SR-213-007 (9)
,
/
, ~f
"
~\
YWISE
Semor ServIces
BO-\RD OF DIRECTORS
p..-e.idoC'n~
GI"A 4. ElLSW(1RTH
5oj'c!.-r'7l~,.-k r.k'f,;; C(1r~~
F[I"'i[ V....~ p,.e~.:.:kr~
l'l'''''' I-' GlE'\'\ E)
",PFX Tl"':::"'1ot~l!\ h~
s.;.;.(..t,1 \:Io.:e P'-€'5ldi.-n;:
JL:DlTH H4.l'<E lE'\ERT
"":"\IT InJu.,;r-'i";': In.c
SCi.""T.;:t""n
J ERn J 1E'I5"-."
"i}.{" R..o\ND lnrrl-.r:;r'OI1
T
I "r":::.-s:'W"-.-r
D4.P'O 0 Ql.rROG~
~;:Clt-;J .MoP'n g,l1'l
1IT'.1Lodi!l~1-" Pa!i-l" rrLS'~'-[
CA,ROlY'I B'';-'--CHER
CI".~ Lc3J~T
THO\.-l-'\SII C->,.'tR;:-1[,-
Bi1"':'ld~ rh;trK'I- C0r~~,,"'r -U1.~.r
--;-08J I C l-'f'lSKl "--"1
\"ht~~dl. S.I~r~ & K"1...i~T
\iORTO-': R COOK
"\~LI"'?(''''' R ( :'flk & ~..'- '~Ilr.....
il.OBERT M G->,.'<RIEL
~J,oh Gah.~It.l Ci' 'n;;;:..or'''u
THH D GL-\Z/:i'.
CO:::'l":..;T'\ r11..f ~ In\-.~ ..~r--o..;.'Tt I~ lOT:'
[O'-l-"."'-':E ~ I-'-\"'E", R" \1"
S-nv,r A.... "'\.-~;;{
....BBy I-'EllW-".RTH
1 AILX1.n..'It=- s...-~u-.t1e... 'rL
L[O"">\Q.}: L-\}ll:LL-\ :~
S.Ult1 \fon',,:1. ~1'I~ri"'l;
~k'-:-I.;:-d ( C''1[q
I<>,',~TTE '.1-\RT[,\
PL"-Ll 'IX.: ,),i~rhu. I~
('....'~[E~ A, rU)TKIl\ '.1"
L-( L:.. vt:r ~tr... P.......il'l-rlo..
Al-\t' P 5Cf-i~;:ID\.P'l
Inre;':nt~J p...~ "-1.mao?... ......~.~r
EDlT H SER-P:'
QOr-.:r-.; -\ SHIELDS
WA,lI hJ'.srh. [^;
RRLCE L T"5C"i
~'e:;"~ "1 Ca:olt II Mdl'3~::'" ~...~ ......
DI'''eLtor E-.r..,,!""'""t.1.5
HUE"" :-jL:l T
E.1:"''':-H''' ~ DITI!Lt.[l'l"
M->,RIA. 0 'IflECH'\WERP,-\
Bu'iJmi;" COfPIJ"."~u CIui 'l"
'Z.-\, W....TT
{f,;-.nnerl.., \1/e-st5Lde inde-r><:rdc:....r
Se-l"rK~" 10 Tl--e El-lt~l.,"
. . .
13Z0 Third Street Promenade
Santa MOnica. California 90401
(2m J94-9871
.
.
;)
1/ I)
I
May 26, 1989
Ms. Julle Rusk
Department of Communlty & EconomlC Development
.1685 Maln Street
Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401
Dear Jul1e:
Flrst let me take the opportunlty to thank you and
the staff of the Department of Commun1ty and EconOffilC
Development for all your support throughout the years.
We are 1n rece1pt of your letter lnclud1ng the staff
recommendat1ons for funds for next FY 89-90.
We would llke to address two lssues of great concern
to us and to our constltuency.
The f1rst lssue lS the transportat1on serV1ces, WISE
has been offerlng to senlors and dlsabled persons.
WISE has exper1enced an enourmous 1ncrease on the
demand for trlps as de~onstrated by the chart below:
-'
Number of Trlps
Jan. through Vtar.
1988
! 4954 (1651jrro)
Mode
Number of Trlps
Jan. through Mar.
1989
Van
7388 (2462fmo)
I
I
j
2 9 9 6 (9 9 8 / mo )
TaXl I
Totall
I
10,711 (3569fmo)
3323 (1107fmo)
7950 (2649/cno)
Th1S lS an 1ncrease of 2761 tr1ps per quarter
or more than 900 more trlps per month.
The number of certlf1ed cl1ents has lncreased from
658 on June 13, 1988 to 1480 on Aprll 13, 1989. We
cont1nue to recelve about 20 appllcat10ns per week.
Note that 59% (877) of our cllents are categor1zed
as frall; need~ng aSSls~ance.
(cont1nued)
~
.
.
Ms. Julle Rusk
May 26, 1989
Page Two.
The telephone work lnvolved ln taklng trlp orders
and talklng to cllents have more than doubled and
we flnd that lf we are to preserve the quallty of
our serVlces we need to add one more staff person
to man the phones.
We wlll be ask~ng Clty Councll next Tuesday to
conslder lncreaslng our Transportatlon grant by
$18,000 whlch wlll afford us to add one pos1t1on
to our eX1stlng staff.
At a later date we would llke to request your
aSs1stance 1n evaluatlng the whole program and
perhaps settlng 11mlts In the number of people
we serve and the prlorltles of the trlps.
The second lssue 1S the Money Management Servlces,
a new serVlce, co-sponsored by WISE, Senlor Health
and Peer Counsellng Center and Jewlsh Fam1ly Servlces.
Our proposal asked for $89,262 to lnltlate th1S new
progra~. Your reco~mendatlon 1S for fundlng at a
level of $47,171.
We proposed to narrow the serVlces to lnclude only
the Senlor Advocates Program ln an expanded mode and
the Women Flnanclal Educatlon Program as a beglnnlng
of a core of Money Management serV1ces and evaluat1ng
the add1t1on of other components at a later date.
We would also request of the Clty Counell to fund us
for the entlre program cost for the flrst year and
at a rat10 of 75%/25% for ~he second year.
It 1S our exper1ence that to succeed a new serV1ce
needs some stab1l1ty 1n the flrst two or three years.
We don't know know yet the extent of the need or our
capablllty to support 50% of the program ln the
second year.
(contloued)
-
.
.
Ms. Jul1e Rusk
May 26, 1989
Page Three.
Thank you for the opportun1ty to present our
concerns.
Slncere1y,
(i L_r----r"L-r'j
.1/ / /-
I ," .. ..."I~..-;; 1_.... ....
-,' ." f 0."./.f.,' ........~ '- '---
I -- .....
/
Marla O. Arechaederra
Executlve Dlrector
MOA:ch
cc:
Mayor Denn1S Zane
Counc1lmember Judy Abdo
Davld F1nke1
Ken Genser
B111 Jenn1ngs
Chr lS t lrle Reed
Herb Katz
II
"
"
.
.
Donald Lewin Nelson
1251 Founeenth Street #309
Santa Monica, California 90404
(213) 393-7371
May 28, 1989
Hon. Herb Katz
City Council Member
Santa Monica Qty CouncIl
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re' Ordinance Amending Ordinance 1481 (CCS) to Establish a Hardship
Procedure and Declaring the Presence of an Emergency
Dear Herb,
During the discussion of the Moratorium Ordinance, several of the City
Council Members expressed concern about potential hardships for certain
developers and landowners. While I share your concerns for those with legitimate
grievances, I fear that any hardship provision will create more problems than it will
solve A better course would be for the City Council to extend the deadline for a
deemed complete application from May 2, 1989, to June 6, 1989.
If the Qty Council enacts a hardship exemption, the CIty Council should
decide if the hardship exists. The City Council should not delegate this
responsibility to the Planning Commission In its determination of hardship, the
CIty Council should not consider the merits of the project only the facts pertaining
to the hardship.
I recognize that the above approach will adversely effect some developers.
However, the alternatIve course of action wIll create havoc in the decision-making
process. The Planrung Commission and the City Council wIll find themselves
repeatedly sued for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 D.S.C. ~ 1983) by
those who believe that they have been denied due process of law in the
consideration of hardship exemption In some instances, developers rmght seek
punitive damages from the members of either body III addition to damages from the
City of Santa Monica TIus threat might force some members to approve every
hardship exemption request rather than run the risk of personal liabIlity.
I urge you to reject the proposed amendments
~----