CityWatchLA - City Hall Red Tape Trumps Citizen’s Green Vision-Part II

CityWatch, Nov 27, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 97

City Council President Eric Garcetti is raising eyebrows as he tosses obstacle after obstacle at Hollywood's proposed car-share program, only to have reality contradict his objections.

Bechir Blagui, the operator of Hollywood Rent A Car, went to City Council last week to ask for help in establishing an electric car charging station on Hollywood Boulevard, located at a dedicated parking space, that would support his proposed electric car-share program along with the electric cars of those in the community.



Garcetti responded to Blagui's request for help by offering moral support tempered by the admonition that state law regulated the establishment of electric charging stations on the street. He offered to work together with Bechir to change the vehicle code and to make it happen. "That's why we're here!"

A visit to Montana Avenue in Santa Monica yielded the discovery of two electric charging stations, positioned on the sidewalk and supported by dedicated parking spaces, all in direct contradiction to Garcetti's "state regulated" reality and his claim of the need for a change to the law.

When a photo of the Montana Avenue charging stations was forwarded to Garcetti, he responded, "This is a great example of a public charger on the street (I've used it many times!). This is an open-to-the-public example (different than a dedicated space for an individual business), but a great example that it can be done."



What happened to the "Let's work together to change State Law!" objection?

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Mike Feuer's Transportation Deputy responded to Garcetti's "state law" objection by saying "I checked with our legislative director in Sacramento and he does not know of any such legislation."

Garcetti's "it can be done" affirmation came on the tail end of a revised objection, claiming Bechir's request was for a "dedicated space for an individual business." Bechir responded by pointing out that his request was not for an exclusive space but for an open charging station, accessible to the public. Either way, it turned out to be irrelevant.

A visit to Adams Boulevard just north of USC yielded the discovery of two parking spaces, on the street, empty and supported by signage that indicated they were for the exclusive use of the ZipCar Company, all in direct contradiction to Garcetti's ""individual business" reality and the need to maintain "open-to-the-public" parking.

There are approximately a dozen parking spaces in the USC neighborhood and approximately a dozen more in the UCLA neighborhood, all designated as ZipCar spaces and supported by Tow Away signs.

The parking spaces are in densely populated areas where parking is at a premium, most are on the street while some are on school property and some are in City controlled parking structures.

The City's ability to offer dedicated parking spaces for car-share programs is supported by State Law that went into effect on January 1, 2007. California Vehicle Code Section 5205.5 specifies that cities have the authority to reserve public, on-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of vehicles participating in a car-share vehicle program.

Bechir's quest for a Hollywood car-share program, offering electric community cars, supported by a charging station on Hollywood Boulevard, open to the public and accessible 24 hours a day, has led him to the LADOT, the DWP, Councilman LaBonge's office, City Council President Eric Garcetti's office, Assemblyman Mike Feuer's office, the City Council, the streets of Santa Monica, the neighborhoods surrounding USC and UCLA and all he has to show for his travails is a request from Garcetti's Transportation Deputy to do more research for a meeting next month.

Why is it so difficult to get support for a car-share program in Hollywood? Does the City of Los Angeles have an exclusive deal with ZipCar?

Just last year, Mayor Villaraigosa announced a partnership with ZipCar and gushed "Los Angeles may be the car capital of the world, but through this partnership among universities, ZipCar and the City of Los Angeles we are opening the door to make car ownership optional for people who live or work here."

"Providing alternatives to car ownership will help improve the environment and the city's traffic congestion," Villaraigosa said.

Unfortunately, ZipCar is only interested in offering cars in the USC and UCLA areas and the maximum number of vehicles was projected to be less than two dozen in a city of four million people.

It has been over two years since the City of Los Angeles authorized the LADOT to solicit car-share companies to participate in a "one-year car-sharing pilot in the City of Los Angeles."

In the letter that went to the "big four" car-share companies, the city claimed the right "to grant exclusive car-sharing service rights to a single provider or non-exclusive rights to several providers in each pilot area depending on the level of interest in each area."

At first pass, there were no takers but a second effort yielded the ZipCar company and a thin commitment of 20 vehicles, located at USC and UCLA. The pilot program was initially scheduled to start in mid-February 2008 and was projected to last for one-year.

If ZipCar is only interested in providing car-share services to the USC and UCLA neighborhoods, is the City of LA "holding" the Hollywood neighborhood and considering offering it as an exclusive territory to a car-share company?

Is the LADOT relying on City Attorney advice that the City of Los Angeles can "sole source a contract for car-sharing service" as it conducts the "pilot project" at USC and UCLA?

Does the USC/UCLA project prevent car-share programs from being implemented in other areas of the city?

Perhaps the City of Los Angeles is waiting for the W Hotel and Residences on Hollywood Boulevard to open. Several years ago, during the community outreach phase of the project, locals were assured that traffic mitigation measures such as a car-share program and a bike-share facility were to be incorporated into the development.

Of course, that was during the "courting" phase, now that construction is nearing completion, one must take those early "promises" with a grain of salt.

Maybe Garcetti is holding Hollywood's car-share program in reserve for the Clarret Group's Blvd 6200 Project. Two years ago, in an interview with The Planning Report, Garcetti gushed, "This is a very important development for Hollywood. It is probably the largest residential development that I’ll work on in my time."

Garcetti apparently negotiated a $2 million Clarett contribution to the Hollywood Mobility Trust Fund along with a commitment to host a car-share program on Hollywood Boulevard.

Whatever the explanation, the people of Los Angeles deserve straight talk and real solutions, not false obstacles and the run-around.

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

Assemblyman Eng Wants to Park Your Car!

California State Assemblyman Mike Eng of the 49th District is the Chair of the State Assembly Transportation Committee which oversees the work of the state Office of Traffic Safety, the High Speed Rail Authority, and the Departments of Transportation, Motor Vehicles, California Highway Patrol and Air Resources. He also serves on the California Transportation Commission.

Apparently he is unaware of the congestion issues, air pollution issues, safety issues and simple access issues that many in the LA County area encounter on a daily basis. If he was, he would give up on the promise of "free parking" when promoting his community events such as his Legislative Town Hall at USC on Wednesday evening which comes complete with the promise "Parking is free of charge at USC, just simply tell them you are attending the town hall."

If Assemblyman Eng wants to make a real impact on the future of transportation in Los Angeles, he'll offer pedestrian, bicycling and mass transit directions to his event. If he really wanted to make an impact, his invitations will come with the promise "the Metro is free of charge, just simply tell them you are attending Assemblyman Mike Eng's Town Hall."

How is it that the most powerful people in town can negotiate free parking to their events but they can't get Metro passes? Why do they validate for parking but never reimburse for mass transit?

The world as we know it will change when we demand that those in power get out of their cars and walk, ride a bike or take mass transit to the events that they host in our communities.

Assemblyman Eng, let's ride!

For more information on Mike Eng's Town Hall.

To urge Mike Eng to embrace the future of transportation, call Annie Lam of Assemblymember Eng’s Office at (916) 319-2049 or e-mail her at Annie.Lam@asm.ca.gov.

But most of all, if you really want to make a difference, get out of your car and embrace the future of transportation by walking, riding a bike or taking mass transit.

Btw. here is how you can get to USC without a car:

Metro Red Line 7th and Fig. Get to street level to 7th and Flower, take the bus 81, 381, or 442 from there to Jefferson & Fig.

Other bus stops for USC:
204 & 754 stop at Jefferson & Vermont

102 & 550 stops at Exposition & Vermont

38 stops at Hoover & Jefferson

From either of these stops you can walk onto the campus.

To plan your metro ride, visit metro.net

To plan your bike ride, visit bikemetro.com

You can also ride your bike, there is plenty of bike parking all over the campus.

CityWatchLA - LADOT Appears Ready for an Agreement with NCs - Are they up to getting it done?

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 4

Fresh on the heels of last weeks City Council brouhaha over the Department of Transportation's failure to conduct appropriate community outreach, the DOT has … surprise … stepped up and announced that it is developing a Memorandum of Understanding "to be signed by the Department and willing neighborhood councils."

While the DOT's willingness to enter into a relationship with the neighborhood councils is to be applauded, there is no better time than now to point out that the best place to start is not a rehash of an old document designed to accommodate a different concept but at the beginning.

The email that went out on Friday to the City Council offices and NC Chairs contained a "Draft MOU" and instructions on how to email suggestions and comments. It appears the DOT has already begun and it's up to the public to catch up. It also appears that they want to negotiate the agreement by email and public hearings as opposed to at the table where the DWP MOU and the Planning/NC Pilot Program were created as partnership projects.

Neighborhood Councils have had both good and bad experiences developing MOU's and it would be a shame not to learn from the past. Best practices include having a neutral moderator facilitate the process and to start by having representatives from both parties come together to hammer out a framework of an MOU as a starting point.

It's important here to acknowledge the DOT's willingness to engage but to also point out that this is a significant step. It's not simply a curb cut or a crosswalk with a 60-day period for public comment and then DOT authority to continue on the journey. This is a document that memorializes and codifies a relationship and the mechanism for communicating and working together. It's a living breathing document with opportunities for revision and adjustment, just like any good relationship.

That is why we must be in on the process from the beginning, not as spectators, not as passive witnesses, not as “inputers,” but as equal participants in the development of a relationship.

It's been three years since the USC research folks, headed by Dr. Terry Cooper, facilitated the original DOT/NC MOU. The one that had so much trouble finding favor with Gloria Jeff, who managed the department at the time.

And it has been months since the Neighborhoods and Education Committee last called on current GM Rita Robinson to develop a report on the development of an MOU. Through it all, Neighborhood Council leaders have been clamoring and lobbying for an MOU.

It’s refreshing and encouraging to see movement from the Department, but this is an important agreement and it will influence an important relationship for some time into the future. It needs to be done right. Robinson and her liaison need to sit with people outside of the halls of the city to get a clearer and more objective perspective on the best way to make this important MOU happen.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist activist and writes for CityWatch.)

CityWatchLA - They Never Promised US a Rose Garden

CityWatch, August 5, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 63

Department Violates the Charter
By Stephen Box

(“We’re not required to notify neighborhood councils’ on proposed speed limit increases.-Rita Robinson, Department of Transportation General Manager.”)

It's been three years since my wife and I joined representatives from four Neighborhood Councils and sat down with the senior Management of LA's Department of Transportation to develop a memorandum of understanding, all as part of USC's Civic Engagement Initiative.

Dr. Terry Cooper and his team from USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development facilitated the event which spanned several months, (including two holiday weekends as some of the LADOT staff repeatedly pointed out) and included moderated team building exercises designed to encourage empathy and a win-win working relationship. The participating NC's were Silver Lake, Hollywood United, Northwest San Pedro and Mar Vista, each sending five representatives who met on weekends with a team from the LADOT led by Assistant General Manager John Fisher and Senior Transportation Engineer Glenn Ogura.

Through it all, I found the opportunity to develop relationships with the members of the LADOT and the other NC's to be of tremendous value, a benefit that I value to this day. I also thought the final work product, the LADOT/NC MOU, was of value and I was proud to have participated in its creation.

The journey was not without drama with some neighborhood council reps demanding that the process include the Department of Planning and threatening to withdraw if changes weren't made. The NC reps also found that the DOT representatives were unwilling to accept terms such as "major project" and "significant impact" without great debate that resulted in a watered down MOU.

Ultimately, we completed the process and produced a document that was approved by the participants and then sent to the respective NC's and the Department of Transportation for endorsement.

The Boards of the four councils each approved the MOU and I was honored to be selected by Hollywood United to serve as its NC rep, serving as the primary contact for the DOT.

The project leader, Thomas Bryer, called to invite us to USC's Rose Garden for a small ceremony to commemorate the signing of the MOU and the commencement of the "new" relationship between the NC's and the LADOT.

The ceremony never took place.

Since then, Bryer finished his work at USC. He is now known as "Dr. Bryer" and is a Professor of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Gloria Jeff has come and gone as LADOT's General Manager and the department is now led by Rita Robinson.

As for the NC's relationship with LADOT, not much has improved. The LADOT recently appeared before the Transportation Commission with recommendations for speed limit increases in the valley. Ms. Robinson was asked if the department had notified the neighborhood councils of the proposed changes and she responded, "No. We are not required to notify the neighborhood councils of actions such as this."

Perhaps it's time to revisit the City Charter.

Meanwhile, we wait, acutely aware that the LADOT never promised us the Rose Garden. Read the proposed NC/DOT Memorandum of Understanding here .

(Stephen Box is a community activist and a contributor to CityWatch.)