June 11, 2018
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Councilmember Mike Bonin
Council District 11
200 N. Spring Street #475
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Use
of MTA Bus Facility at 100 E. Sunset Ave. in Venice for Homeless Shelter
Dear Councilmember Bonin:
I represent
the Venice Stakeholders Association, a non-profit organization committed to
civic improvement in the Venice neighborhood of Los Angeles. We understand that your office is favoring
the construction of a temporary homeless shelter facility known as “Bridge
Housing” at the 3-acre lot at 100 E. Sunset Ave. between Pacific Avenue and
Main Street, which is presently the site of a Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA) bus lot. The stated purpose of the
“Bridge Housing” proposal is to house formerly homeless individuals and provide
them with various services.
VSA does
not categorically oppose the temporary use of the MTA bus yard as a stop-gap
shelter for homeless persons. Such a
facility may be appropriate if it truly does replace existing Venice encampments
and prevents their re-establishment in the future. However, with that said, the concerns of
Venice residents – and especially those who live closest to the proposed site –
must be heard and addressed, and in its haste to put a shelter facility at the MTA
site the City should not shortcut the pertinent laws pertaining to development
and changes in land use which have long protected these residents.
Our initial
review of the project as described by your office makes it clear that the
project qualifies as “development” within the Coastal Zone and thus requires
the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit by both the City and the
California Coastal Commission. In
addition, because the project may have a significant impact on the environment
– and especially on matters such as traffic, parking, public safety, noise and
aesthetics – a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to evaluate these
potential impacts. Finally, we question
whether the M1 zoning of the site allows a homeless shelter on land not
presently owned or leased by the City.
Proposed Shelter
Requires a Coastal Development Permit.
A Coastal
Development Permit must be obtained for any “development” within the Coastal
Zone, which includes Venice Beach. California Public Resources Code section 30106 broadly
defines “development” as including, among other things, “on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid
material or structure.” Courts have held
that all manner of structures, no matter how small or unobtrusive, constitute
“development” for purposes of the Coastal Act. See Gualala Festivals
Committee v. California Coastal Com'n (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 60, 67;Georgia–Pacific Corp. v. California Coastal
Comm’n. (1982) 132
Cal.App.3d 678 (security fence met definition of “development” in Public
Resources Code section 30106 because it “involve[d] the ‘erection’ of a
‘structure’ on ‘land,’ or the ‘construction’ of a ‘structure,’ or both.”).
Without
a doubt, the placement of a homeless shelter about 2 blocks (1,000 feet) from the
Venice Beach Recreation Area and the coastline – even a “temporary” one – is “development”
under the Coastal Act. Accordingly a
Coastal Development Permit should have been obtained beforehand. Moreover, because the City does not have a
land use plan (LUP) certified by the Coastal Commission, development in this
zone requires a Coastal Development Permit from both the City and the
Coastal Commission.
Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts
Require Preparation of an EIR.
Because the
shelter project may have potentially significant impacts on the environment, the
City of Los Angeles and the California Coastal Commission are obligated to
comply with CEQA before implementing the project. Moreover, since it is highly unlikely that mitigation
measures can be imposed which would fully mitigate these potentially
significant impacts, even with mitigation there will still be a “fair argument”
that the project may cause a significant impact on the environment. So that Venice residents are fully informed
about the scope of the potential impacts, so that they can comment on the
analysis, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared. (See Public Resources
Code section 21080, 21100; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.)
The Council
Office states on its website (https://11thdistrict.com/a-bridge-home/faq/)
that the facility will be substantial in size and scope, and operating at all
hours of the day and night.
Unlike emergency shelters, bridge
housing will be open to its residents 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. The
facilities will accommodate pets, provide sufficient storage for personal
belongings, and allow families and circles of friends to remain together.
Bridge housing will include restrooms, showers, food, climate-controlled
accommodations, storage and on-site, 24-hour security.
Through funding from Los Angeles
County, bridge housing will provide onsite social wrap-around services, case
management, and social workers to help find and prepare to transition into
long-term housing for residents. The
goal of the program is to help facilitate the transition of people into housing
swiftly, with an intention of having people stay in the bridge housing for no
more than 90 days at a time.
The stated purpose of
the facility is to replace encampments in the Venice area and elsewhere in
Council District 11 by providing homeless persons with a place to live. However, despite the best intentions of City
politicians and City government, existing encampments in Venice and elsewhere
may continue despite the existence of the facility. Indeed, because the proposed facility would
not be restricted only to the residents of existing encampments, but can be
used by any homeless person requiring shelter, the facility is likely to act as
a magnet for homeless persons throughout the City of Los Angeles and beyond. Further, regardless of its size, there is no
assurance that the facility will be large enough to accommodate all persons
seeking housing or other services.
Instead, it may become a magnet for new encampments in the immediate
vicinity, as would-be users of the facility vie for housing and other services
(perhaps unsuccessfully) and then choose to camp on nearby City streets or on
private property.
In light of this, it is
apparent on its face that the proposed facility may have a significant impact
on the following environmental factors:
(1) Traffic, in this extraordinarily dense
and congested neighborhood, whose narrow streets are shared by residents and the
millions of people who visit Venice Beach each year;
(2) Parking, from persons visiting
the facility or congregating around it, using scarce on-street parking for both
passenger cars and recreational vehicles (RVs) that are regularly used by many homeless
persons for shelter;
(3) Public Safety, as some of the
people seeking services, visiting shelter residents, or simply congregating near
the facility, create public safety hazards such as by littering, releasing sewage
into alleys and storm drains, and in some instances by committing property or
personal crimes, which would especially affect adjacent residential
neighborhoods;
(4) Noise, as the facility’s residents,
staff, other people attracted by the facility, and their vehicles and pets
subject residential neighborhoods to noise impacts, especially late at night
when such activities can disturb sleep; and
(5) Aesthetics, as new encampments attracted
by the facility affect the visual quality of this seaside neighborhood.
These potential impacts
may be disputed, but they all must be evaluated in an EIR.
No Categorical Exemption From CEQA
Applies to This Unusual Facility.
It may be
tempting for City officials to propose the application of a “categorical
exemption” under the City’s CEQA Guidelines due to the location of the facility
and/or its operation by the City or related entities. However, no such exemption applies here. Even if one of the City’s categorical
exemptions might be interpreted creatively to allow for a project of this type,
the scope of the proposed facility, the atypical impacts from congregations of
homeless persons in particular, and the proximity of the facility to a crowded
residential area and a tourist destination visited by millions of people each
year, are each “unusual circumstances” precluding the application of any such
exemption. (See CEQA Guidelines
section 15300.2(c); Lewis v. Seventeenth District Agricultural Association
(3rd Dist. 1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 823.)
Moreover, regardless
of recent case law that has arguably constrained the use of the “unusual
circumstances” exception to categorical exemptions granted under the State
CEQA Guidelines, it must be understood that in this case the shelter project is
subject to the City’s own adopted CEQA Guidelines, which expressly preclude the
use of an exemption when it can be “readily perceived” that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Article III, Section 1 of the City CEQA Guidelines provides (emphasis
added):
The
Secretary for Resources has provided a list of classes of projects which he has
determined do not have a significant effect on the environment and which are therefore
exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The following specific categorical
exemptions within such classes are set forth for use by Lead City Agencies, provided
such categorical exemptions are not used for projects where it can be readily
perceived that such projects may have a significant effect on the environment.
Applying
the above language, it can be “readily perceived” that a large homeless
shelter “may” have a significant effect on the environment under Article
III(1) of the City CEQA Guidelines, and particularly on (a) traffic; (b) parking;
(c) public safety; (d) noise; and (e) aesthetics. If a potential impact can be readily
perceived as to any of these five categories, no categorical
exemption can apply under the City CEQA Guidelines.
Indeed, by using the phrase “readily
perceived” in combination with the term “may,” the City has
effectively set its own threshold for the use of categorical exemptions, which
is more stringent and more protective of the environment than the standard
applied under the statewide CEQA statute and statewide CEQA Guidelines. Neither state law nor the statewide Guidelines pre-empts
the City CEQA Guidelines on this point.
State law does not relieve the City from the obligation to comply with
the City CEQA Guidelines, which are a separate enactment formalized by a
resolution of the City Council adopted in 2002.
(See Council File 02-1507, at https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=02-1507.) Instead, as long as the City CEQA Guidelines
are more restrictive than the state CEQA Guidelines, the City is bound
to follow the City CEQA Guidelines prohibition on the use of categorical
exemptions when it can be “readily perceived” that the project “may” have a
significant impact.
Zoning Does Not Allow Homeless Shelter
Unless City Leases Property From MTA.
The MTA
property at issue is zoned “M1” (Limited Industrial). This zoning classification does not allow a
homeless shelter. (See LAMC
section 12.17.6; see also, definition of “Shelter for the Homeless” at
section 12.03.) We recognize that in
2017, the City Council adopted LAMC section 12.80 (HOMELESS SHELTERS – EMERGENCIES
– CITY OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTY), which states that during a declared “shelter
crisis,” “a shelter for the homeless (as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code)
may be established and operated on property owned or leased by the City of Los
Angeles in any zone as a matter of right without regard to the number of beds
or number of persons served.” However,
as we understand it the MTA bus facility is presently owned not by the City,
but by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is a state-chartered
agency that operates transit throughout Los Angeles County. Unless the City purchases or leases this site
from the MTA prior to the commencement of the project, the “shelter
crisis” waiver of the zoning code set forth in LAMC section 12.80 cannot apply,
and a rezone or variance would be necessary to authorize the project.
Thank you
for considering our input on this proposal.
We trust that you will take our comments into consideration as you
proceed.
Very truly yours,
John A. Henning, Jr.
