Commission Opposes Homeless Facility

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

August 6 -- Responding to a growing outcry, the Social Services Commission Tuesday night narrowly voted to recommend that the City Council turn down a $7 million loan to bankroll a proposed homeless shelter in the Pico Neighborhood, putting the project in jeopardy.

After listening to testimony from 15 opponents in a packed room at the Ken Edwards Center, the commission concluded that the proposed site at Cloverfield Boulevard and Michigan Avenue posed too much of a threat to the neighborhood, endangering nearby residents, schools and businesses.

The 4 to 2 vote -- with two commissioners abstaining because they were too “torn” -- came one week before the council meets to decide whether to loan the money to the Ocean Park Community Center, which must move its shelter near Downtown to make way for the expansion of the City bus yards.

If the City Council follows the recommendation Tuesday, the non-profit social service agency would likely have no option but to kill the project, which would offer 55 transitional beds and social services to more than 200 homeless daily.

“I wouldn’t want (the shelter) in my neighborhood,” said Commissioner Chuck Perliter, igniting an uproar of applause. “My concern is that if OPCC can’t control the current 8,500-square-foot facility, why do they think they can control a 33,000-square-foot facility?" (The parcel is 33,000 square feet but the proposed facility is 22,000)

Perliter, who put the motion to reject the loan on the floor, said the current shelter looks like skid row. Other commissioners expressed similar concerns.

“After they close and say ‘bye bye,’ where do you expect they’re going to go?" Commissioner Eleanor Blumenberg asked. "The project, good and important as it is, just doesn’t belong in this neighborhood.”

The commissioners who supported the project argued that if the loan were turned down, there would be no facility because an alternate site has not been found.

"If there is no other location, then I will have to be very supportive, because I know they will be very conscientious," said Commissioner Samoan Barish. "I wish we all could have been included earlier in the thinking here."

Most commissioners echoed residents' complaints that there was scant notification about the project once the site was chosen and a complete absence of public discussion with neighbors before OPCC decided to go into escrow. (Some of those present at the meeting said they found out about the project the day before.)

John Maceri, the executive director of OPCC, outnumbered in opinion almost 50 to one, admitted that “we did not contact every person in Santa Monica, but it is virtually impossible to do so.”

According to the City staff report, OPCC was authorized by the City Council in November 2002 to “open preliminary discussions” with the property owners and subsequently canvassed 300 addresses, sent out mailers to 1,950 residents and spoke to neighbors, businesses and schools.

“Like it or not, this is what we're up against. We did not choose to relocate,” Maceri said after hearing 30 minutes of uninterrupted criticism from residents. “We have no desire to destroy people’s neighborhoods or quality of life. Our goal is to give people the opportunity not to live like animals on the street.”

Richard Tuttle, a local resident, said the location is “absolutely stupid."

It’s 1,000 feet from 750 high school kids,” he said, referring to Crossroads School. “There will be inevitable problems. Anyone with common sense will realize that. It might be a good idea, but it’s a bad location.”

Also concerned about the safety of those students was Bob Riddle, a representative of Crossroads, who contradicted the claims in the City staff report that his school was contacted about the shelter.

“We as a school, we have not had any chance at all to look at the proposal," Riddle said. "I hope that the decision will be at least delayed.”

Most residents said the facility should remain in Santa Monica, but not at the proposed site.

Catharyn Morea was one resident who disagreed. “I’ll go even further and say it is not a good idea. There is no place for this in Santa Monica," she said. "You’re kidding yourself if you think this is not going to bring a detrimental element into the neighborhood.”

Joy Fulmer questioned the wisdom of spending $7 million. “The project is going to add 35 beds, giving a total of 55 beds. That's 35 extra beds for millions and millions of dollars?

Wes Terry, a member of Citizens for a Safer Santa Monica, which formed in response to the project, said he was speaking “as a parent not as an activist.”

Most of the people in the room are “your friends and neighbors,” not activists, Terry said. He rebuffed the idea that opponents were “overreacting” and approaching the issue with a “boogey man mentality.”

After hearing suggestions to move the shelter to City Hall, the soon-to-be vacated old police station, the Santa Monica Airport and other alternate sites, Tracy Scruggs, a member of the City staff, said 22 other locations were explored.

“There are no other options," Scruggs said. "The project dies if this doesn’t go through.”