LA’s Developers are Above the Law

CityWatch, July 15, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 56

RETHINKING LA - Only in LA can a developer come to town with a $20 Billion budget, go to work on a construction campaign that impacts literally every neighborhood in the city, and not take responsibility for traffic mitigation, pedestrian and cyclist access, ADA compliance, roadway improvements, signalization enhancements, or simply adhering to LA’s municipal code.

This cavalier behavior is the work of the LAUSD, they’re LA’s largest developer, and they are above the law.

When the LAUSD’s building program gets implemented in a neighborhood, it doesn’t come with the expected community benefits that would demonstrate a partnership, it comes with an expectation that the local municipal authority will take responsibility for any street improvements and traffic mitigation.

The LAUSD spent $228 million on Central Los Angeles High School #9, aka the Visual and Performing Arts High School, and failed to deliver an ADA accessible school. The City of LA was expected to deliver the improvements that would support and encourage children as they walked and bicycled to school.

This isn’t the exception, it’s the rule, and the recent roster of newly constructed LAUSD schools that are on LA’s Safe Routes to School project list demonstrates LAUSD’s shortcomings when it comes to connecting with the community.

Simply put, if the LAUSD played by the same rules as the residents, they would build to code, they would include community benefits, and they would improve local streets to mitigate traffic and to support the kids who walk and bicycle to school. But they don’t because they are above the law.

Not to be outdone, the LA County Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO), owner of massive amounts of property including the land surrounding more than 70 transit hubs, is developing mixed-use Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects such as Hollywood’s W Hotel & Residences and the Westlake/MacArthur Park development.

Hollywood’s TOD came with great promises of intersection improvements, community benefits, connectivity, and public space enhancements.

When the ribbon was cut, the truth was revealed, LA’s Metro is another developer that operates as if it is above the law, violating LA’s municipal code, ignoring community benefit obligations, and creating traffic issues that took the life of a pedestrian in a crosswalk within the first few weeks of operation.

Not to be outdone, LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is technically part of the City Family yet it operates independently, a privilege that comes from having a dedicated and protected revenue stream. The CRA uses incremental tax revenue to develop “blighted” neighborhoods, a designation that was almost applied to the entire city of LA. It does this with the bull-in-a-china-shop behavior that locals have come to expect from the CRA’s well-funded development partners. Land is condemned and seized using the unique “I can do better than you!” interpretation of eminent domain, and then the notion of “public use” is twisted and the public gets used, literally.

The CRA is consistent with the Metro and the LAUSD in its arrogant approach to development and it also violates municipal code, ignores its community benefits obligation, and develops property as if it is above the law. Based on results, it is.

Rounding out the slate of mega-developers is the City of Los Angeles itself. One would think that of all developers, the City of LA could be counted on to develop its projects with a strict adherence to LA’s municipal code but that’s not the case.

LA has several building campaigns in different states of completion, and they include libraries, fire stations, and police stations. Funded with public money, these projects are built with an admirable goal of “on time and under budget” but with disregard for the third commitment, “up to code.”

Funded projects have a momentum that allows them to proceed without the traditional obligations of community benefit, of accessibility and for connectivity, and of community oversight.

In the process of defending local residents of the East Hollywood neighborhood who were being cited by Building & Safety for over-in-height fences and other code violations, I visited several municipal facilities, some of which were out of code, including the new Rampart Police Station.

In the spirit of LA’s complaint-driven process for code enforcement I attempted to initiate a code violation complaint, only to discover that the City of LA is also above the law. Apparently, Building & Safety can’t take a code violation complaint on municipal property and developments and I was sent on a journey of “anywhere but here” as I attempted to hold the City of LA to its own standards.

The residents of Los Angeles live in a city that preys on itself. Public money is spent on projects that arrive with their own gravitational pull, bending the community to the will of the project. Schools, fire and police stations, libraries, transit developments, and infrastructure improvements should arrive wrapped in respect, not contempt for the community.

The City of Los Angeles has an obligation to enforce the law of the land evenly, and if it applies to the residents, it also applies to the largest developers in the city. Most of all, it applies to the City of Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

LA’s CRA turns gold into straw - a view from the street

CityWatch, Feb 1, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 9

When Governor Brown met with Mayor Villaraigosa to debate the future of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, the meeting took place in the well-appointed digs of the State Capitol, surrounded by a formidable security force.
When the people in my neighborhood gathered to discuss LA’s CRA, the meeting took place on a busted sidewalk, outside the now empty five-story Gershwin Hotel, across the street from an empty lot surrounded by chain link fencing and graffiti. Security was a courtesy provided by the Department of DIY.

The Governor’s plan to phase out approximately 400 redevelopment agencies throughout the state and to return the revenue stream to local authorities for use in the community has prompted LA’s CRA to scramble in an effort to squirrel away $930 million of public money.

LA’s CRA contends that they have done good work resulting in a catalytic economic and social impact on the community. That may be true in the sense that building a development for $600 million and then selling it for $200 million has a catalytic impact on the CRA’s political cronies.

LA’s CRA argues that the redevelopment projects create jobs and stimulate the economy. That my be true in the sense that bulldozer operators have been busy razing buildings that have fallen victim to the CRA’s “induced-blight” scheme but not for the business owners and employees who have lost jobs through eminent domain.

Jean Ros, founding executive director of the California Budget Project challenges the CRA’s claims saying "The research shows that redevelopment doesn't give us the bang for the buck we need in these economic times."

The Public Policy Institute's study "Subsidizing Redevelopment in California" compared 114 different redevelopment project areas statewide to similar areas without redevelopment. It concluded that redevelopment agencies were not responsible for any net economic growth and that they were being financed at the expense of local schools and public services.

As for local data on the systemic effectiveness of LA’s CRA, Jim Dantana, Deputy to CRA’s CEO Chris Essel, acknowledged that there is no real data to support either side of the argument.

Last week, California State Controller John Chiang launched an audit of 18 redevelopment agencies around the state to get to the bottom of the debate over whether they're "engines of local economic and job growth or are simply scams providing windfalls to political cronies."

While many argue that we simply don’t have the evidence, it’s not quite true. As LA’s City Controller Wendy Greuel warily dips her toe in the audit waters, the simple fact is, she’s late to the game. The audits have been performed, 11 years ago by then-City Controller Rick Tuttle and 5 years ago by then-City Controller Laura Chick.

Meanwhile, on the streets of Hollywood, locals are left with the anecdotal evidence that the CRA’s presence can have a chilling impact on the community, one that results in businesses closing, residents leaving, buildings falling into disrepair, public nuisance abatements and...bulldozers.

The suspicion that the presence of the CRA not only induces blight but actually discourages the investment and participation of long term small business operators was most recently confirmed when Glendale hotel owner Ray Patel refused to sell his property to developer Rick Caruso, only to find himself facing an eminent domain action that will allow the American to expand using his land.

Matt Middlebrook, former Deputy Mayor in LA to then-Mayor Hahn and current frontman for developer Rick Caruso, defended the aggression and explained that Patel had no right to resist the seizure, after all, “Patel (hotel owner) knew a decade ago that he was buying a business inside a redevelopment zone. By that time, the city had already used eminent domain to push out small Glendale property owners and make way for other private owners.”

That’s the skewed logic at the core of LA’s “pennies on the dollar” scheme, one where the CRA spends the public’s dollars on projects that wouldn’t pass muster in the private sector, then sells them to insiders for pennies.

LA’s CRA built the Hollywood & Highland Center for $600 million and then sold it to the CIM Group for $200 million. The City of LA then ponied up an additional $30 million to remodel the Kodak Theatre for the CIM in a move that Curbed LA referred to as “Send in the Clowns!”
Meanwhile, as Hollywood’s Gershwin Hotel continues to decay, the CIM Group stands in the wings with a bag of pennies, ready to feed at the public trough on the land and property that has been secured with our dollars, all while the local children stare through chain link fencing at a building that has more broken windows every day, at a neighborhood that continues to suffer. If only the CRA would get out of the way.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - Blighted Land Meets Sleight of Hand

CityWatch, Jan 25, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 7

LA’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils celebrated its 10th anniversary with a rare public viewing of California’s latest addition to the endangered species list, LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). (Video links 1 and video link 2).

Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to the CEO of LA’s CRA, gave a quick overview of Governor Brown’s plan to dismantle the state’s redevelopment agencies, freeing up the incremental tax revenue and returning it to local municipalities for police, fire, hospitals and schools.

Dantona is nothing if not a charming diplomat but he was fighting an uphill battle that started off on soft sand as he cast dispersions on the Governor’s plan by asking “Can you believe the state?”

Ziggy Kruse, Executive Producer of HNN-TV, pointed out that it’s even harder to believe the CRA, after last week’s Brown Act violating Special Meeting that served a simple goal, to move almost a billion dollars in CRA funds into safe pockets. “How can you engage in a process that excludes the public and expect us to trust you?”

Dantona explained that the CRA staff believed that the state was moving quickly so they moved even quicker to protect the CRA funds. This “punch-first” strategy was referred to by some in the audience as the “unlawful conveyance of funds” and demonstrates the lose-lose behavior of a city that too often works against partners rather than with them.

Dantona is to be commended for performing what he refers to as “piñata” work, and the audience responded by revealing that in many of the city’s 31 CRA project areas, it’s the community that feels like it’s being treated like a piñata.

During the Q & A session, Barbara Broide, President of Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association, pointed out that the CRA’s habit of allowing CRA project developers to include significant billboard placement in proposed projects in order to augment revenues is little more than promoting a “Blight for Blight” scheme. The audience agreed. She urged the CRA to be proactive in halting such practices which advance projects that otherwise would likely not "pencil out" without the billboards and their blight.

Bob Blue, former Chair of the Hollywood Studio District NC, acknowledged the catalytic impact of projects such as Hollywood & Highland but pointed out that building a $600 million project that then sells for $200 million can hardly be construed as anything more than a hand out for developers. Blue argued that if the CRA is responsible for the losses, it should at least share in the profits of any victories. The audience agreed.

Mary Garcia, President of Mid-Town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council, questioned the need to have the CRA stay in a neighborhood for so long, pointing at the Laurel Plaza as an example of blight that worsened with the CRA’s help. It was argued that the CRA overstays its welcome by decades and actually discourages potential catalytic impact from non-CRA developers. The audience agreed.

Many expressed their belief that many projects undertaken by the CRA with significant public investment would have been built without those investments. While some spoke in support of a number of smaller projects underway with CRA support, the overwhelming sentiment of those present was that the Governor's proposal to take a significant portion of CRA funds away from the agencies in order to fund state-mandated programs and services is a sound approach in this time of unprecedented budget crisis.

While the Governor works at the state level, local community activists were circulating draft motions for neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, calling on local support for a call to dismantle Community Redevelopment Agencies and to redirect the incremental tax revenue back to local communities.

As the City of LA engages in a battle with the State of California over a billion dollars of the public’s money, the CRA’s spokesperson acknowledged that there is no data to demonstrate the effectiveness or economic impact of the redevelopment agency concept.

The City of LA’s CRA assault on the people of LA begins with simple violations of process and continues to the siege of communities that lasts for decades.

Any attempts to move forward must be supported by real data, not simple anecdotal evidence, and the people of LA must come first with a process that is participatory and supported by honest and open accounting.

The City of LA’s credibility has been destroyed by stalled projects that blight communities, approvals of projects to politically connected developers of dubious performance history. As developers return to the trough for additional funds to complete projects already approved and funded, the CRA’s scramble to divert funds from essential programs and services is a self imposed death blow.

The City of LA’s ability to weather the current fiscal crisis depends on its credibility. The world is watching, the financial community is preparing for triage, and the people who call LA home have been betrayed. It is imperative that the City of LA put the people of LA first by putting our money where it belongs, in our communities.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.) Video credits: Monica Harmon- “Monica’s Digest”

CityWatchLA - Seeing Through the CRA’s Fog of War

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

The CRA’s announcement of a “Special Meeting” was the battle cry and the subsequent barrage of agendas, supplemental agendas, and revised supplemental agendas were the weapons in the ongoing war of City Hall vs. the People of Los Angeles.

Last week’s announcement by Governor Brown that he intended to return locally generated tax revenue to local municipalities drew an aggressive response from the City of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, demonstrating once again LA’s knack for alienating potential allies rather that looking for common ground.

At issue was Brown’s announcement that he wanted to close nearly 400 municipal redevelopment agencies and return nearly $5 billion in locally collected tax revenue to the general funds of the local communities.

Somehow the traditional cut-and-paste media was only able to reformat CRA press releases and Browns effort was referred to as a “hand-out” that would benefit...gulp...general fund support for police, fire, health and education.

The Downtown News went so far as to say “Brown’s proposal would skim (emphasis mine) $1.7 billion from new tax increment generated by redevelopment agencies across the state...”

Providing balance, LA Weekly was able to discern between mythology and reality, calling out LA’s City Hall leadership for jumping into the Fog of War fray that is standard operating procedure when it comes to moving funds from one pocket to the other, all while claiming that the city is broke.

Just last year, budget advocates were confronted with the City of LA’s $450 million budget deficit at the same time that the CRA/LA was holding a $480 million surplus.

Now that the State of California and the City of LA have an opportunity to connect, to work together to ensure that our budget is balanced and that our Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, and Public Education commitments are met, the City of LA has taken the money and run.

In many ways the subject is simple, the money comes from the local community, it belongs to the local community, and it must serve the local community.

As the City of LA discusses cutting police and fire and libraries and maintenance of infrastructure, it’s imperative that the process of bringing the CRA into the city family be open and transparent, something that isn’t happening.

The people of Los Angeles will have a great opportunity to discuss the CRA, Brown’s plan for redevelopment agencies, the City of LA’s budget and our financial future at Saturday’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils meeting.

Vince Bertoni, Deputy Director of Planning, Cary Brazeman, founder of LA Neighbors United and Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to Chris Essel, CEO of the Community Redevelopment Agency are headlining the Alliance’s 10th Anniversary meeting at the Los Angeles City College in East Hollywood. The meeting is Saturday, January 22nd at 9:30 at the LA City College Faculty Lounge. It’s open, it’s transparent, and it’s your opportunity to engage in the future of our communities.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

CityWatchLA - CRA, Taxes and the CD4 Candidates

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

Before Governor Brown astounded the State by proposing to abolish all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s), this writer had sent a CRA questionnaire to the candidates for Council District 4.

The candidates for Council District #4 for the March 8, 2011 election are: Councilmember Tom LaBonge, Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady. Each has a website so readers can see for themselves the biographical information.

The CRA’s were established after WW II as a vehicle to stimulate urban renewal. No city must establish a CRA, but Los Angeles chose to create one, CRA/LA. CRA’s obtain their revenue by taking all the incremental property tax revenue generated by their projects as well as by sometimes taking the sales taxes connected with their projects.

Bunker Hill, for example, has taken in $717 Million in property taxes for the CRA/LA. Overall, CRA/la has taken in $2.8 Billion; $1.2 Billion in the last seven years.

Because the schools had clawed back some of the CRA money by state statute and by lawsuits, the City supported Prop 22 on the November 2010 ballot which made it unconstitutional for any CRA money to go to schools or to the City’s general fund, e.g. for roads. Yes, the City defunded schools in order to give billions to real estate speculators!

Because the City has claimed that it is broke, and thus, it has to fire personnel and reduce services, the fact that the CRA has a multi-million dollar surplus merits public discussion. Hence, the CRA questionnaire.

Councilmember LaBonge’s response:
Councilmember finally made some written responses, although rather brief.

Candidate Tomas O’Grady’s responses:
Mr. O’Grady made long, thoughtful responses showing an openness which all candidates should exhibit.

Candidate Stephen Box responses:
Mr. Box’s also made long and thoughtful responses.

At the outset I believe all Angelenos should be very thankful that Tomas O’Grady and Stephen Box actually believe in openness and wrote extensive, thoughtful answers, knowing that their answers would be used for an article over which they will have no control. Councilmember LaBonge’s answer were short, evasive, and seldom dealt with the issues. Each reader can link to the full answers to form their own opinion about the candidates’ full statements.

Question #1: Should City Council tell the public about the multi-million surplus in the CRA/LA account when discussing the budget?

Labonge:
No. Instead the councilmember wrote: “The intricacies of the funding mechanism in place are available to anyone who seeks them out, and I will always work to make that information available to anyone who wants it. You can also go independently on-line to the city and CRA websites to find this information.”

Councilmember LaBonge will not disclose the data unless someone somehow knows that it exists and then he will give it to that person who apparently already knows about it. Voters can decide whether finding out the city’s true financial condition should be a Game of Hide ‘n Seek.

O’Grady:
Yes, the public should know. Mr. O’Grady has some cogent and specific ideas how the CRA should provide more detailed information. He gave a lot of thought and research into this matter and I urge people to follow the link to his full comments.

Box:
Yes, the council has the duty to communicate all surpluses. Similarly, Mr. Box gave thoughtful answers and people should also read his comments in full.

Question #2: Do you favor abolishing the CRA?

LaBonge:
No. Councilman LaBonge strongly disagrees that the CRA should be abolished. Contrary to the other two candidates, he did not provide any analysis how to deal with the CRA’s financial impact on the city.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady suggests a new Redevelopment Pilot Project to stimulate development from “within communities” as opposed to having large projects imposed on communities by outside developers. I interpret Mr. O’Grady’s comments to be “Yes” for abolishing the current CRA and designing a new one which achieves community objectives.

Box:
Mr. Box’s immediate remedy is to examine the CRA and its relationship to the City of LA and explore options for immediate action, leading up to a Charter Amendment that would abolish the CRA.

Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided analysis of the situation and I recommend that readers link on to their full answers.

Update on Question #2: After my CRA questions were posed, Governor Brown announced his plan to abolish the CRA’s. Readers will have to look to candidates’ web sites for discussions of the Governor’s proposal. There will be much discussion in the upcoming weeks about how taxpayers can retrieve their billions upon billions of tax dollars from the CRA’s.

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit. CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney.

He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

Question #5: Since the City Attorney may not investigate wrongdoing at City Hall, would you support a charter amendment to bifurcate the City Attorney into two separate offices (1) City Attorney to advise the City, Council and staff, and (2) City Prosecutor whose sole function would be to prosecute criminal wrongdoers?

Because the City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to his clients who are the City, its staff, and its elected officials including the CRA, if a councilmember confides in the City Attorney, “I want to take this cash bribe from developer X,” the City Attorney cannot take action, even if the councilmember stuffs thousands of dollars into his pocket right in front of the City Attorney. Thus, the prosecutor whom the public believes would be most diligent in protecting it from city hall corruption is legally prevented.

LaBonge:
The councilmember states: “This issue deserves further discussion, study and review.”

The point of the questionnaire was to obtain the candidates’ thoughts so that the voters can discuss, study, and review. This is a politician’s “No Comment” answer.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady’s answer is a thoughtful discussion of the different ways the civil and criminal functions of a City Attorney Office may be structured. Mr. O’Grady seems to believe that how the city attorney interprets the “client determination” issue can resolve the matter, and thus, it appears that he is not prepared to support two separate offices. I do not think, however, that this opinion will necessarily be Mr. O’Grady’s position on the subject.

Box:
Mr. Box supports bifurcation so that the City Prosecutor would be free to address any and all criminal matters which the City Attorney now handles plus being able to handle any and all criminal matters including felonies which involve the city, its staff and elected officials. He also supports Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accounta-bility (OPA) who would assist in keeping the City honest.

Final Words:
Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided extensive answers taking the city’s problems very seriously. Because literally billions of dollars and the quality of life for Angelenos are at stake, I hope people will take the time to look over their suggestions. Councilmember LaBonge’s seems to think everything is fine as it is.

(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at rickleeabrams@gmail.com )

Hollywood Bike HUB at Hollywood & Vine

Fly-through video rendering by Jeremy Grant

Hollywood & Vine's "Hollywood Bike HUB" is on its way to the Metro Board for final approval, having just picked up an endorsement from the Metro's Planning & Programming Committee along with a recommendation that it serve as a "demonstration project" in the establishment of transit oriented development (TOD) standards.

The Hollywood Bike HUB is a bike shop for locals where cyclists can work on their bikes as well as store them in a secured environment. The Bike HUB would also offer a Bike Share for residents and a Bike Rental for tourists. In addition, the Bike HUB would serve as a Visitor's Center for tourists who simply need info on the neighborhood. The Hollywood Bike HUB is good for cyclists, good for residents, good for tourists, good for business and great for transit, offering Metro passengers a "last mile" option.

One would think that bike storage would be a basic for Metro transit hubs, especially when surrounded by TOD but such was not the case at Hollywood & Vine.

The Hollywood Bike HUB journey began earlier this year, about the time that we should have been celebrating the centenary of the Hollywood & Vine crossroads. Instead, all eyes were on the ribbon cutting at the W Hollywood's four acres of TOD, representing the collective machinations of the City of Los Angeles, the CRA, the Metro, and the Developers, and two-thirds of a billion dollars in funding from sources that included ARRA, Calpers, and the CRA.

The W Hollywood, from the hotel to the condominiums to the apartments, claims to channel the Hollywood spirit, connecting to Hollywood's heyday and "infusing it with the contemporary innovation, energy, elegance, and excitement" of the W experience. Metro officials positioned the integrated Hollywood & Vine Red Line station as a "flagship transit HUB," one that sets a standard for multi-modal connectivity.

None of this resonated with the pedestrians and cyclists who noted that the promised intersection improvements failed to materialize, that the promised bike-share and car-share facilities failed to happen, that the public space was surrounded by fortress walls of exclusivity, and that cyclists were obviously an afterthought as evidenced by the lack of bike racks or bike storage.

I spoke up and pointed out that waiting until after the ribbon cutting to ask "Where do the cyclists fit?" is hardly a demonstration of a multi-modal commitment. While the issue of bike parking facilities at Hollywood & Vine was the immediate challenge, the larger problem was the simple fact that TOD projects are being built throughout the county, (35 underway, 17 more on paper) and yet there are no Metro TOD standards in place. Developers qualify for funding based on their promises of TOD facilities, improving their position by writing "public benefit" into their proposal, yet without standards in place, it's a soft claim with little meaning. Hollywood & Vine proves the point.

While advocating for TOD standards, I proposed several locations for the Hollywood Bike HUB, a bike facility where people could not only safely park their bikes, but also rent bikes, get minor repairs done, and buy bike accessories, such as lights, patch kits, pump, etc. to make their commute more convenient, comfortable, and safe.

Over the past year, I've been joined by Enci of illuminateLA, Ron Durgin of Sustainable Streets, Glenn Bailey of the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, Bart Reed of the Transit Coalition and Jeremy Grant of the LA Bike Working Group. The struggle to incorporate robust bicycle facilities at the Hollywood & Vine station took us on a journey that included meetings with Metro staff, the developers, the tenants, the Sheriff's Department, the CRA, the City Council, the LADOT, and anyone else with a finger in the pie.

Ultimately, it was the Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega and Metro Boardmember Richard Katz who embraced the vision of the Hollywood Bike HUB and the notion that TOD standards should drive the development process, not simply be added as a garnish at the ribbon cutting.

To that end, Jeremy Grant developed the Hollywood Bike HUB renderings that went to the Metro Board this past week and the Planning and Programming Committee approved the Hollywood Bike HUB concept, sending it to the full Board this Thursday morning for final approval.

Boardmember Katz added the following language to the Hollywood Bike HUB motion:

"Direct staff to develop the Hollywood Bike HUB as a demonstration project, engaging the public and using the process to develop robust TOD standards that provide systemic commitments to pedestrians, cyclists, open space, connectivity, accessibility, and community benefit."

The Hollywood Bike HUB is located on the east side of Vine Avenue, just south of Hollywood Boulevard. With over a thousand square feet of interior space, the HUB is a commitment to connectivity, literally and figuratively. Guests will have access to showers, lockers, activated public space, and local information services, all as elements of the HUB's commitment to connectivity.

The intersection of Hollywood & Vine was born 100 years ago when the City of Los Angeles annexed Hollywood, renamed its streets, and ushered in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Griffith, Pickford and Sennett came to town. Radio Stations proudly announced "Broadcasting live from Hollywood & Vine!" Record labels and production companies commissioned architects such as Schindler, Neutra, and Naidorf/Becket. Charlie Chaplin and Will Rogers kept offices in the Taft Building along with neighbors such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The intersection grew to become one of the busiest in the city and one of the most famous in the world.

Hollywood & Vine has seen the glamor days of Clara Bow's It Cafe, the Brown Derby and Sardi's. It has also seen tough times with businesses closing, buildings falling into disrepair, sidewalks cracking and crowds toughening. Through it all, it has maintained its status as the center of Hollywood, crossroads of hopes and dreams for people from around the world.

I believe that the crowd-sourced solutions that brought the Hollywood Bike HUB to the Metro Board are an example of all that is great about Hollywood and evidence that Hollywood is reclaiming its title as the center of the creative universe.

CityWatchLA - Hey LA, Let’s Sue for Transportation Malpractice!

CityWatch, Oct 8, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 80

The single greatest threat to the status quo of transportation planning and development in the LA area is the Hippocratic Oath, the simple commitment to do no harm. "Primum non nocere."

Imagine if all transportation projects were first screened to eliminate the twin traps of over-treatment and therapeutic nihilism. Consider the benefit to the community if transportation authorities were responsible for the unintended consequences of "the cure." The practitioners of the 405/Sepulveda Pass project would be conducting business in a dramatically different fashion if they had started the journey by taking the Hippocratic Oath. Their current loyalty is to the $1 billion contract that directs the widening of the 405 in order to accommodate a northbound car-pool lane from the 10 freeway to the 101 freeway, not to the community it impacts.

When the "treatment" is completed, three bridges will have been replaced, 27 on-ramps and off- ramps will have been adjusted, and 13 underpasses and structures will have been widened.

When the "patient" awakens, freeway traffic will exit on "improved" off-ramps, entering the local community at freeway speeds. Enhanced integration between the freeway and adjacent streets will support local freeway-alternative traffic congestion. Widened streets with faster traffic will eliminate pedestrian traffic and render mass transit access obsolete.

The practitioners of the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement would be developing a completely different project if they were to apply the simple standard of leaving things better than they found them. The current bridge has features that the proposed bridge lacks, resulting in a project that includes "engineered conflict."

The "patient" has long objected that the proposed bridge fails to plan for all modes of transportation and does not replace the current existing pedestrian walkway. Community members also point out that the proposed bridge fails to address a vision for connectivity, options for the future of Terminal Island. Project Managers dismiss the complaints as unnecessary, pointing out that it's simply a shipping route for trucks.

The Long Beach City Council agrees with the community and had to take formal action, simply to request that existing features be retained in the future. They concur with the Coastal Commission in recognizing that a $1 billion investment in connectivity is a half century commitment to the future of Terminal Island and to restrict that vision is to damn the "patient" to a life of shipping container storage.

Other projects such as the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway and the Sepulveda Reversible Lane demonstrate that there is no greater power than a funded project. In both cases, the inadvertent identification of a specific element required its inclusion in the final project, regardless of its appropriateness, simply because it was funded as named.

The Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway has 100 yards of dedicated Busway on the eastbound end of the 4.5 mile project, the last vestige of the original $93 million Busway project that proposed a bus lane down the center of Santa Monica Boulevard, from Beverly Hills to the 405. It's there to qualify for the funding, not because it belongs or serves any purpose.

The Sepulveda Reversible Lane has been reduced to 100 yards inside the Mullholland tunnel, the last vestige of an $11.3 million project that proposed reversible lanes from Wilshire Boulevard to Mullholland Boulevard. The project was funded, it has been absorbed into the 405/Sepulveda Pass project, and the reduced reversible element exists simply to qualify for the funding.

These projects demonstrate the need for a new paradigm for transportation planning and development.

1) The community benefit must be required, not negotiated. The W Hollywood Hotel has already experienced its first pedestrian death, caused by a truck driver leaving the facility and running over an old lady in the crosswalk. The negotiated "community benefits" included intersection improvements at all four corners, bulb-outs, ped scrambles, etc. but none of them "penciled out" meaning the developers do this for a living and the community is out-gunned.

2) The project must actually be an improvement, not simply an effort to churn funding. Funded projects that inadvertently include obsolete elements are dead. Improving the community is the objective, not simply funding transportation departments. Design & Build mandates encounter Stall & Defend opposition from the local community because they fail to consider the unintended consequences.

3) The project must leave the community better than before, not as the result of community intervention, but as the result of a simple guiding principle that is in the DNA of the project. The impact to the local community must be a priority and solutions that sever routes, restrict access, and increase cut-through traffic are not solutions, they are problems.

The largest developers in our community are Caltrans, Metro, and the CRA. The most significant amount of public money being spent on development is dedicated to transportation and transportation related projects. The greatest opportunity to improve the quality of life in our neighborhood is through responsible transportation planning and development that is community oriented.

The current struggle for the development and implementation of standards for Transit Oriented Development is left to the community while Metro and its development partners charge ahead.

The current struggle for traffic congestion relief that actually improves conditions instead of simply moving the problem to adjacent streets is left to the community while the Department of Transportation charges ahead.

LA's future as a Great City demands that all transportation development continue with a "do no harm" mandate and that it is supported with real community benefit standards as the foundation for progress, not simply the fallout of long protracted battles with the neighborhood.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Metro's Hollywood & Vine Station needs a Bike HUB!

The Metro's CEO, Art Leahy, refers to the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station as "a flagship transit HUB, one that should set the standard for the Metro's comprehensive transportation system." Gatehouse Capital refers to its W Hollywood Hotel & Residences Development as "a glamorous venue, one that will seduce you - mind, body and soul." Legacy Partners refers to its 1600 Vine Residential/Retail development as 1600 Vine as "a truly unique living experience full of comfort, urban conveniences, and contemporary amenities in one of Los Angeles’ most renowned locations."

Collectively, Hollywood & Vine is LA's largest Transit Oriented Development and it became a reality after a decade of grappling that saw the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, the LADOT, the Chamber of Commerce, lawyers, developers, investors, activists, neighborhood councils, artists, merchants, and neighbors all working to protect their interest in one of the most iconic intersections on earth. Now that the dust has cleared, the awesome magnitude of the Hollywood & Vine TOD has become the standard for future Transit Oriented Development projects.

I think that's a problem.

For all of the celebratory ribbon cutting, soft focus photo opps and champagne toasts, the details matter and the Hollywood & Vine TOD is missing some significant details that go a long way to demonstrating a commitment to people who walk, who ride a bike, who simply want to enjoy public space and who believe that a TOD is something more than an interchange, that it is a significant place, one that is made for people.

Missing from the Hollywood & Vine project is a Bike HUB, a community benefit that is provided by the Metro, the CRA, Gatehouse Capital, and Legacy Partners. This simple commitment to supporting cyclists goes a long way to demonstrating a commitment to TOD projects which purportedly serve cyclists, pedestrians, mass transit passengers and the immediate community.

1) The Hollywood & Vine project has overbuilt on its motor vehicle parking requirements, demonstrating a bias that encourages vehicle trips instead of working to reducing congestion by reducing the number of generated vehicle trips.

2) The Hollywood & Vine project has failed to provide the bike parking as required by LA's Municipal Code, a fact that failed to trigger a response from Building & Safety, a department that never invokes any bike parking minimums in spite of the law.

3) The Hollywood & Vine project unfolded over several years and during that time, the community requested a Community Car Share program, a Community Bike Share program, and a Community delivery service but none of the promises turned into reality. 

4) The Hollywood & Vine project received concessions and funding and legal support (eminent domain) based on its claims of a positive impact on the community, the economy, the traffic, and the quality of life as a whole for those who live in Hollywood, those who work in Hollywood and those who visit Hollywood.

5) The Hollywood & Vine project claims to be a Transit Oriented Development, a designation that includes a commitment to cyclists, pedestrians, vibrant street life and a connectivity to the community.

All of this being said, I look at the two-thirds of a billion dollar H'wood & Vine TOD Fortress and I ask "Where's the Bike HUB?"

I propose that the Metro and the CRA and Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners get together and immediately implement a Bike HUB program at Hollywood & Vine and I've got the location already selected. (There are actually three great locations, one on Hollywood Blvd., one on Argyle, and this great location on Vine)

Imagine a Bike HUB on Vine Ave., a bike shop for locals where cyclists can work on their bikes as well as store them in a secured environment. The Bike HUB could also offer a Bike Share for locals and a Bike Rental for tourists. In addition, the Bike HUB could serve as a Visitor's Center for tourists who simply need info on the neighborhood. Good for cyclists, good for the residents, good for the tourists, good for business and great for transit, offering Metro passengers a "last mile" option.

There are many iterations of the Bike HUB concept, from city-sponsored and more city-sponsored to artistic eco-storage to on-campus facilities to sophisticated spa facilities with showers, lockers, and masseuse to the bike storage robot, they all offer variations of bike repair support, secure bike storage, bike-share or bike-rentals, education, encouragement, and helpful information on the surrounding community. Los Angeles is surrounded by great examples of bike co-ops including the Bicycle Kitchen, BikeRoWave, the Bike Oven and the Bikery. There is also the Bikestation organization with facilities in Long Beach and Covina and Claremont.

Last week's Urban Land Institute TOD Summit featured politicians, transit operators, bureaucrats, developers, lawyers, planners, and advocates, all clamoring to keep their place at the table as LA's 30/10 plan for putting $40 Billion to work on a dozen mega transit projects picks up steam. There in the mix was Andréa White-Kjoss, President and CEO of the Bikestation, working to remind the Summit attendees to keep things in perspective, that the high altitude funding and planning will only succeed if the vision is kept centered on the experience of the individual, the person who walks or rides a bike or shops at the store or meets friends in the public space.

It is imperative that we set professional standards for active transportation and that we firmly establish "last-mile" elements into any TOD programming. The folks at Bikestation have a strong support track record for providing innovative solutions to unique transit opportunities and Hollywood is the capital of innovation and opportunity.

Now, more than ever, it's important that we set a standard at the Hollywood & Vine TOD, that we firmly establish a standard for a Bike HUB and that we make it a robust success, with the support of professionals such as the folks at Bikestation, with the support of the Metro and the CRA, with the support of Gatehouse and Legacy, and with the support of the community.

What happens in Hollywood will set the course for the future.

Trader Joe’s sets a TOD Standard - Bike Parking!

It’s been a little more than three weeks since Enci sent the tweet heralding the arrival of Trader Joe’s in Hollywood but lamenting the fact that it would be sans Bike Racks. The Tweeps responded, the news spread through the Facebook crowd, and Trader Joe’s started getting phone calls. Lots of them.

It would seem that convenient, safe, and effective Bike Parking would be the norm, not the exception but such was not the case and so the battle unfolded, with Enci calling for a boycott and Trader Joe’s playing dumb.

Trader Joe’s, like any large company, organization, bureaucracy, has mad skills in the fine art of the “Anyone but me!” line of defense when dealing with the public, the customer, the stakeholder, the reason for their existence. They went to work.

They started by blaming their failure to provide Bike Racks on the City of LA, claiming that it required a permit and that it would be completely inappropriate to put bike racks on Vine, in front of the building. I pointed out that it was not true.

They then shifted the responsibility to their Landlord, Legacy Partners, saying that it was the developers responsibility to put in Bike Racks, not theirs. I again pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to Legacy Partners, attempting to remove any obstacles, and was informed that Bike Racks on the street would be a problem for aesthetic reasons. I pointed out that the building would look a lot nicer if it was surrounded by people, bikes, signs of life! Legacy then changed tack, claiming that their Development Agreement with the Metro and the CRA forbid Bike Racks. I pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to the Metro, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and unfortunately, they also had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to the CRA, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and, again unfortunately, they had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to LA’s City Council President Eric Garcetti, pointing out that LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development opened with no Bike Racks, all in violation of LAMC 12.21-A16. He smiled and said that they had a great plan for centralized bike parking somewhere else on the W Hollywood’s four and half acre lot. I pointed out that it was not true.

Somehow LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development made it all the way to the finish line with no Bike Parking standard in place for tenants, even though the City of LA requires it.

Somehow the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners are able to put Federal, State, County, City money to work developing the neighborhood, yet do it with complete contempt for the people who don’t arrive in a motor vehicle.

It’s been two weeks since the TJ’s in Hollywood opened, it’s been two days since Director of Construction installed the Bike Racks. They look great and they are a victory for a few reasons.

*We’ve got Bike Racks and can lift the boycott! Now we can shop at Trader Joe’s!

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Trader Joe’s Corporation! No Wave or Wheelbender Bike Racks, simple inverted-U racks that are properly installed and spaced and protected and accessible and visible and convenient and effective. This is the Bike Rack Standard for Trader Joe’s.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Metro and for the CRA. Transit Oriented Development must have a Bike Parking standard for the project as a whole and for the tenants. Centralized Bike Parking is a non-starter, a figment of Garcetti’s imagination, implausible, unacceptable, a simple violation of the “convenient and practical” rule that governs design.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the neighborhood.

This is not the first time Enci has tangled with the City or with Property Managers over Bike Parking. There was the City National Plaza and their threat to impound bikes, there was the Museum Square incident that saw her bike booted and there was the successful Bike Rack campaign at LAPD Headquarters.

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)

Trader Joe's - Weak on Bike Week!

Friday morning's Grand Opening of the new Trader Joe's in Hollywood was a joyous occasion for many but for the cycling community it was a vivid demonstration of how invisible cyclists are in the customer mix. There were no bike racks to be found in spite of the fact that the Trader Joe's is located at the southeast corner of LA's largest Transit Oriented Development, a project that purportedly caters to cyclists and pedestrians by combining density with convenience. (unless you're the kind of cyclist who actually uses a bike and then "never mind!")

This was also Bike Week, adding insult to energy, and cyclists had just experienced ten days of very effective, fair trade, shade grown, dolphin safe, handmade bullshit from Trader Joe's and a completely insulting and meandering journey with regards to responsibility.

Trader Joe's had argued vehemently and consistently that it was merely the Tenant and that the Landlord was responsible for bike parking, that the Tenant was limited in its ability to improve the property and that it was out of their control. Christie Hughes finally conceded and agreed to install bike racks at the Trader Joe's, just like the bike racks at other Trader Joe's. I cautioned her against repeating the mistakes of the past and urged her to hire a professional, after all, everything else is done by profesionals, why not bike racks?

Legacy Partners, the Landlord, argued that it was not responsible for installing bike racks and that Trader Joe's was responsible for all improvements but that bike racks could not be installed outside the Trader Joe's entrance and under the sign because "We're limited by the DDA with the Metro and the CRA." The Development Agreement purportedly addressed things like bike racks and "limited" the authority of the Landlord and the Tenant but Ed Kirk, VP of Legacy Partners, agreed to investigate before simply forbidding bike racks on the outside of the building.

The Metro, owner of the land under the W Hollywood compound and the authority holding the 99 year lease, was blamed for the DDA that might serve as an obstacle to the installation of Bike Racks but the proverbial hot potato left the hands of Greg Angelo, Metro's Director of Real Estate, as soon as he heard that the Metro was being offered up as opposed to bike parking.

The California Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was also offered as an obstacle because of the Development Agreement but Kip Rudd of the CRA was at the Trader Joe's ribbon cutting and he chuckled when asked about any DDA prohibition against bike parking. "Who told you that? The CRA is a proponent of bike parking and has three streetscape improvement projects for Hollywood that include bike parking."

That left the City of Los Angeles as the bike parking obstacle. At every turn, from Christie Hughes to Trader Joe's Director of Construction Rich Adachi, I heard about the City of Los Angeles and the mythological need to get a permit in order to install bike racks. Granted, Trader Joe's is on Hollywood's Walk of Fame, but my proposed location for the exterior bike parking is under the Trader Joe's sign on their property, not on the sidewalk. In fact, the City of LA has a municipal code that requires bike parking, it just lacks the political will to implement or enforce its own code.

As for Political Will, City Council President Eric Garcetti arrived on Friday morning to cut the ribbon and to present the Trader Joe's management with a resolution welcoming them to the neighborhood. When I spoke to Garcetti and pointed out that the largest TOD in Los Angeles had failed to include bike parking in its program, in spite of its purpurted commitment to active transportation. (I thought the "new urbanist" lingo might resonate!) He continued to smile and nod and I got more specific, pointing out that the City of LA was a development partner with the folks responsible for the largest TOD in LA and yet their were no bike racks. How can there be a standard for TOD developments funded with public money that does not specify a minimum for bike racks?

The W Hollywood is LA's largest TOD and its development partners include the Metro, the CRA, the City of Los Angeles, and the funding comes from sources that include the Federal Government and the State of California. This project is encumbered by rules and restrictions and regulations thick enough to choke an invasion of developers and heavy enough to sink a fleet of developers and yet Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners prevailed. They are to be commended for their perseverance in what was a decade long bureaucratic journey to the proverbial ribbon cutting.

At the same time, they fell short, way short. Their tenants followed suit.

Along the way, cyclists discovered that when push comes to shove, Bike Week is a token gesture that comes with no real conviction or support. Be clear on this, from the Feds to the State of California to the Metro to the CRA to the City of Los Angeles, facilities for cyclists are so low on the list of priorities that they fail to register. Cyclists will count when cyclists demand to be counted.

It ain't over!

Trader Joe's Celebrates "Bike to Work" Week

Trader Joe's is coming to Hollywood tomorrow, an event that was heralded with signage promoting the "Public Parking" to be found in the behemoth W Hollywood structure that caps the four acre Hollywood & Vine block. Enci inquired and discovered that the "Public Parking" was of the subterranean motor vehicle variety, not of the safe and effective bike parking variety, prompting Enci to send the Tweet heard 'round the Board Room, aka:

The TWEET that ROARED!

@ActOut Call Trader Joe's HQ 626-599-3700, ask 4 customer service re. Bike Parking at Hollywd/Vine. Then tell them 2 get bike racks 4 grand opening!

Friends from far and wide, on Twitter, on Facebook, and on MySpace, picked up on the alert and began calling Trader Joe’s. In spite of both of our requests for a call back, we never received one. Instead, we all called the corporate headquarters and were typically transferred to Tiffany who took the message, indicating that she would pass the “bike rack requests” on to Christy Hughes, District Manager for the Hollywood store. Her tone grew gruffer as the calls continued.

@DudeonaBike RT @BikeWriters @ActOut: Call Trader Joes HQ 626-599-3700, ask 4 customer svc re Bike Parking at H'wood/Vine. Tell them 2 get bike racks.

Gary Kavanagh From my experience Trader Joe's has never been especially bike friendly. The Santa Monica location only has a cheap wheel bender rack, but not only that, it is one made for 26" wheel size, my 700cc road wheels don't fit in it. I usually attached to the hand railing by the door, but now I pretty much only shop at the Co-Op, the only grocery store in Santa Monica with a proper bike rack.

Ron Durgin Just another example of how this TOD project fails the community and fails to meet minimum standards. TJ's offers a feedback form for local stores on its website, including H & V. I say we hammer them with feedback about their failure to accommodate cyclists, especially with a planned opening during Nat'l Bike Month and Bike to Work Week. Numbskulls.

@josesigala Hi Enci, called Trader Joe's customer relations office to ask for bike racks at Hollywood store. They stated they will set them up soon. txs

Jeremy Grant I did this and the girl (Tiffany?) sounded a little perturbed... She said "yeah, all your friends are calling". So I layed it on extra thick and had her write a bunch of techno mumbo jumbo down after I gave her a ton of reasons and then started quoting the code book. So fun.

Crispin Oochie I thnk it kinda starts at this juncture.....new building, new parking....they wont do it unless we ask, petition...demand! I'm not ready to take on a project, but I will call them and say WTF? No bike parking? Guess I'll shop on sundays at the farmers market!

@DudeonaBike TJ's cust service said they'll have racks at H'wood/Vine, but seemed very disinterested. Call so they know they've got to do it 626-599-3700

Eric Pancer They always come up with some statement like "the bike racks weren't ready yet".

Brian Bell I've always been amazed at the lack of bike parking at TJ's.

@josesigala Please let me know if I can do anything else 2 help. My family shops at the Eagle Rock and Silver Lake almost every week. I retweeted

Ana-Maria Lupan bike parking especially in that busy area will result in bike PARTS still being ripped off ;( ... in-store parking/walking bike in is the only way to do it these days in busy areas.

Hollywoodrac Rentacar just did, Christie Hughes regional manager is supposed to call Stephen or Enci back regarding this issue. keep me posted

@Ride_the_Bone RT @ActOut: Call Trader Joe's today at 626-5993700 to ask them to install bike parking by May 21, grand opening of H'wood/Vine.

Meghan Kavanagh done

Claudia Monroy on it!

Kevin Winston It's Trader Joe's, they better!

Jonathan Weiss Our closest TJs has 1 beat-up rack and it's kind of hidden. Let us know if you make progress. A couple of phone calls to Topa management for the shopping center at Sepulveda & National got us the first rack there. That's my shout out.

I tracked down Christies Hughes, the District Manager of Trader Joe's, and she unleashed a long litany of reasons that bike parking at the Hollywood Trader Joe's was not her responsibility including:

“Any bike parking is up to the City of Los Angeles. We’re just tenants and that is their responsibility.”

“We’re just tenants, any bike parking is the responsibility of the Landlord.”

“Bike parking on the front of the store would conflict with the design aesthetic and would be the responsibility of the architect, not us, we’re just tenants.”

At some point in the conversation I was able to convince her that I was clear on the agency who owned the land (the Metro) the agency who controls the sidewalks (Building & Safety) the landlord (Legacy Partners) the local development partners (CRA and City of LA and CD11) and the people who advocated years ago that the W Hollywood complex come with a 1) Bike Share program 2) a Car Share program 3) a local delivery service. Now that the W Hollywood was open and the promised community benefits have failed to appear, it is us (the cycling community) who are still fighting for transportation innovations that all start with the simple accommodation of cyclists. BIKE RACKS!

At this point, Hughes tried a different tack, letting me know that she didn't know why bike parking was her issue anyway. "I called our construction coordinators to find out why bike parking wasn't a standard operating practice." This was progress because we were moving past the "Corporate Denial of Responsibility" that I heard from the Construction Manager, two Store Managers, and one Customer Service handler.

I urged Hughes to go beyond a simple request for bike parking and to actually hire a professional to survey the property, to specify the appropriate racks, and to supervise the installation. I pointed out that well meaning operators often put in bike racks, selecting the wrong type and then installing them incorrectly and in bad locations. Hughes rejected my request along with my request for a call back to confirm that bike parking would be part of the Hollywood Trader Joe's facility. She went on to explain that it was all unnecessary, after all, "I'm a cyclist myself. I even drive a hybrid!"

Since the West Hollywood Trader Joe's is also one of her stores, I used that as an example of well-meaning folks installing bike parking that simply doesn't work. She said they had long ago fixed the bike racks at West Hollywood so I visited the location and this is what I found:

The "Wave" rack or "Ribbon" rack that was previously installed with finger tight bolts that offered no resistance to bike thieves had indeed been moved, this time to a spot that was equally bad, perpendicular to the curb line and blocking the walkway. Apparently this was why it was empty. It is unprotected space, it creates conflict with both motorists and pedestrians, and it simply fails to entice cyclists to use it. 

Meanwhile, cyclists arriving at the West Hollywood Trader Joe's demonstrate with their behavior that the best location for bike parking is within sight of the front door. Here the cyclists have demonstrated that they would rather lock their bikes where there in no ped conflict, even if it means locking it to a pole or a tree.

I mentioned to the manager that there appeared to be a fair amount of bike traffic in the area and that a Bike Corral might be a great solution, a parking space that is set aside in the parking lot with bike racks, a very efficient solution to the lack of sidewalk space for bike parking. "John" assured me that using any space in the parking lot would be a big problem because they had no control over the parking lot. "We're just tenants!"

This restriction is simply contradicted by reality as is demonstrated by the fact that shopping carts get three "Cart Corrals" while bike gets snubbed.

As for the claim that Christie Hughes made regarding improvements to the bike parking at the West Hollywood Trader Joe's, I think I discovered her solution. It appears to be a Hybrid with a bike strapped to it.

Meanwhile, back in Hollywood:

As of today, Ed and Sandy, the local managers of Trader Joe's assure me that there will be bike parking, 8 racks with space for 16 bikes, inside the parking garage and accessible through the Vine Street breezeway, just outside the P1 entrance.

As of today, Rich Adachi, the construction manager of Trader Joe's said that they would be installing bike racks. We had a long talk last week about bike rack design, bike rack locations, bike rack installation and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. (CPTED)

As of today, Ed Kirk, the  Construction Manager of Legacy Partners, says that they are restricted by the Metro/CRA Development Agreement from putting bike racks outside the building. I pointed out that Metro and the CRA are purportedly proponents of bike parking and that he acknowledged that bike parking made sense, but that he operated under such harsh restrictions that they did what was required and that we would need to go the Metro/CRA for approval. Ultimately, he said that if it's okay with the Metro/CRA he is open to discussing bike racks on the corner of Vine and Selma, all he asks is that they be attractive, that the process for permitting be painless, that somebody wrap up the proposal and take responsibility for funding it.

As for tomorrow, the last day of Bike to Work week, Trader Joe's has promised that bike parking will be a part of the grand opening celebration for the 13,000 square foot store at the corner of Hollywood & Selma. Ride on over and join us in cutting the ribbon on those bike racks!