official election challenges, whichever date is later. There are no term limits.

C. Registration: Stakeholders, with the exception of those who utilize vote-by-mail, may register to vote up to and including the day of any Election Meeting.

D. Qualification: Any Stakeholder who is sixteen (16) years or older, or a junior or senior in High School, may vote.

E. Credentials: Voters will verify their Stakeholder status by providing documentation acceptable to the City Clerk—Election Division supporting that declaration. Factual basis Stakeholders will also be required to provide a form of documentation to substantiate their factual basis claim.

F. Voting: Voting for election of Officers shall be by ballot.

(i) Each factual basis stakeholder shall be entitled to cast one (1) vote for a factual basis Community Officer candidate. (ii) Each Voting Member shall be entitled to cast votes as follows:

• One (1) vote for President
• One (1) vote for Vice President
• One (1) vote for Secretary
• One (1) vote for Treasurer
• One (1) vote for Communications Officer
• One (1) vote for Community Outreach Officer
• One (1) vote for Land Use and Planning Committee Chair
• One (1) vote for only one (1) Community Officer. The Community Officer candidates with the thirteen (13) highest vote totals shall be elected; EXCEPT, if there is no factual basis candidate, the Community Officer candidates with the fourteen (14) highest vote totals shall be elected.

If more than two (2) candidates are running for an Executive Officer position, a plurality shall be sufficient to elect unless the election procedures direct otherwise.

No voting by proxy is allowed.

II Standing Rule limiting repeat bylaw elections following defeat
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board adopt the following standing rule regarding election time limits for scheduling stakeholder ratifications of by-laws elections that do not meet minimum requirements for passage or defeat:
The Board cannot hold a stakeholder ratification for the same bylaw amendment or an amendment that addresses substantially the same issue in any six month period.

III Amendment to Standing Rule 3 to allow extension of CIP timelines by Administrative Committee
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board amend Standing Rule 3 to add the following sentence at the end:
Any extension of a Community Improvement Project’s approved project timeline must be approved by a majority vote of the Administrative Committee.

IV Standing Rule requiring addition to agendas of provision for distributing meeting materials
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board adopt the following standing rule:

Standing Rule __: Venice Neighborhood Council Committee meeting agendas shall contain the following statement:
In compliance with Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt writings that are distributed to a majority or all of the board members in advance of a meeting may be viewed at the Venice Library, 501 S. Venice Blvd.; Oakwood Rec Center, 767 California Street; Abbot’s Habit, 1401 Abbot Kinney Blvd; and Groundworks Coffee, 671 Rose Ave; at our website by clicking on the following link: http://venicenc.org/, or at the scheduled meeting. In addition, if you would like a copy of any record related to an item on the agenda, please contact .

V Amendment to Standing Rule 12 to allow extension of CIP timelines by Administrative Committee
Ira Koslow (310-392-0868; ira.koslow@venicenc.org): Request board amend Standing Rule 12 – Grievances as follows:

The Chair of the Rules and Elections Committee (REC) has discretion to determine whether a grievance is actionable. Any grievance not alleging an adverse affect by a decision of the Board shall be deemed non-actionable and denied by the Chair with prejudice [DELETE], and forwarded to DONE [END DELETE] without a hearing.

D From Stakeholder

I Report on ‘The Delta’ (15 min)
Yolanda Gonzalez (310-902-8690; firstmateyo@yahoo.com) & Challis Macpherson: Request VNC approve the following letter:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Whereas: It is necessary for the State of California to take quick and prompt action to secure adequate water to supply the people of California;
Whereas: Taking water from the Sacramento River North of the Delta will not affect the Delta Smelt population;
Whereas: Salmon appear to be in decline around the world consistent with the climate change;
Whereas: The fragility of the Delta levee system will not be affected by a Peripheral Canal;

BE IT RESOLVED: That the Venice Neighborhood Council promotes and affirms that it is in the best interest of all citizens that the California Peripheral Canal be funded, built and operated.
___________________________________________________________
Mike Newhouse, Venice Neighborhood Council President

9. New Business

A From Stakeholder

I Public participation in bringing Solar Components to Los Angeles
DeDe Audet (310-821-4417; dd1audet@verizon.net): Request that VNC communicate to the DWP Oversight Committee a request for full public participation in bringing Solar Components to Los Angeles; that such a program is long overdue. And I would like a five minute slot to explain my reasons why and to answer a few questions. DeDe will provide letter.

B From LUPC `

I LUPC motion regarding 305-307-309 Ocean Front Walk, APCW 2008-4349 SPE CUB CU ZV CDP MEL
Challis Macpherson (Chair-LUPC@VeniceNC.org): At a regular LUPC meeting July 22, 2009 it was moved by John Reed, seconded by Jed Pauker and passed 6 for, 0 against and 1 abstention that LUPC request that VNC Board of Officers accept LUPC staff report on this project, and recommends that VNC Board of Officers recommend denial of this project as presented. See Exhibit C

10. Announcements & Public Comment on items not on the Agenda
[15 min, no more than 2 minutes per person – no board member announcements permitted]

11. Adjourn (approx 10:00PM)

Exhibit A – Treasurers Report

Date Acct ID Acct Line Description Debit Credit Vendor ID Job ID
7/10/09 1025 US Bank C Extra Space Storage 152.00 Extra Space Storage
7/12/09 1025 US Bank C Constant Contact 30.00 Constant Contact
7/14/09 1025 US Bank C Venice C of C 2,350.00 Venice C of C
7/15/09 1025 US Bank C Los Angeles Unified SD 120.00 LAUSD
7/20/09 1025 US Bank C Office Depot 133.21 Office Depot
7/21/09 1025 US Bank C Culver City Blue Pacific 95.00 Culver City Blue Pac
7/21/09 1025 US Bank C Office Depot 133.21 Office Depot
7/24/09 1025 US Bank C Office Depot 133.21 Office Depot
7/24/09 1025 US Bank C LADRecreation&Parks 280.00 CLA DRec&Parks
7/30/09 1025 US Bank C Smart & Final 956.12 Smart & Final
7/31/09 1025 US Bank C Smart & Final 510.39 Smart & Final
7/9/09 2000 Accounts Payable AppleOne Empl Serv 99.00 AppleOne ES
7/15/09 2000 Accounts Payable Smart & Final 253.41 Smart & Final
7/9/09 6005 Staffing/Apple One Data Input 99.00 AppleOne ES
7/10/09 6007 Use of Facilities Storage 152.00 Extra Space Storage
7/21/09 6201 Advertising & Promotions Ad 95.00 Culver City Blue Pac
7/12/09 6204 Web Site & e-mail Web Service 30.00 Constant Contact
7/15/09 6207 Facilities For Public Use of school 120.00 LAUSD Board of Officers
7/24/09 6209 General Outreach Sign 133.21 Office Depot
7/14/09 6300 Community Improvement Staging of festival 2,350.00 Venice C of C Carnevale
7/15/09 6300 Community Improvement Supplies 253.41 Smart & Final BBQ 2009
7/24/09 6300 Community Improvement Permit 280.00 CLA DRec&Parks BBQ 2009
7/30/09 6300 Community Improvement Food, supplies 956.12 Smart & Final BBQ 2009
7/31/09 6300 Community Improvement Food, supplies 510.39 Smart & Final BBQ 2009 5,378.76 5,378.76

Exhibit B – Summary of GAO’s analysis of Health Insurance Coverage Bills

From Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 6/14 Report:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf

Key Specifications Related to Health Insurance Coverage

The specifications provided by the tri-committee group would take several steps to increase the number of legal U.S. residents who have health insurance.

Starting in 2013, non-elderly people with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)
who were not already eligible for Medicaid would be made eligible for that program, and the federal
government would pay all of the costs of covering people who became newly eligible. (States would
also be required to maintain their current eligibility levels for Medicaid indefinitely.) In addition, the
federal government would establish insurance exchanges throughout the country and, more importantly,
would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families
with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, also starting in 2013.

Persons
in
family
Poverty
guideline

133%

400%
1 $10,830 $14,403.90 $43,320
2 $14,570 $19,378.10 $58,280
3 $18,310 $24,352.30 $73,240
4 $22,050 $29,326.50 $88,200
5 $25,790 $34,300.70 $103,160

In 2013, the proposal would also establish a requirement for legal residents to obtain insurance and
would impose a financial penalty on most people who did not do so (the size of which would generally
vary with their income).

The proposal would also impose a “play-or-pay” requirement on employers, who would either have to
offer qualifying insurance to their employees and contribute a substantial share toward the premiums, or
pay a fee to the federal government that would generally equal 8 percent of their payroll. Small
employers (those with an annual payroll of less than $250,000) would be exempt from those
requirements. As a rule, full-time employees with a qualifying offer of coverage from their employer
would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges, but an exception to that “firewall” would be
allowed for workers who had to pay more than 11 percent of their income for their employer’s
insurance. In that case, the employers would have to pay an amount equal to the per-worker fee due for
firms subject to the “play-or-pay” penalty. Firms with relatively few employees and relatively low
average wages would also be eligible for tax credits to cover up to half of their contributions toward
health insurance premiums.

The proposal would also establish a “public plan” available only through the insurance exchanges. That
plan would be set up and run by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). On average, it
would pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to physicians and other practitioners (and those rates would not
be determined by the sustainable growth rate formula that is used to set rates for physicians in Medicare
but instead would be increased over time using an index of physicians’ input costs). On average, the
public plan would pay Medicare rates for hospital and other services and supplies on fee schedules, and
negotiated rates for drugs or other items or services not on a fee schedule. Providers would not be
required to participate in the public plan in order to participate in Medicare. (A more detailed summary
of the proposal’s key provisions is attached.)

Likely Effects of the Proposal The proposal would have significant effects on the number of people
who are enrolled in health insurance plans, the sources of that coverage, and the federal budget (as
shown in the attached tables).

Effects on Insurance Coverage. Under current law, the number of non-elderly residents (those under
age 65) with health insurance coverage will grow from about 217 million in 2010 to about 228 million in
2019, according to CBO’s estimates. Over that same period, the number of non-elderly residents without
health insurance at any given point in time will grow from approximately 50 million people to about 54
million people—constituting roughly 19 percent of the non-elderly population. Because the Medicare
program covers nearly all legal residents over the age of 65, our analysis has focused on the effects of
proposals on the non-elderly population.

According to the preliminary analysis conducted by CBO and the JCT staff, once the proposed changes
were fully implemented, the number of uninsured people would decline by 35 million to 37 million
relative to our projections under current law—leaving about 16 million to 17 million non-elderly
residents uninsured.,,,

Components of the Coverage Estimates. Reflecting those calculations, the share of the non-elderly
population that is insured would increase from about 81 percent today to about 94 percent under the
proposal, CBO estimates. The 16 million to 17 million people remaining uninsured include several
million people who would be eligible for Medicaid but who would not enroll in that program. The ranks
of the uninsured also include unauthorized immigrants; all together, insured and uninsured unauthorized
immigrants make up about 5 percent of the total non-elderly population in our estimates. With
unauthorized immigrants excluded from the calculation, nearly 97 percent of legal non-elderly residents
are projected to have insurance under the proposal.

Another significant feature of the insurance exchanges is that they would include a public plan that
largely pays Medicare-based rates for medical goods and services. CBO estimates that the premiums for
that plan would generally be lower than the premiums of the private plans against which it would be
competing.

Because all plans offered in the exchanges would vary their premiums to reflect the costs incurred in
each area, the difference in premiums between private plans and the public plan would vary
geographically—but on average the public plan would be about 10 percent cheaper than a typical private
plan offered in the exchanges. That difference in premiums is itself the net effect of differences in the
major factors that affect all insurance plans’ premiums, including their payment rates to providers, their
administrative costs, the degree of benefit management they apply to control spending, and the pool of
enrollees they attract (the effects of which would be partly offset by the risk-adjustment provisions
described above).

Enrollment in the public plan would also depend on the number of providers who chose to participate in
it. Providers would not be required to participate in the public plan in order to participate in Medicare,
and CBO assumed that some providers would elect not to participate in the public plan because its
payment rates would be lower, on average, than private rates. Even so, CBO’s judgment is that a
substantial number of providers would elect to participate in the public plan, in part because they would
expect a plan run by HHS to attract substantial enrollment. Taking into account both the access to
providers in the public plan and the relative premiums its enrollees would pay, CBO estimates that
roughly one-third of the people obtaining subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges would
be enrolled in the public plan—so enrollment in that plan would be about 9 million or 10 million once
the proposal was fully implemented. Given all of the factors in play, however, that estimate is subject to
an unusually high degree of uncertainty.

A Summary of the Specifications for Health Insurance Coverage
Provided by the House Tri-Committee Group
July 14, 2009

• The proposal’s major provisions—including the establishment of an individual mandate to obtain
insurance, an expansion of eligibility for the Medicaid program, and the creation of new insurance
exchanges through which certain people could purchase subsidized coverage—would be implemented
beginning in 2013.

• All legal residents would be required to enroll in a health insurance plan meeting certain minimum
standards or face a tax penalty (described below). Individuals not required to file a tax return would be
exempt from the penalty; exemptions for hardship and other reasons would be determined by a new and
independent federal agency overseeing the health insurance exchanges (also described below).

• The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would
equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt
interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold. The amount of the penalty could not
exceed the national average premium for plans offered in the exchanges.

• New health insurance policies sold in the individual and group insurance markets would be subject to
several requirements regarding their availability and benefits. Insurers would be required to issue policies to
all applicants and could not limit coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions. In addition,
premiums for a given plan could not vary because of enrollees’ health but could vary because of their age by a
factor of two (under a system known as adjusted community rating). Individual policies that were purchased
before 2013 and maintained continuously thereafter would be “grandfathered,” meaning that they would not
have to conform to the new rules but would still fulfill the individual mandate. Existing group policies would
have to conform to the new rules by 2017.
• In order to fulfill the individual mandate, policies that were not grandfathered would have to cover a
broadly specified minimum benefit package (which was assumed to have the same scope of benefits as
seen in a typical employer-sponsored plan) and would have to have a minimum actuarial value of 70 percent
and a limit on out-of-pocket costs no greater than $5,000 for individual coverage and $10,000 for family
coverage. (A health insurance plan’s actuarial value reflects the share of costs for covered services paid by
the plan.) After 2013, the maximum levels of those out-of-pocket caps would be indexed to general inflation.

• The proposal would establish a national exchange through which certain individuals and employers
could purchase health insurance; states could also opt to operate their own exchanges (either one per state
or one covering several states). All insurance plans sold through an exchange would be required to cover the
“basic” benefit package described above. “Enhanced” plans would have an actuarial value of 85 percent, and
“premium” plans would have an actuarial value of 95 percent.

• Except as specified below, individuals and families who enroll in exchange plans and have income
between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) would be eligible for premium
subsidies and cost-sharing subsidies (see table below). Federal premium subsidies in a given area would
be tied to the average premium of the three lowest-cost plans providing basic coverage in the exchange in that
area. The subsidies would limit an enrollee’s contribution to a percentage of income ranging from 1.5 percent
to 11.0 percent (see table); those caps would not be indexed over time. The federal government would fully
fund cost-sharing subsidies, which would increase the actuarial value of enrollees’ coverage to specified tiers
based on income.

Subsidy
Tier Start of Tier End of Tier
Actuarial
Value of
Coverage
in Tier Income
Relative
to the
FPL Premium
Cap as
Share of
Income Income
Relative
to the
FPL Premium
Cap as
Share of
Income
1 133 1.5 150 3 97
2 150 3 200 5 93
3 200 5 250 7 85
4 250 7 300 9 78
5 300 9 350 10 72
6 350 10 400 11 70

• Eligibility for subsidies would be determined on the basis of adjusted gross income (modified to include
tax-exempt interest and certain other types of income). Participants would have to provide information from
their prior-year tax return during a fall open-enrollment period for coverage during the next calendar year (for
example, tax return data on income received in 2011 would be provided when applying in the fall of 2012 for
subsidies to be received in 2013). Each exchange would be given authority to obtain such information about
taxpayers from the Internal Revenue Service as necessary to verify the information provided on income from
the prior year. Individuals who did not qualify for a subsidy on the basis of their prior-year income would be
allowed to apply for a subsidy on the basis of specified changes in their circumstances. Individuals receiving
subsidies would be required to report changes in income and family composition during the year and, if
changes occurred, would have their eligibility redetermined.

• People not enrolled in other coverage would be allowed to purchase insurance in an exchange at their
own expense. Employers meeting specified size requirements would also be allowed to let their workers
choose any of the plans available in the exchange (in which case, the workers would not receive subsidies via
the exchange but would be subsidized by the tax exclusion for employment-based policies that exists under
current law).

• A “public plan,” run by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be offered through the
exchanges. That plan would pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent for physicians and other practitioners (and
those rates would not be determined by the sustainable growth rate formula used in Medicare but instead were
assumed to grow with the Medicare economic index); Medicare rates for hospitals and other services and
supplies that are on fee schedules; and negotiated rates for drugs and other items and services that are not on
a fee schedule. Medicare providers would not be required to participate in the public plan.

• Eligibility for the Medicaid program would be expanded to all non-elderly individuals and families with
income at or below 133 percent of the FPL. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the costs of
newly eligible enrollees. States would be required to maintain their current eligibility levels for existing groups
indefinitely. The federal government would fully subsidize the cost for some parents and childless adults who
are currently covered by Medicaid under existing waivers that expand coverage. People eligible for Medicaid
could not receive subsidies via an exchange.

• Newborns who would otherwise be uninsured would be automatically enrolled in Medicaid for 60 days
(with the federal government paying 100 percent of their costs during that period), at which point there would
be a determination of their eligibility for Medicaid or for subsidies provided through an exchange.

• Medicaid payment rates for primary care services would be increased to 80 percent of Medicare rates
in 2010, 90 percent in 2011, and 100 percent beginning in 2012. The federal government would pay 100
percent of the cost of those increases.

• There would be a maintenance-of-effort requirement for the Children’s Health Insurance Program
through 2013, at which point the program would be terminated.

• Firms with an annual employee payroll above $250,000 would be subject to a “play-orpay”
requirement. Employers could “play” by offering coverage that meets the minimum benefit standards
described above and making a minimum contribution toward the premiums (72.5 percent for individual
premiums and 65 percent for family premiums). Firms that do not meet those requirements would be subject to
a payroll tax, with the rate depending on their annual payroll, as follows: 2 percent, for firms with a payroll
between $250,000 and $300,000; 4 percent, for firms with a payroll between $300,000 and $350,000; 6
percent, for firms with a payroll between $350,000 and $400,000; and 8 percent, for firms with a payroll above
$400,000. Employers could choose to “play” for full-time employees and “pay” for part-time employees and
could also make separate 4 elections for separate lines of business. Employers offering coverage would also
be required to automatically enroll workers in single coverage.

• In 2013, full-time employees with an offer of employer-sponsored insurance would not be permitted to
receive subsidies via an exchange (under an approach known as a “firewall”). Thereafter, those
employees could receive the subsidies only if their contribution for that coverage was deemed unaffordable—
which would be defined as exceeding 11 percent of their income. Part-time employees could receive the
subsidies with no restrictions. Beginning in 2014, employers offering coverage would be required to pay the
exchange a percentage of their average payroll per worker for each employee obtaining coverage with the
exchange. The percentage would be the same one that applied if the firm was subject to the play-or-pay
penalty (and thus would vary with the firm’s total payroll, as described above).

• A tax credit for small employers would be available. It would be permanent, not advanceable or
refundable, and would phase out as employers’ size and average wages increased. The smallest firms with
average wages below $20,000 would receive a credit equal to 50 percent of the employer’s share of
premiums. The credit would phase out for employers with between 10 and 25 employees and average wages
between $20,000 and $40,000 and would not be available for workers with wages above $80,000; those wage
amounts would be indexed to the consumer price index.

Exhibit C – HVOC Research Findings

Recommendation for a Pilot Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program

Note: These research findings have not been endorsed by the Venice Neighborhood Council Board and are not the recommendation of the Board.

The Committee has examined the experiences of other communities which have established programs and sites to offer those living in vehicles with the opportunity to park overnight off-street while receiving various services to assist them transition to affordable housing.

From these reviews, from discussions with program operators in Santa Barbara, CA and Eugene, OR, and study of Venice’s and CD 11’s specific conditions and layout, the Committee recommends that the City of Los Angeles establish a program, funded by the City, County and possibly private charitable sources, and operated by a non-profit social service provider, to provide off-street sites and services to assist vehicular dwellers, on a voluntary basis, find affordable housing.

The program would have the following outline:

1. The City would adopt conditional use permit language (recommended language below) to allow the permitting of public or private lots as transition sites per the proposed attached language. The sites would be at least 300 feet from inhabited residences, exempted from LAMC 85.02, no more than three vehicles would allowed on a site at one time, and participants would be restricted to three month stays and must be of very low income status. (Examples of possible sites are below.) Other provisions are contained in the attached proposed permit language to protect the neighborhoods in which the sites are located.
2. The City would develop and release a request for proposals for non-profit social service agencies to submit proposals to operate a vehicle-to-housing transition program (the service provider). The service provider would recruit vehicle dwellers to participate in the program, provide services required by the participants to facilitate placement in affordable housing, and supervise the sites and assure they are operated in a safe and healthy manner.
3. The service provider would be delegated by the City as the “first responder” in the event the City (DOT, Council Office or LAPD) is notified that someone is living in a vehicle on City streets in violation of LAMC 85.02 (ban on using vehicles as living quarters on public streets or parking lots) and/or 80.73.2 (ban on stays of more than 72 hours). The service provider will notify the vehicle dweller that living in vehicles is prohibited by City ordinance and that they will be cited for violation of 85.02 and/or 80.73.2. The service provider shall offer them overnight accommodations on a permitted parking lot, subject to availability, if they are judged to be very low income, agree to program guidelines and to participate in the transition program to place them in affordable housing. If they are not very low income and/or have no interest in finding housing, the service provider will direct them to permitted camping locations in the County of Los Angeles. If they fail to move their vehicles they will be subject to citation by the police and/or DOT.
4. The program would have the following guidelines:

Eligibility
a. Anyone, individuals or families, living in a motor vehicle (car/truck/van/recreational vehicle) which can be moved to and from the site by its own power, and who is judged to be very low income by a standard set by the Los Angeles Housing Department, is eligible.
b. Only those who have been accepted into the transition program by the service provider may stay on the permitted lot(s) overnight. All others will be cited for trespassing, and towed away if necessary.
c. Participant(s) must sign a contract with the service provider agreeing to relocate to permanent housing, if such housing is affordable to the participant and located within 10 miles of the transition site.
d. Anyone under age eighteen must be accompanied by and supervised by an adult.
e. The vehicle must have current a California license and insurance.
f. Dogs and other pets are forbidden (other than an assistance dog, such as a Seeing Eye dog).
Hours and Length of Stay
a. Vehicles are allowed on the sites overnight only (hours may differ as the lots may have other uses in the early evening or early morning).
b. Individuals and their vehicles are allowed to use the site overnight for a period of three months provided they abide by all program rules.
Support Services/Clean Up
a. Portable toilet(s) and trash bags will be provided by the service provided on-site. Overnight sleepers must use the portable toilet(s) provided or the sanitation system installed on their vehicle. The service provider will also make available shower facilities within a reasonable driving distance of the site.
b. Participants must dispose of human waste which accumulates in their vehicle’s tank at proper disposal sites.
c. Participants are responsible for keeping their space clean and helping to keep the entire site clean.
Behavior
a. No violent or aggressive behavior, physical or verbal abuse, vandalism, panhandling, gambling or offensive behavior is allowed.
b. No use or brandishing of weapons or carrying of firearms on the site.
c. No consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs or open containers of alcoholic beverages allowed on-site.

d. No loud noises or music.
e. Disputes between participants to be immediately brought to the attention of the service provider for resolution.
f. No children to be left unattended in a vehicle or on the site.
Sites
a. Vehicles are allowed only in prescribed locations on the site.
b. Vehicles and possessions are to be kept within the boundary lines of individual spaces.
c. No tents or temporary structures are to be erected on the site.
d. No cooking devices or open fires allowed on site other than those originally installed by manufacturers in vehicles.
f. No pets permitted on site.
g. Any vehicle left unattended for 48 hours will considered abandoned and the process will be started to have it towed away.
h. Program participants are responsible for their guests abiding by program rules. Guests must leave the site by 9 PM.
i. Violation of any of these rules can lead to termination from the program and loss of the right to use the site for overnight parking.
j. As multiple sites are developed, there should be separate sites for single individuals, women, and families.

Recommended Conditional Use Permit SEC. 12.24. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND OTHER SIMILAR QUASI-JUDICIAL APPROVALS.

W. Authority of the Zoning Administrator for Conditional Uses/Initial Decision. The following uses and activities may be permitted in any zone, unless restricted to certain zones or locations, if approved by the Zoning Administrator as the initial decision-maker or the Area Planning Commission as the appellate body. The procedures for reviewing applications for these uses shall be those in Subsections B. through Q. in addition to those set out below.

( ) Transitional Vehicular Residency on Parking Lots. Notwithstanding Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 85.02, the use of public parking lots and/or privately-held parking lots overnight as transition sites, with funded services providing for transition to affordable housing, for individuals living in their vehicles, limited to three (3) vehicles or less, with stays of less than three months per year, where the vehicles will be parked at least 300 feet from any inhabited dwelling(s) located on an adjoining or nearby parcel, and the vehicle owner(s)/occupants are determined to be very low income as determined by the transition service provider or the Los Angeles Housing Department, in the CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, CM, MR1, MR2, M1, M2, M3, P, and PF Zones, provided that:

(a) Findings. In addition to the findings otherwise required by this section, the Zoning Administrator shall make all of the following findings:
(1) that the parking lot meets all the requirements of the Los Angeles Municipal Code for lighting, landscaping, filtration of surface water runoff, and walls blocking view from residential areas into lot;
(2) that the proposed use will not detrimentally affect nearby residentially and/or commercially zoned communities in the area of the City involved, after giving consideration to the distance of the proposed use from residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds and parks, and other similar uses (this does not prohibit a church parking lot from being permitted as a transition site under this section);
(4) that the service provider retained by the City to operate the transition service agrees to provide overnight:
(a) toilet facilities on-site and access to a shower to the occupants of the vehicles parking on the parking lot;
(b) sanitary disposal of any human waste and/or trash which may be generated by the inhabitants of the subject vehicles;
(c) emergency telephone number, which is answered by a person and not voice mail, prominently displayed on-site for overnight response;
(d) that no guests or visitors are allowed after 9 PM. and agrees to prohibit amplified music, use of electric generators and the sale or use of illicit drugs and alcohol on-site.

Recommendations to Promote Affordable Housing

The provision of new affordable housing in Venice has been a contentious issue for many years, with claims that the community must provide additional low-income, transitional and permanent supportive housing for the many homeless individuals who dwell on our streets, alleys and parks, with counter claims that Venice already carries more than its fair share of the burden and that proposed solutions, such as the conversion of City parking lots to affordable housing, would hamper the community’s ability to address its chronic parking shortage and place these facilities too close to residences for comfort.

As directed by its mission statement, the Committee met with a wide range of experts, service providers and government officials familiar with these issues (a full list is provided in the Appendix).

One of the most significant facts to emerge is that Venice is, indeed, host to the largest concentration of affordable housing in Council District (CD) 11. Venice proper has 23.3% of all affordable units in CD 11 while its population is only 13.5% of CD 11.*

This does not suggest more affordable housing is not needed in Venice or throughout CD 11, or indeed, the City, County and Nation. The Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA) reports that in 2007 the City of Los Angeles had 40,144 and the County of Los Angeles had over 68,000 homeless individuals on any given night. St. Joseph Center reports that the 2007 Homeless Count conducted by LAHSA found about 1,000 homeless in our community.

Further, the Venice Community Housing Corporation reports that it has not built a new project in Venice since 1998, and the Los Angeles Housing Department reports that no new projects are funded or under construction anywhere in CD 11, largely due to the high cost of land on the Westside.

After many hours of meetings with the various experts, the Committee has learned the most effective approach to serving the homeless is the “Housing First” model, now employed in New York City, Project 50 in Downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica and elsewhere in the Nation. This model focuses on that segment of the homeless population which is most at risk of dying on the street, providing housing first, with various services and support to follow. Thus, the most pressing need in Venice and CD 11 is for permanent supportive housing for these individuals. This is the group which is addressed by St. Joseph’s chronic homeless intervention program, which the Committee has recommended for implementation.
________________________ *Without including the 179 affordable units in new developments in Marina Pointe, there are 489 affordable units in the Venice zip code of 90291. The total in CD 11 is 2102. (Source: Los Angeles Housing Department.) The total population of CD 11 is: 280,500 ±; the population of Venice is: 38,000 ±. Adding in the units in the Marina Pointe area, Venice has more than twice as many affordable units as its percentage of CD 11’s population.

While that program plans to house these most at-risk individuals with the use of supplementary Section 8 vouchers (i.e., those in addition to the vouchers it currently receives) utilizing a “scattered site” model, the better solution is the development of permanent supportive housing locally by purchase or master lease of existing housing, adaptive reuse of existing structures or construction of new housing. This would allow supportive service providers to office on-site and assist several or many clients at the same location.

While this permanent supportive housing does not have to be located in Venice proper, it would be more effective if it is located on the Westside. Service providers have found it difficult to entice the chronically homeless – those most at risk – to locations far removed from where they have been homeless for many years.

This has led the Committee to recommend that the City accept that it must factor in the high cost of land and provide greater subsidies for areas of the City with high land costs where there are significant concentrations of homeless individuals, such as Venice, to allow the purchase of sites in, or adjacent to, these areas.

On the other hand, the Committee recognizes that beach-adjacent sites are less financially-feasible in most instances and that in-land sites within several miles of the beach, or indeed several miles in-land from Venice, could more effectively meet these needs. This conclusion is based on the experiences of the Ocean Park Community Center, which has developed permanent supportive housing in-land of Santa Monica, some as far east as La Brea Boulevard, and successfully placed homeless individuals from Santa Monica’s homeless population in these units.

As stated above, to be able to acquire or develop affordable housing in Venice, there are only two alternatives: either the City must fund Westside projects at a higher cost per unit, or, the City must allow more units to be built per acre to amortize the cost of the land.

With little funding available, it appears the best way to create more affordable housing now is through limited instances of either creative zoning ordinances and/or variances to allow more units per acre. This would require exemptions from the Venice Specific Plan (VSP) and City code for just these projects.

Thus, only for the purpose of construction or adaptive reuse to create permanent supportive housing or transitional housing for chronic homeless individuals, the Committee supports zoning exemptions to increase the number of units per acre (while maintaining height limits) beyond City code and the Venice Specific Plan, if the units created are vested in perpetuity as very low income by the project developer, whether publicly or privately developed, and located in commercial or manufacturing zones only. In one scenario, this could result in smaller 400 sq. ft. units such as those recently developed in Santa Monica on Olympic Boulevard.

The Committee also recommends that the VNC establish a Committee on Affordable Housing to promote the development of affordable housing. The Committee recommends that the new Affordable Housing Committee provide a public forum to discuss and develop policy and that it consider the following incentives:

• voluntary inclusionary zoning to allow an additional small affordable unit(s) (400 to 600 sq. ft.) per lot where lot size is adequate (i.e., those which now are allowed two or more units by right).
• selective re-zoning along major thorough-fares to allow owners the ability to build more and smaller units per acre.
• Historical Preservation variances that create incentives to retain existing non-conforming affordable housing stock. (However, the Committee does not support the legalization of garage conversions unless code-required parking is provided.)

The City should also consider allowing the reduction – but not elimination – of required care-provider staff parking and occupant parking for facilities which house the previously homeless, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) projects, and very low to low income projects. For example, instead of the current requirement of one parking space per unit in an SRO project, the City might only require .5 spaces per unit, recognizing that individuals at this income level frequently do not have automobiles.

Specifically, the Committee would support creating a new Single Room Occupancy project in Venice to house the most critically at risk homeless as soon as possible. This suggests either master leasing or purchasing an existing structure as opposed to new development.

To this end, the Committee has looked at several sites and recommends the sites below as examples of appropriate sites which should be given further consideration by the VNC, the Council Office, and LAHD:

585 E. Venice Boulevard (former Samy’s Camera), Zoning: M1-1

4096 South Glencoe, Zoning: CM-2D (storage use)

4230 S. Del Rey Avenue, Zoning: CM-2D (storage use)

These sites already have existing structures that we are told are adaptable to housing by installing partitions and plumbing inside the buildings.

The 18,000 sq. ft. Samy’s Camera building could be subdivided to create approximately 20 to 60 units of permanent supportive housing (a zone change would be required from M to C or R). The 24,400 sq. ft. Glencoe structure would accommodate approximately 30 to 70 units and the site on Del Rey would provide 16 to 50 units. The number of units will be limited by the parking which is ultimately required by City code and Venice Specific Plan. In this regard, a new affordable housing committee might consider a relaxation in the required parking for these projects, but not the elimination of these requirements.

While we were impressed by a transitional housing facility in Santa Monica operated by the Ocean Park Community Center which is situated in a multifamily residential neighborhood, we nonetheless believe that the residents of Venice (and other areas) are best served when residential neighborhoods are protected by the siting of new homeless-serving facilities in commercial or manufacturing areas. Since Venice and nearby areas such as Del Rey still have commercial and commercial/manufacturing zoned areas, we encourage the City to focus on acquiring property in these areas now while real estate prices are relatively depressed.

The Committee does not favor the use of existing City parking lots in Venice for new affordable housing due the need for these lots to eventually be re-developed to provide more parking to address Venice’s chronic parking shortage.

Parking Lots in CD11 for Possible Use as Transition Sites

Location Notes
Venice
Ross Dress for Less Large lot behind store. Potentially could be leased by the City for overnight use.
Del Rey, between Washington and Maxella Much commercial space with large parking lots on east side of Del Rey. Isolated from residential and retail commercial properties.
Marina
Fiji Way west of Lincoln County lots on state property across from Fisherman’s Village. Limited stay low income RV lots. Sheriff across the street.
Playa del Rey
East of Vista del Mar on Airport land Where houses have been removed, there are streets and underground services in place. Convert to pads. Could place this adjacent to Hyperion plant near existing RV campgrounds.
West of Vista del Mar, Dockweiler Beach Parking Lot #3 at tower #49 This is the location of the Robin Richards/Theresa Skinner proposal. Services in place.
Westchester Parkway
Buffer zone between Westchester Parkway and Lincoln Blvd Airport land with removed housing has existing streets and underground services in place.
East of Airport
Off 96th Street Land with city purchased vacant housing and parking lots adjacent.
Jenny and Manchester Northeast corner lot.
Arbor Vita and Bellanca Southeast corner lot.
Arbor Vita and 93rd Street Much housing taken out of use by city. Potential parking with services.
Westchester
Westchester at Lincoln Blvd Park has lots as does the land adjacent to the municipal buildings. Services available.
Playa Vista
East of Lincoln beyond present development Large amount of flat vacant land in preparation for succeeding phases. May be vacant for years.
Marina Freeway
Along Culver Blvd & between the 91 Freeway State property unused, screened. RV storage lot exists near Lincoln.

Centinela and Rose
East side of Centinela Ocean View Farms Park. Big, isolated lot with bathrooms nearby.
Sawtelle south of Exposition
405 adjacent Lot on east side of Sawtelle below 405.
Exposition east of Sawtelle
South side of Exposition between Sawtelle and Sepulveda Post Office has a large lot. West Los Angeles City Building had a huge parking lot. Possible night use.
Heading north on Sepulveda from Exposition
Between Ohio and Wilshire On west side of Sepulveda there is a Salvation Army Center with lot, State property alongside the roadway. On east side is a Park. Area has good bus transit connections.
North of Wilshire At Constitution, west side of Sepulveda at Robinson Stadium: big parking lot. Getty feeder lot. UCLA Mobile Clinics are parked there; isolated with restrooms nearby. VA adjacent for services.
Veterans Administration
West of 405 Many lots, much service, security.
Federal south of Wilshire
On east side of Federal US Army Reserve Center and National Guard lots. Large parking area available for night use.
Corinth and Iowa Area
Two situations stand out in this area The City building in which Councilman Bill Rosendahl has an office has much parking including a section that is walled off from view and adjacent to the building making it almost private. The Felicia Mahood Senior Center has a lot behind it. Much potential here.
Pacific Palisades
Above Sunset on Temescal Canyon Road Park with lots and services.
Above Sunset on Los Liones Dr Near the trailhead there are several parking lots available for night parking.

Minority Report
VNC AdHoc Committee on Homeless and Vehicular Living
Carolyn Rios, Co-Chair

As Co-Chair of the VNC AdHoc Committee on Homeless and Vehicular Living, I am submitting a minority report. On the whole the committee worked very hard, was well-organized, and there was a reasonable effort at compromise by most people. Mark Ryavac is to be especially commended for his ability to do extra research, his success at getting experts and authorities to educate us, and his willingness to do the yeoman’s work of writing the reports.

There are a few areas to which I strongly object. The Recommendation for a Pilot Vehicle-to-Housing Transition Program has some extreme restrictions, limiting the usefulness of this program. The restriction that RV Sites be 300 feet from residences, plus only accommodate 3 vehicles means that there would only be 6, yes, only SIX, legal sites in Venice. This is no solution.

A well-run permitted monitored RV program does not need this kind of distance. If my neighbors are noisy, I call the police, If they are dealing drugs etc. We will know exactly who is parking where, and permits can be instantly revoked. There will be no noise, no drunkenness, no human feces. We can expect only people who are willing to be good neighbors and comply with expected behaviors of any neighbor. A well run overnight parking permit does not need to distance itself from playgrounds or churches that are totally unused at those hours.

If the Program is run by a social service agency with a well monitored program there is no need for strict distance limitations. A well-monitored programs means there are specific permits given to specific people who are registered and working with the social service agency. A well- monitored program has toilets provided on site and daily cleanup. A well monitored program means there will not be noise or drunkenness or public health concerns. A well monitored program will work with the Police. A well-monitored program has a 24 hour “first Responder” on call. Complaints will be dealt with immediately. A well monitored program will use renewable permits. Professionals will decide how the resident is advancing. Some residents might need 6 – 9 months.

I recommend rescinding some of these restrictions from the RV Parking Sites Program.

Exhibit D – LUPC Staff Reports

Land Use and Planning Committee Report to VNC Board of Officers
07/22/2009
Case Number: APCW-2008-4349-SPE-CUB-CU-ZV-CDP-SPP-MEL

Address of Project: 303, 307, 309 Ocean Front Walk

Size of Parcel: 8,208 square feet

Allowable FAR and
Size of Project: 8,202 square feet x 1.5 = 12,303 square feet

Proposed FAR and
Size of Project: 8,202 square feet x 2.48 = 21,950 square feet

Subterranean Area: 7,100 square feet

Permitted Building Height: 30’-0” height due to Flat Roof – the submitted design does not meet the Varied Roof Line definition which would permit a 35’-0” height Limit. A Varied Roof Line would require a minimum of 5’-3” roof curvature to the centerline of the building to be greater that 2:12 slope. The current design has a 2’ curvature with a roof slope of less than 1:12 therefore there is a 30’-0” height limit.

Proposed Building Height: Clarification required from Hearing Examiner. 41’-0” As measured from Ocean Front Walk (Front Yard) pursuant to section VCZSP Section B. Height 3 For all other lots, height shall be measured from the centerline of the street or alley or walk adjacent to the front lot line measured from the projection of the midpoint of the lot frontage, except where more than one building is being constructed on that lot, height for each building shall be measured from the projection of the midpoint of each building. For through lots, height shall be measured from the centerline of whichever adjacent street is the lowest in elevation. In any case involving a Grand Canal Lot, height shall be measured from the elevation of the Grand Canal Esplanade sidewalk.

Allowable Density: 16 guest rooms with CUP
Proposed Density: 30 guest rooms with CUP

Required Parking: The Applicant has not calculated the required parking correctly. No Beach Impact Zone parking has been provided, and the ground floor use parking was calculated incorrectly.

Parking Provided: Discrepancy – 45 per hearing notice – The drive aisle width at 20 feet does not comply with minimum code standards. See LA CITY Document No. P/ZC 2002-001, and Section 12.21A.5.a.1

Venice Subarea: North Venice

Zone: C1-1

Permit Application Date:
Date of Planning Report: TBA
Date of End of Appeal Period: TBA
Planning Report Prepared by: TBA

Applicant: Nathan Ahdoot, Oceanside Development LLC
Address: 11911 San Vicente Blvd, #225 Los Angeles, California 90049
Representative: Nathan Ahdoot
Contact Information: 310.985.3335, ahdoot1@sbcglobal.net
Date(s) heard by LUPC: June 2008, February 2009, June 2009

Hearing Examiner Date: July 27, 2009

WLA Area Planning To be determined
Commission Dates:

LUPC MOTION: Motion that LUPC recommends that the VNC Board of Officers recommend denial of this project as presented. Motion made by John Reed, seconded by Jed Pauker, Vote 6 for, 0 against, 1 abstention:
STAFF REPORT
Project Description per City of LA Notice of Hearing:
Demolition of existing structures and improvements and the construction of a three-story approximately 21,950 square foot, hotel with 30 guest rooms. The proposed hotel would have a 1,877 square foot restaurant (including an outdoor dining are) serving full line of alcoholic beverages. The project will provide 45 parking spaces in a one level subterranean parking garage utilizing mechanized auto lifts. The proposed project is located on an 8,202 square foot site classified in the C1-1 Zone and also located with the boundaries of the North Venice Subarea of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan.

NOTE: THE PLANS AS SUBMITTED REFLECTS A FOUR STORY PROJECT NOT A THREE STORY PROJECT

Section of Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan governing this particular site and application:
Pages 5, 10, 17 and 18, Parking pages 25, 26 and 27.

Summary of Arguments Against this Project/Issue:
The applicant has not submitted plans which demonstrate compliance with the VCZSP and/or has failed to ask for relief or exceptions to the VCZSP for a parking variance for a reduction in parking and a height variance for an increase in height.

Summary of Arguments For this Project/Issue: None can be made until a corrected application is filed.

Summary of Public Comment: The applicant has not presented the current design to the community.

Summary of Findings by LUPC: The applicant has presented various hotel projects to the LUPC Board – ranging from 19 to 36 rooms with both 3 and 4 story schemes. Each time the applicant has been requested by the LUPC to provide plans which demonstrate compliance with the VCZSP or provide adequate justifications for relief. The applicant has been further advised to address the operations of the hotel, parking and vehicular circulation. The Board also informed the applicant that the proposed hotel use seemed appropriate for the location but that an increase in FAR to 2.5: 1 and 4 story scheme would not be supported. To date the LUPC has not received plans which are consistent with prior LUPC recommendations.

Authors of Report: John Reed

Date: July 22, 2009

Draft of Community Impact Statement: The Venice Neighborhood Council opposes issuance of a Coastal Development Permit, Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan Exception, Zone Variance for a FAR increase, density increase and CUB for the sale of onsite alcohol beverages for the following reasons: the applicant has failed to address the adverse impact of the project relating to parking, vehicular circulation, 40 foot building height, 2.5 FAR, density increase, hotel operations including deliveries.

Approximate Hours Spent on this Project by LUPC Staff: 22

Location(s)

Attachment	Size
August 18, 2009 Board Meeting Agenda	904.5 KB

Calendar
2601 reads