CityWatchLA - Oversight and Accountability requires a City Prosecutor with Enforcement Authority

CityWatch, Jan 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 1

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but not for support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such in formation during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations into City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(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 - Breaking the Law and playing dumb

CityWatch, Pub: Dec 10, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 98

The laws that require the City of Los Angeles to conduct its business in an open and participatory manner are regularly trounced by people who don't know any better or who simply feign ignorance. Either way, it demonstrates a significant need for oversight and reform at City Hall.

The Brown Act, named after its author, Assemblyman Ralph M. Brown, and passed by the California State Legislature in 1953, guarantees the public the right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies that include neighborhood councils, City Commissions, and the City Council.

Unfortunately, the 57 year-old law is not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the regularity with which it gets abused.

LA's City Hall is manned by a security detail that requires people to utter the phrase "The Brown Act" in order to invoke the State Law guaranteed rights, an odd approach to public participation, especially since it wasn't too long ago that those same officers were unaware of the phrase. It was the public that insisted that the Brown Act covered the public from the front door to the gavel.

LA's Police Commission is staffed by very polite people who seem completely unfazed by Ralph M. Brown's legacy, again offering the public an opportunity to educate those in charge of enforcing the law.

LA's Department of Water and Power Commission is staffed by City Attorneys who waste no time jumping on complaints and deflecting criticism, but who are completely unable to address the simple fact that the Brown Act requires a do-over if people are prevented from freely attending meetings.

If the Brown Act is violated at the front door, it is safe to say that those in charge are not diligent in enforcing compliance and the public should be diligent about agendas, reports, actions, and participation.

The upside to the tremendous burden that this puts on the public is the simple fact that legal fees are recoverable which means that the remedy or "cure" for the public is a do-over and any legal assistance is recoverable.

The California Public Records Act, (CPRA) also referred to as California Government Code Section 6250, guarantees the public the right to review documents, reports, and other records including digital files, as a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state.

The CPRA is also not required reading by the very people who are in the best position to violate it as demonstrated by the inconsistencies within City Hall.

The LADOT lists instructions for records requests on its website, rules that are repeated by staff when requests are made. The problem is that they require payment in advance for information that has not yet been reviewed. It's the other way around. Requested information can be reviewed and if copies are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged. But, most importantly, simply reviewing documents does not come with a fee.

The LADOT also says "Please allow 10-14 working days to receive your requested documents. Absolutely no rush orders will be accepted."

The CPRA, by contrast, says "Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor."

City Planning doesn't accept verbal requests, and then when they are put in writing, they must be sent to the correct person or they simply languish in limbo, violating the 10 day window of required response. Apparently "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" is still an option at City Planning.

The City of LA is not alone in its unequal and illegal interpretation of the California Public Records Act. Both Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are staffed by employees well-trained in the "I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong person!" approach to public service. Typically, locating the correct staffer is enough to make even the most intrepid member of the public simply give up and fade away.

By design? Regardless, it's illegal and once again, the remedy is to correct the situation and the legal fees are recoverable.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

LA's City Council recently engaged in a discussion of the 1st Amendment and an LADOT staffer pointed out that the 1st Amendment "came under federal purview" and was not the responsibility of the City of LA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The City of Los Angeles has run afoul of the 1st Amendment on more than one occasion, costing the city significant amounts of money in legal fees and settlements. The City of LA deals with the 1st Amendment on a regular basis, from newspaper racks on the public right-of-way to tourist attractions such as the Venice Beach Boardwalk and Hollywood Boulevard.

A federal judge recently ruled that LA's lottery system for vendor permits on the Venice Boardwalk was a violation of the law and issued an injunction that paved the way for a 1st Amendment "Freedom of Speech" lawsuit by those who were cited by the LAPD.

Another federal judge ruled in favor of "superheroes" who dress up and pose for tourists on Hollywood Boulevard, defending their right to perform and ask for tips as a 1st Amendment guaranteed "Freedom of Speech" issue that was violated when the LAPD cited the characters.

Critics point to the City of LA's inability to train its staff on the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, and the 1st Amendment as evidence that the public needs to have greater authority over City Hall and its adherence to the law.

Others claim that the City's bumbling over agendas and motions is a smokescreen that prevents the public from focusing on violations of California's prohibition against the gift of public goods, a charge that comes up with increasing regularity in land use issues, or from noticing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) powerful deterrents to public participation.

Through it all, former Los Angeles councilwoman Ruth Galanter puts things in perspective by reminding us "I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence."

(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 - LANCC defends DWP Reform funding

CityWatch, Nov 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 89

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) entered the DWP Reform fray, voting unanimously to condemn last week's revision to the City Council’s proposed ballot measure, calling anything short of a fixed funding commitment "a poison pill" that will ensure failure.

At issue are the City Council’s parry-reposte moves that both advance a plan for governance and oversight of LA’s Department of Water and Power while pulling the funding rug out from underneath the yet-unformed Office of Public Accountability.

The Perry/Parks motion of last week would "delete the provision that requires the Office of Public Accountability (OPA) to be set at a minimum or one-tenth-of-one-percent of annual LADWP revenues, and instead require the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), in consultation with the LADWP and other departments necessary, to prepare the budget for the OPA...submitting it to the City Council for approval."

Chuck Ray, Vice-Chair of the Neighborhood Councils DWP Oversight Committee and a member of the DWP’s Ratepayer Advocate Advisory Panel, says "the last minute motion removes the fixed amount of funding...and substitutes the judgment of the CAO, a political appointee. Structured this way, the City Council is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Ray pointed out that the budget debate comes down to Independent Oversight vs. Political Oversight.

The LADWP is the largest municipal utility in the United States but it operates without the independent oversight that is common in both the public and private sector. Typically, utilities answer to agencies and regulatory powers that vary in structure but include stakeholders, stockholders, bondholders, ratepayers, and a variety of commissions, boards, committees, and authorities.

Critics contend that the LADWP and its politically appointed Commission operate independently and without oversight, resulting in a consolidation of power that works to advance the interests of the DWP at the expense of the ratepayers in the City of LA.

Efforts to advance LADWP governance and oversight have wide support from both the neighborhood council advocates and city hall insiders.

Jack Humphreville, President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and the Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, has long advocated for "a well funded, empowered and truly independent RPA to oversee the operations, finances, and management of DWP on a timely and continuous basis."

Councilman Greig Smith called for an "Inspector General position to independently review and report on the operations, administrative and management actions of the Department of Water."

Council President Eric Garcetti joined in the call for DWP oversight and noted that the City of LA has spent over $1.5 million on consultants in the last year, simply investigating, researching and advising the City Council on specific LADWP issues, but with no comprehensive oversight role.

DWP Interim General Manager Austin Beutner acknowledges the need for oversight but says a Charter Amendment is unnecessary, arguing that "a rate informer, office of public accountability or whatever the vernacular used could actually be formed by actions of the department, together with this council."

City Council is wrapping a year-long discussion of LADWP reform, including Councilwoman Jan Perry's latest motion giving budget authority to the CAO, and moving forward with putting the creation of an Office of Public Accountability on the March 2011 ballot.

Concurrently, a City Hall discussion is taking place on the structure of the LADWP, including opportunities for the public to participate in the governance and oversight of the LADWP Commission and the General Manager.

Meanwhile, over on Hope Street, the LADWP General Manager and Commission are engaged in the development of a non-profit corporation that will operate under contract with the City of Los Angeles, offering oversight and governance, with a Board of Directors that has three business seats, three neighborhood council seats, one labor seat, one non-profit seat, and one environmental seat.

Humphreville compares the two independent RPA proposals by saying "There's no comparison. Anything short of a Charter Amendment with guaranteed funding levels for the RPA's office is a false start with built-in vulnerability."

The next step for the City Council sponsored Charter Amendment is the fine-tuning of the current document in a race to the November 17th deadline, at which point the pro and con arguments will be written.

The next step for the City Council sponsored revisions to the LADWP Commission structure is a vote at the Monday 8th joint meeting of the Rules & Elections committee and the Energy & Environment committee, then on to the City Council for a final recommendation. (the committee meeting may qualify as a full City Council meeting if enough members show up)

The next step for the LADWP sponsored "Corporation for the Office of the Ratepayers Advocate" is a presentation of the proposed by-laws, the model contract, and the names of the proposed directors at the December 7th meeting of the LADWP Commission.

The current board nominees are: Stuart Waldman and Carol Shatz - business seats, Kirsten Eberhard - environmental seat, Jack Humphreville, Chuck Ray, and Tony Wilkinson - neighborhood council seats. There are no current nominees for the open business, labor and non-profit seats.

(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 - LA: A Complaint Driven City

CityWatch, Oct 22, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 84

What a difference a complaint makes! Actually, it took a series of relentless complaints, but the dormant City of LA excavation site on the sidewalk of Hollywood Boulevard has been "tidied" and there seems to be some DWP activity, giving hope that someday soon the site will return to normal.

To recap, the City of LA took a sidewalk on Hollywood Boulevard out of compliance, left it in a dangerous state, and then debated departmental responsibility to the point of absurdity. Eventually, the DWP showed up and is now the proud owner of an excavation pit on the most famous boulevard in the world. (See video)

This simple exercise in frustration bears witness to the brutal fact that the people of Los Angeles live in a complaint-driven city, not a standards-driven city. This approach to the delivery of services and enforcement of standards is beyond inefficient, it's frustrating, it's divisive, and it wastes valuable assets. Most of all, it simply doesn't work.

1) Not everybody knows how to complain. City Hall has designed the process so that simply calling attention to "a big messy hole in the sidewalk" requires patience, fortitude, and an insider's knowledge of the many departments that have some authority over the streets of LA.

To take it further, participation in a City Hall Committee, Commission, or City Council meeting is limited to those proficient at navigating the agenda, the rules, and the process.

Even then, public comment gets limited to 60 seconds, items go forward without comment because the opportunity took place in another meeting, the agenda is rearranged, and City Hall continues to turn gold into straw.

2) Not everybody has the time and energy to complain. Today's call to 311 took two attempts, the first one reached an overloaded system and the second resulted in a journey that lasted 42 minutes. All to get back to the beginning.

A trip to City Hall can consume a day. A bit of prep, some travel time, navigate the Committee, Commission, Council schedule, wait for the agenda to advance, jockey for that magic moment when the public gets to speak to an audience who is transparent in their collective desire to scream "Next!" and then the long journey home, only to find that nothing has changed.

3) Not everybody can overcome the obstacles. Well meaning people care about their communities but they give up, simply to survive and because the cost of overcoming the obstacles is too great.

City Hall is a system that responds to complaints but then the leaders of our city disqualify people for complaining.

It's a system that requires the participants to fight, to complain, to increase the volume in order to increase the delivery of services which are delivered until the murmuring goes down and then they stop.

It's demoralizing and even the hardiest quit and withdraw. This is the cycle that takes our neighborhoods down, allowing for the decline that in turn prompts more complaints. It's a declining cycle and nobody wins.

4) Those who are elected to complain on our behalf spend the best part of their time (99.93%) being agreeable, and when it's their turn to stand up on our behalf, they turn their backs on the people they are supposed to serve.

When AB766, the Safe Streets Bill, was in the Assembly, I was there to support it. The City of LA had staff in the room but they were silent.

When AB 2531, the Kelo legitimizing bill, worked its way through the process, the City of LA did nothing to protect the people of LA. The bill was eventually vetoed by the Governor while those who purportedly represent the people of LA went back to the Kelo drawing board.

Does the public have to be excellent at navigating the system while the professionals are forgiven for their mediocrity? Apparently so, because time after time the public is disqualified from the process for coloring outside the lines while those in office work aggressively to work around the Brown Act, to complicate the public process, and to design a bureaucratic labyrinth so complicated, even the staff get lost. It's an insider's game and the public is excluded. Make some noise, get a pothole filled, now go away.

All of which begs the question, what's the alternative?

The National League of Cities (NLC) recognizes cities with outstanding programs that improve quality of life with Awards for Municipal Excellence. Among the 45 programs that were highlighted during 2010 was the Neighborhood Code Compliance Program (NCCP) which was created in response to a community call for a shift from a a complaint-driven process to a pro-active process.

The NCCP was credited with replacing the tension and conflict of a complaint-driven code enforcement process with a positive partnership with the community that encouraged "ownership responsibility, volunteerism, and confidence in the city."

Communities around the country are embracing the efficiency of a standards-driven operating style that embraces a systemic commitment to the delivery of city services. Successful programs vary widely in structure but they have one thing in common, they all treat the residents as partners, not as noisy rabble in need of a Toastmasters Class and a lecture on process.

If the City of Los Angeles is to take its place as a Great City, it will be as the result of embracing a standards-drive approach to the delivery of city services.

LA will move forward when it embraces the public as partners in improving the quality of life in the neighborhood. Most of all it will operate efficiently and effectively when it works for the people, not against them.

As for City Hall, it could use a concierge. Embracing the service model instead of the fortress model would mean that the public would be welcomed, offered assistance even if they ask incorrectly or haven't read the rulebook.

As for Hollywood Boulevard, the site has been tidied up and one might argue that it was now ADA compliant. Of course the recent rain turned the dirt into mud but for now, it's very tidy mud.

It's progress. I'll take it. But we've got a long way to go!

(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 - LA: A City at War with Itself

CityWatch, Oct 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 83

When departments within the City of Los Angeles fight with each other, their warlords take the struggle for turf into local neighborhoods and the streets of LA become battlefields where quality of life is written off as collateral damage. The casualties are the residents and business operators, because city attorneys work overtime to minimize departmental liabilities. On battle scarred Hollywood Blvd., locals navigate this eight foot excavation pit that bears witness to the no-man’s land that separates city departments from collective accountability and the responsible delivery of city services.

Weeks have gone by and the pit sits as a quiet reminder that the City of LA can take a sidewalk out of compliance and then simply drive away, violating its own standards and demonstrating the need for greater connectivity at City Hall.

The pit's origins lie in the Fire Department's construction of Regional Fire Station #82, a 32K square foot facility funded with $30 million of Prop F money that is 18 months post-groundbreaking.

The effort is administered by the Department of Public Works and involves Contract Administration, Engineering, Planning, General Services, Transportation, Street Lighting, Street Services, and a host of Contractors and Sub-Contractors.

A simple boring project by sub-contractors in order to install a Fire Department traffic control override system resulted in the discovery of lead covered conduit of unknown origin. By law, contractors notify the DWP upon discovery. The DWP then takes control of the site to determine what's underground and who the owner is.

The DWP excavated, they deliberated, and they evacuated. They left behind a plywood covered pit, crumbling asphalt, a berm of dirt and cement debris, and the obligatory misplaced DWP barricades and caution tape. Weeks have gone by.

A city official described working with the DWP by comparing it to the Roman Army. "Decentalized command with autonomous Generals running their own battalions, you can't rely on rules and code, you have to negotiate with each commander."

While private contractors are limited from street work during peak hours, from haul routes without authorization, and from street closure without permit, the DWP is charged with operating to their own authority.

In situations such as this, contractors and sub-contractors are prevented from completing their work, setting them up for claims against the city for the additional cost of pulling crews off jobs and standing by while the city of LA appears on Family Feud.

The irony of the departmental liability battle is that each department is represented by diplomatic forces that come from the City Attorney's office. While it's unclear whether the attorneys consider the City of LA or the specific department to be their client, it's abundantly clear that they do not serve the people who live and work in LA: A city under siege.



(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.)

LADOT Bikeways Misses Another Opportunity to Connect

This past week, Caltrans hosted two “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” seminars that were attended by bike activists representing illuminateLA, the Bike Writers Collective, Sustainable Streets, the LA Bike Working Group, Bikeside, the OCBC, and CICLE, by municipal planners representing Pasadena, Long Beach, Claremont and San Dimas, and by Caltrans staff including Engineers, Planners, Architects, Environmental and Legal.

Missing from the meeting was staff from the LADOT Bikeways Department. While some participants travelled from distant cities by plane, train, and automobile, staying overnight in hotels, the LADOT staff would simply have to walk downstairs from their 9th floor office in the same building. But they didn’t.

This is especially unfortunate because the subject of Sharrows was addressed during the seminar and the LADOT Bikeways staff missed hearing the “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” instructors address these points:



1) Sharrows should be positioned in relation to the travel lane to the left, not the curb line to the right.

2) Sharrows should be positioned (default placement) between the tire tracks of motor vehicle traffic in order to indicate a lane control position and to increase life of the Sharrows.

3) Sharrows must be placed so that they both discourage too-close-in-lane passing by motorists and door-zone (<13’ from the curb) riding by cyclists.

During another portion of the seminar, an instructor addressed poorly positioned Sharrows and liability and responsibility:



1) If a motor vehicle traveling in a straight line in the travel lane and a cyclist riding a meandering line of Sharrows placed a consistent distance from the curbline of a variable width street were to collide, the motorist would have right-of-way. Aftert all, the cyclist would be "merging traffic" and would be at fault.

2) Sharrows should be placed so that the cyclist using the Sharrows as a guide for lane position ends up in control of the lane, not in an inferior right-of-way (ROW) position that engineers conflict.

Meanwhile, back on the streets of Los Angeles, there are three issues with LA’s pilot Sharrows project that need to be addressed by the LADOT’s Bikeways Department. Requests for clarification and adjustment have elicited evasive responses that do not resolve the simple engineering dilemma.

1) The purpose of a Sharrow as articulated by the CTCDC and Caltrans is threefold:

a) To position cyclists out of the door zone. (minimum is 11’, experts call for 13’)

b) To position cyclists in a lane control position on a non-sharable (<14”) lane.

c) To clearly communicate to road users the correct lane control position for cyclists.

2) LA’s pilot Sharrows project adheres to two arbitrary installation guidelines:

a) The Sharrows are consistently placed 12’ from the curbline, even on a street of variable width.

b) The Sharrows are inconsistently placed at variable distance from each intersection, not based on the distance from the intersection but placed adjacent to the first vehicle parking space.

3) LADOT’s Bikeways Department either has guidelines and a standard for its pilot Sharrows project or it doesn’t.

a) If it does, they need to be public and they should be in the hands of LA’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. They also should be in the hands of the public which purportedly will offer feedback on the Sharrows and in the hands of the Neighborhood Councils which monitor the delivery of city services. This is especially true for the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council which actually contributed their money to help fund the Sharrows program.

b) If it doesn’t, they need to look to Long Beach and borrow theirs. They need to look to Hermosa Beach and borrow theirs. They need to look to Oakland and borrow theirs.

The City of Los Angeles is surrounded by cities who take a short amount of time, prepare a plan, involve the public, and then proceed to do good work, setting standards for excellence and picking up awards and further funding as they go.

Why doesn’t the LADOT Bikeways Department simply imitate success.

The current debate over the elements of LA’s pilot Sharrows projects consists of some simple questions and objections from the public and non-responsive evasive distractions from the LADOT Bikeways staff:

1) LADOT says that this is a pilot project and that these issues are being addressed for the first time. Simply not true. As one angry LABAC member recently pointed out “In 1997 I drove up to Oregon where I saw Sharrows for the first time. I took a picture of them and presented it to the LADOT back in 1997 at a BAC meeting. The LADOT came back and said the concept of a Sharrow was a dangerous liability to the City and they wouldn't consider it.”

The subject of Sharrows is not new, the science of engineering the Sharrows isn’t new, the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, Chaired by the LADOT’s John Fisher, approved Sharrows on August 12, 2004. To hide behind the “We’re new at this!” is simply an avoidance of responsibility by the LADOT Bikeways Department.

2) LADOT responds that calls for supporting signage are new and isolated. Again, simply not true. When the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway was being built, the subject of “engineered conflict” came up (2005) and the public requested “Yield to Bikes” (R4-4) signage support but the request was denied.

The issue was conflict between cyclists on a through line in the bike lane while the motorists were given an exit lane that merged across the bike lane. (Similar to the westbound lane on Sunset Blvd. in Silver Lake where a through traveling cyclist was taken out by a motorist merging to Griffith Park Blvd. by Triangle Park) The “Yield to Bikes” (R4-4) and “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” (R4-11) signs are old topics and have been rejected over and over.

3) LADOT responds to calls for positioning the Sharrows based on a relationship to the lane marker to the left as new and isolated. Again, simply not true. The MUTCD’s Guidance on bike lanes directs:

Bicycle Lane Markings on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) – page 9C-3

Guidance:

Bicycle lane markings on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicle lane.

In 2006 this was an issue on Sunset Blvd. where the bike lanes were positioned an equal distance from the curbline, not from the travel lane. The significant variable width of the street resulted in bike lanes that had a meandering relationship to the adjacent travel lane.

4) LADOT responds to comparisons to other cities by feigning ignorance and challenging critics “What cities?” as if they don’t know. If it’s true, it demonstrates a failure of relevance. If it’s not true, it is absolutely unacceptable.

Look at the center lane positon supported by the green stripe on the Sharrows in Long Beach. Look to the R4-11 signage support on the Sharros in Hermosa Beach. Look to the Oaklands standard for guidance on how to plan, how to communicate, how to disseminate information so the public, the implementation team, those responsible for evaluating, those responsible for oversight are all in sync.

LADOT’s Bikeways Department fails to acknowledge the three mandates for Sharrows, instead adhering to two arbitrary rules (12’ from the curb, only alongside parking)

The three biggest problems with the LADOT’s placement of the Sharrows:

1) Strict adherence to the “12’ from the curb” position results in Sharrows that sometimes direct cyclists to an incorrect position.

a) Fountain westbound past Vermont, the Sharrow puts the cyclist in a right turn lane, setting up a right hook conflict. Engineered Conflict!

b) 4th Street westbound approaching Vermont, the Sharrow puts the cyclist in a right turn lane to the right of a through/right turn combo lane. Engineered Conflict!

2) Strict adherence to the “12’ from the curb” position results in Sharrows that meanders while through traffic should follow a straight line.

a) Fountain has wb sections where the Sharrows direct cyclists to merge in and out of through traffic.

b) 4th Street has a Sharrow 10’ off the center followed by a Sharrow 15+’ off the center followed by a Sharrow 10’ off the center. This takes place with no sensitivity to the intersection treatment. (flared approach to facilitate right turns, merging traffic from intersection into one lane)

3) Strict adherence to the LADOT’s “Sharrows only adjacent to vehicle parking” policy results in a violation of the Caltrans guidance: “If used, the Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals of 75 m (250 ft) thereafter.”

a) Churches and Convalescent homes with loading zones and parking restrictions may not have on-street parking in front but that shouldn’t interfere with the placement of Sharrows “immediately after an intersection” but the LADOT places them at variable distances based on parking.

b) This results in variable positioning and a delayed merging action at the rear of the first parked car instead of a simple position clarification immediately after the intersection. Very non-sensitive to the context of the environment.

4) Strict adherence to the LADOT’s “Sharrows only adjacent to vehicle parking” policy also results in the placement of Sharrows too close to approaching intersections where traffic should be sorting based on destination (through vs. right-turn) but the Sharrows hold the cyclist in position too long. (Fountain approaching Western or 4th approaching Vermont)

5) The failure of the LADOT’s Bikeways Department to connect with the other city departments that have authority over elements of Fountain and 4th Street demonstrates a complete disconnect from the United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations which calls for “improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects.”

a) It is acutely apparent that the LADOT did not consult with the DWP nor was a survey of water main covers conducted in advance of the Sharrows installation.

b) It is acutely apparent that the LADOT’s partnership with the Bureau of Street Services on the Sharrows installation did not include any synchronicity of street resurfacing or maintenance or pothole repair.

c) It is acutely apparent that this was not a consideration because the LA City Department actually installing the Sharrows at the direction of the LADOT’s Bikeways Department is the same department responsible for LA’s street maintenance and repair.

It is imperative that the LADOT’s Bikeways Department immediately develop and implement a Sharrows Standard, even if only a temporary “pilot project” standard, and that it correctly position the Sharrows based on the travel lane (not the curb), that it correctly position the Sharrows in the lane control position on non-shareable lanes (<14’) and that it clearly communicate (signs and paint) to all road users the correct positon of cyclists on the street.

CityWatchLA - DWP Festival of Lights 14 - Cyclists 0!

CityWatch, Dec 8, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 100

The 14th annual DWP Festival of Lights has finally stepped over to the green side, hosting 14 pedestrian nights vs. 13 vehicle nights, and slowly adjusting to the inevitable. Apparently it's cheaper to open up the streets to pedestrians than to run shuttles, engage in traffic control and otherwise wrangle the traditional traffic congestion nightmare that was the hallmark of the Griffith Park holiday nightmare of years gone by. The shift in priorities is due to the intrepid advocacy of locals from the Greater Griffith Park NC, the Los Feliz Improvement Association, the Oaks Homeowners Association, the Atwater Village NC, and the many supporters of Griffith Park who have fought year after year for a people powered celebration of the holidays.

As for the cyclists of Los Angeles, there will be the traditional coal in the stocking.

On December 3rd, the Festival of Lights opened with the traditional Bike Night, consisting of two flatbed trucks hauling press down Crystal Springs as the 4th District Councilman and his staff ride the Festival of Lights, all to distract from the simple fact that cyclists are not welcome at the Festival of Lights on Pedestrian nights (makes sense) and on Vehicle nights. (doesn't make sense)

This will be the fourth year that cyclists will protest "Bike Night" and if the turnout is anything like years gone by, the LAPD, DWP, General Services, LADOT, Rec & Parks and Council office staff will easily outnumber the celebrants. Kicking off the Festival of Lights with a whimper, the cyclists plan on being there on Friday, December 18th to open the vehicle night with a shout!

Cyclists have long argued that California's Uniformity Code restricts a municipality from excluding cyclists from streets open to motor vehicles. The irony here is that there are bike lanes through the park but they are decommissioned for the duration of the Festival in order to make more room for cars.

Cyclists also argue that the auto-centric Festival of Lights is an ecological nightmare that shuts down the freeway, clogs up the neighborhood and wreaks havoc on the park environment.

To be fair, great strides have been made in accommodating other modes of transportation with pedestrians, equestrians and even dog-walkers receiving access that has steadily improved each year. The tremendous attendance by these groups indicates there is an audience in favor of reversing the priorities from an auto-centric Festival to a people-centric Festival, and slowly progress is being made.

But as long as the streets are open to motorists yet closed to cyclists, the Department of Water and Power, the Department of Rec and Parks and Councilman Tom LaBonge are guilty of treating cyclists like second class citizens.

This year, cyclists will gather at the Mulholland Fountain at 5pm and will ride at 6pm. They will bring their own music, their own lights and their own Santa.

This Festival of Rights promises to be memorable not just for the cylists but also for the motorists and their passengers who will be suffering through gridlock that typically lasts from 90 minutes to 2 hours.

As the minivans creep along, cyclists will ride through the festival, enjoying the evening air, the lights, the music and the free expression of their rights!

It might even prompt a few to add a bicycle to their holiday wish list!

(Stephen Box is a cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

CityWatchLA - Mayor’s Electric Vehicle Dream Blows a Fuse!

CityWatch, Dec 4, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 99

Mayor Villaraigosa selected the LA Auto Show as the backdrop for the announcement of his "Plug-In Infrastructure" scheme that proposes to create a network of electric charging stations throughout Los Angeles, all in anticipation of the onslaught of electric vehicles that he is convinced will be the next expression of LA's love affair with the car.

"The car culture started here, and it’s here that the new generation of vehicles should also begin.” The Mayor bemoaned the fact that LA is typically #1 in traffic congestion and #1 in air pollution.

"We need to find new, cleaner ways to travel,” Villaraigosa intoned … with a sense of discovery.

Then he offered up the details of the latest strategy in his ongoing pursuit of the "Greenest Big City" title, this time banking on a partnership between Edison, the DWP, Nissan, GM, Ford and the neighboring communities of Burbank, Pasadena, Santa Ana and Santa Monica.

This "Plug-In" team would offer electric car owners incentives ranging from tax rebates for home chargers to high-occupancy-vehicle lane access to preferential or free parking.

This news failed to resonate in Hollywood where small business owner Bechir Blagui stands alone, on Hollywood Boulevard, electric community car-share business plan in one hand and electric plug in the other hand, waiting for help in establishing one simple, solitary charging station in front of his business so he can offer locals and tourists alike a sustainable car-share program … and contribute to Mayor V’s grand green plan.

Bechir has turned to the LADOT, the LADWP, Councilman Tom LaBonge and City Council President Eric Garcetti for help but his vision of a charging station on Hollywood Boulevard is still just a dream.

Meanwhile, Garcetti found time to stand as Villaraigosa's wingman for the "Plug-In" press conference where they committed to a network of 500 charging stations consisting of 400 refurbished stations and 100 new stations complemented by the subsidized installation of private charging stations at homes and businesses.

Villaraigosa said "It is crucial to prepare for the expected influx of thousands of electric vehicles."

Garcetti added, "This initiative will bring together regional stakeholders to coordinate efforts that will streamline charging station installations at homes, business, and multi-family residential buildings, explore and expand public charging options, and create incentives for EV drivers."

Critics point out that vehicles, regardless of power source, take up space and LA's new focused support of zero emission vehicles hardly qualifies as a congestion relief solution.

Max Utility explains that there are almost six million registered vehicles in LA County which, at 119 square feet of space each, occupy 25 square miles of space when parked. (For perspective, note that Manhattan Island is just 22 square miles!)

Max concludes by pointing out that the average vehicle spends 95% of its life parked, which leaves all vehicles equal environmental offenders and consumers of valuable real estate in LA, America's capital of congestion.

Somehow lost in the rush to "Plug-In" is the recent report issued by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which offers up "First Mile, Last Mile" solutions that would encourage people to get out of their cars and onto mass transit.

Recognizing that getting to and from a Transit Hub is an obstacle for many potential transit passengers, SCAG spent $125,000 to come up with solutions that would help people navigate the home-to-transit and transit-to-home journey.

LADOT's GM Rita Robinson and City Planning's GM Gail Goldberg gave a co-presentation at a special combined meeting of the Planning Commission and the Transportation Commission where they unveiled the SCAG report with great fanfare.

The $125,000 ideas included ... brace yourself ... Carpooling, Taxis, Short-Term Car Rental, Folding Bikes, Bike-Share, and Car-Share."

Less than three months ago Villaraigosa, again at a press conference, attacked congestion and air pollution and offered as the remedy a car-share program.

"Providing alternatives to car ownership will help improve the environment and the city's traffic congestion," he told the gathering. Then he cut the ribbon on a partnership between the City of LA and ZipCar, a large car-share company that made a small commitment to place less than two dozen shared vehicles in a city of four million people, all in return for an exclusive relationship and the use of dedicated parking spaces.

The "Car-Share" concept keeps coming up as a congestion relief solution and successful programs in other cities have demonstrated that a single shared car can replace ten privately-owned vehicles and that car-share participants end up driving less than when they owned a vehicle.

Participants enjoy the use of a vehicle when it's needed without the expense of owning, registering, insuring, storing and maintaining a vehicle that will spend most of its life parked and waiting to be driven.

A survey of the USC and UCLA ZipCar programs reveals that the cars are popular and that car-share participants enjoy easy access to a vehicle and reserved parking when they return, all for a simple membership fee and an hourly rate.

Villaraigosa has promoted the benefits of car-share programs. He has promoted the benefits of electric vehicles. He has committed to supporting both car-share programs and electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, citizen Bechir Blagui puts "car-share" and" electric vehicle" together and gets ... well … ignored.

How can the City of Los Angeles ignore the needs of a small business operator, one who simply needs assistance in the process of installing a charging station on Hollywood Blvd. at a parking space dedicated to the use of electric cars? After all, he's simply asking for the assistance that Villaraigosa promises in his press conferences when the microphones are on and the cameras are flashing.

At Tuesday's Auto Show press conference, Villaraigosa promised that city officials would streamline the permitting and inspection process for the new charging stations.

He promised that local building codes and standards would be revised and that the utilities would modify their customer service process to better accommodate the charging stations.

He even went so far as to claim that his "Plug-In" program would lure battery and charging stations to Los Angeles resulting in masses of green jobs while Angelenos reduced their reliance on foreign oil.

Unfortunately he didn't promise to answer the phone when citizen Bechir called for help.

Earlier this year President Barack Obama proclaimed "Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities and towns across the country. Over the last decade, small businesses created 70 percent of new jobs, and they are responsible for half of all jobs in the private sector. They also help enhance the lives of our citizens by improving our quality of life and creating personal wealth. Small businesses will lead the way to prosperity, particularly in today's challenging economic environment."

When Villaraigosa was first inaugurated as Mayor he referred to Los Angeles as the city that best embodies bold dreams. He asked the people of LA to join him in his dream for LA. He called on LA saying "Fellow Angelenos, let's make Los Angeles a city of Purpose! Let's dare to dream! Let's dare to dream together!"

If Villaraigosa is serious about "daring to dream together" it means supporting others in their dreams.

To do that, he'll need to step out of the limelight of the LA Auto Show and onto the streets of Hollywood where he'll meet people who have big dreams … and can help bring his Plug In program to fruition … who simply need the City to do its job.

If he really wants remove the hypocrisy from his promise … really wants to make a difference … he'll grab LaBonge and Garcetti and together they'll power up Bechir's dreams of LA's first electric car-share program on Hollywood Boulevard.

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

CityWatchLA - Rich on Rhetoric … Light on Answers

CityWatch, Feb 20, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 15

Councilman Bill Rosendahl's highly anticipated Town Hall on Solar Energy Measure B drew a vocal audience of almost 300 people for a spirited debate that was rich on rhetoric but light on answers.

Ron Kaye minced no words as he opened his comments by declaring "If there was a three strikes law on failure on Solar Energy, the LADWP wouldn't be eligible." The room erupted in applause and the evening of dueling choirs was on as Brian D'Arcy, author of the measure, and David Freeman, former GM of the DWP, both dropped their opening position of "good jobs and clean air" and went after the panelists.

At one point Freeman responded to the criticism of Nick Patsaouras by charging "You were there (DWP Commission) for 4 years and you haven't got didely-squat to show for it."

D'Arcy and Freeman, who had a large number of supporters in the audience, were joined on the "pro" side by James Provenzano of Clean Air Now, whose contribution to the debate was limited to pointing out that solar energy was good for public health and that it was good for people.

Kaye and Patsauoras were joined on the "con" side by DeDe Audet of Venice Beach who threw two body punches that must have hurt. In her opening comments she pointed out that the must touted tax credits and depreciation that were a part of the plan no longer existed, quoting an August '08 letter from the IRS. There was no response.

Rosendahl had called for a show of hands, asking the audience who was in favor, who was opposed and who was undecided with an open mind. All three options drew thundering applause and when the evening was opened up for questions, it became apparent that most of those in attendance were there to offer opinions and only a few had questions.

In keeping with the unique and passionate nature of Venice, three of the speakers who spoke were from "Free Venice" and simply couldn't pass on the opportunity to protest the parking restrictions.

As the evening ground on, science became mixed with politics which became mixed with statistics, all of which led to a debate over the consulting reports that support the two sides.

As Rosendahl held up the PA Consulting report in one hand and the Huron report in the other hand, DWP GM H. David Nahai stepped up to clarify the difference between the two reports, referring the Huron report (favorable to Measure B) as a significant report based on extensive work and the PA Consulting report (critical of the DWP and Measure B) as a simple report assembled over a weekend.

Kaye jumped to his feet and shouted "You keep lying!" to which Nahai replied "You're the one who is lying." All of which could have simply dissolved into a battle of the reports, but DeDe Audet, who had stayed out of the fray all evening interrupted and threw her second punch of the evening. "Bill, I'm sorry, but there are actually three reports when you count the one prepared by the DWP. The PA Consulting report and the DWP report are close in their prediction of costs."

Critics claim the evening was dramatic but that too many questions related to the cost of the program, the unions involved, the timeline and penalties for failing to perform, product from China, shipping and transportation impact, private party participation and a host of related subjects went unanswered.

Rosendahl capped the evening with his proclamation that "Some studies give us hope, some studies give us doubt. We don't know the costs. This is a new day for Los Angeles and if you're undecided like me, hopefully you're closer to making a decision." (Stephen Box writes for CityWatch.)

When Holidays Lights Go Bad

A Million-Light Baby, With Parental Issues
How can an "eco-friendly" festival exclude bicycles?
Min Kang
Issue date: 12/22/08

The Insider

The festivities have begun and it is time again to visit the bright child of Los Angeles, officially known as the 13th Annual Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Griffith Park Light Festival. Whether you like it or not, with its twinkling lights, it attracts Angelenos searching for a unique winter holiday experience with a traditional twist.

The festival sponsored by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) draws large crowds; an estimated 650,000 visitors attended last year. A bold mission to "go green" attached to its glittering surface, the festival could be the poster child for the city's eco-friendly lifestyle. At least that is the objective. The problem is that not everyone can agree that earth-consciousness is what the festival represents.

The Department of Water and Power (DWP) gushes about how the festival has "gone green." To them, this means converting festival lights to Light Emitting Diode Lights or LEDs, using a clean fuel cell for power and expanding the "vehicle-free" nights to two weeks of pedestrians walking through the one-mile route.

During the walking-only nights, it can be a pleasant trip. Fortified against the cold with a delicious warm churro in your mouth, you join other pedestrians out for a leisurely stroll. There is a predominant theme of mischievous elves. Kids gaze intently and point to the lit brontosaurus, while others stand awkwardly in the cold against a dazzling tunnel of light as cameras flash. Music blasting from hidden speakers hit all notes of holiday emotions; from nostalgic carols to sexy saxophones evoking the content end of a night of revelry.

One grandmother dressed as Mrs. Santa hustles the two-step with her grandson as they dance along to the tunes. Couples cuddle in crooked arms and kiss. A troupe of dog owners and a variety of pedigreed dogs reminiscent of "Best in Show" walk briskly past.

Linda Bennett with her red-nosed husband (illuminated Rudolph bulb attached to his nose), a newcomer to the festival, already has made memories. "It is a great family meeting place. My whole family is here, my grandsons. It was my daughter's idea to bring us all together here."

Kim Hughes of the water company's Public Affairs office, says that this is "a gift from the city to the city (residents)." Certainly the DWP is proud of their baby. It is the most visible public relations outlet they have. But this is the artifice of holiday cheer is created by LED lights. And like Cinderella's pumpkin carriage, the magic is only temporary.

After December 7, the festival returns to its car-dominated tradition of gridlock and its generous contribution to global warming. "Never let the cars in, says Richard, a light festival visitor and new father. "The fact that we could walk through is great, rather than smelling the exhaust (from cars)." In previous years, pedestrians have had to walk along the path with motor vehicles.

When Hughes claims that DWP has enjoyed a long-established, strong environmentally-conscious reputation, it reflects the staunch efforts of the department to maintain the image - that the festival represents the same altruism to the environment as in their projects. "The LADWP has always been a leader in environmental stewardship, as it was one of the first utilities in the country to develop a "Green Power" program, a solar program, etc."

In reality, the DWP has reservations about letting the festival be completely car-free. Many of the concerns involve unsupervised children. In a recent Los Angeles Times article "City-Sanctioned Traffic Jam Adding to Global Warming," by Steve Hyman, he suggests that Joe Ramallo of the DWP fears that a pedestrian-friendly festival would encourage solicitors of "unsupervised kids who linger and hang out." Some other concerns veer to the ludicrous, like how pedestrians "could trip over things" or "children may stray too close to the lights."

A serious obstacle to creating a pedestrian-only festival is, ironically, the lack of parking spaces. Pedestrians drive to the festival form their homes and need a place to park their cars. "We try to monitor parking because there's only a certain amount of space," says Hughes. To be precise, there are only 2,200 spaces in the zoo parking lot, by the Merry-Go-Round and its adjacent lots. The festival has to accommodate 2,000-5,000 cars a night. "We're trying to bring in the Metropolitan Transit Authority [MTA] public transportation, says Hughes, "but right now there's only one bus (during "vehicle-free" nights) that takes visitors up here until 6:30 p.m." She admits, "The budget is tight," but returns to reassuring plans as she ends her sentence, "and next year we hope to lobby for longer times and more shuttles."

We should understand that the department is working hard for us. That same dedication for the community is the message the department wants ingrained. It is perfectly stated in Ken Lombard's, President of the LADWP Commission, 2002 interview with Business Wire: "The light festival represents an important opportunity to reinforce LADWP's commitment to the communities throughout Los Angeles and the 3.8 million residents we serve by bringing them together to celebrate our history and our City's landmarks in grand holiday fashion." In other words, the department is trying to promote its presence in the community and accommodate as many people as possible. Unfortunately, the goal of "accessibility" conflicts with the goal of "green."

Keep in mind that this is the work of a bureaucracy, a well-oiled machine pumping public relations propaganda. The commitment of accessibility for the masses excludes bicyclists from the 3.8 million Angelenos served. Other than one preview night for bikes, Nov. 28, bicyclists are banned from the light festival. Access has been granted to motorcyclists who speedily wind through spaces between cars. Recently, equestrians and canines have been welcomed, yet bicyclists are excluded. One discontented group of avid bicyclists wants in.

This group, known as the Bike Writers Collective, views the water company's ban on cyclists as being poorly justified. Founder and spokesperson Stephen Box, of steely eyes and a quick tongue, lashes against the DWP's ineptness to reduce congestion. He says, "The light festival is accommodating so many more vehicles that the Interstate 5 shuts down all the way to the 134 Freeway, as a result of the significant traffic congestion." He continues, "One would think then, that in an effort to reduce the congestion, (the DWP) would encourage other modes of transportation like (he makes an emphatic pause) - what do you call this? - a bicycle." Box has no mercy when revealing the fallacy of the water company's reasoning. "But instead what (the DWP does is) take the lane that typically cyclists would use on Crystal Springs Drive and dedicate it to another lane of motor vehicle transportation."

When asked why bicyclists are banned, Hughes unknowingly reveals how water and power encourages congestion without placating bicyclists. "We are concerned with safety, as a two-lane road is converted to three with an emergency lane and two vehicle lanes converted into a one-way route," she says. "Vehicles go through the festival without their headlights on and since we also have barricades, there is a very little safe area for bicycles and we would not want anyone to be injured."

The Bike Writers Collective is skeptical. "This is the same battle cyclists fought when the Griffith Observatory reopened," said Box in a LAist article, "and Recreation and Parks intended to exclude bicycle access."

The Bike Writers see the ban as a violation of California state law which the DWP has no authority to enforce. Box recites the state laws: "California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21 is the uniformity code which restricts the municipality's authority to regulate the movement of cyclists with three exceptions: freeways, sidewalks and bike licenses. CVC 21200 says where motorists go, we go." Three years since its formation, this legislation-savvy group has rallied and petitioned the city council to allow them to exercise rights supported by state law. Some have taken their passion for bicycles and cyclists' rights to articles and blogs to vent the frustrations of their campaign or relate the latest progress made on behalf of bicyclists.

The bicycle activist's most demonstrative act is the annual protest ride through Crystal Springs Drive which they did on Dec. 8, which, ironically, was the opening night for cars to enter the festival. They met at the Mulholland Fountain, dedicated to the legacy of William Mulholland, a paradoxical figure that brought water and expansion to the city while ravaging the Owens Valley and provoking outrage from environmentalists. It is clear that they are no pushovers. This community of bicyclists exudes youthful energy. Some of the cycling comrades are wrapped in stringed LED lights, another plays irreverent holiday tunes that include a parody from South Park, and one is a stern Santa wearing glasses. It is a sight to see.

Though excluding bicyclists may not be the most prominent issue, Box sees that the ban is a consequence of the DWP's refusal to recognize the core problem - severe traffic congestion around Griffith Park. Surveying the intersection between the southwest corner of Los Feliz Boulevard and Crystal Springs/Riverside Drive, Box notes, "This is one of the most congested intersections in our city; this is a treacherous intersection in general. A police officer was killed right over there. As he pulled someone over, he was hit."

In a 2005 study of fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle accidents in Los Angeles County cities, Los Angeles had the most fatalities; 277, and injuries; 42,832, of all other cities in the county. Box asserts, "For us to encourage motor vehicle transportation as a form of recreation and entertainment is absolutely antiquated. It is the complete antithesis of all that (the city) should be doing as a committee, to improve the quality of life in this community."

Despite complaints from residents and bicyclists alike, the light festival pushes safety and environmental concerns aside. It continues to support motor vehicle transportation because it brings in the most visitors. In the LA Times article by Hymon, Councilman Tom LaBonge "thinks cars are part of the deal to allow as many people as possible - including those who cannot walk the route - to see the lights." After all, isn't popularity what maintains legitimacy in the DWP's claim to "dedicated" service? This is the car-centric city. The 2000 census on the means of transportation utilized by Angelinos reveals that nearly 1.2 million people travel by car, truck, or van in Los Angeles.

Box makes a poignant statement of the water company's and the city's attitude: "There's a saying that success has many parents, but failure's an orphan." Water and Power and the city are proud to brag about their light festival that dazzles. As for the other offspring - the traffic jams, heavy smog and ban on bicyclists, both parents refuse to claim responsibility.

For now, the Light Festival carries a heavy burden to uphold the family name - the same "quality" service to the Los Angeles community.

CityWatchLA - Griffith Park Festival of Rights

CityWatch, Nov 28, 2008
Vo. 6 Issue 96

The City
By Stephen Box

The Griffith Park Festival of Lights opened with a whimper this past Monday night as Councilmember Tom LaBonge joined the DWP in hosting the Festival's token "Bike-Night."

This year the displays were brighter, the attendance was lighter, and LaBonge's stubborn resolve to limit cyclists to this one night of pre-holiday festivities was as strong as ever.

LaBonge reaffirmed his claim that it's simply not safe for cyclists to ride on the street at night with so many automobiles, forgetting that Crystal Springs is striped with a bike lane. Well, it was. Actually, the bike lane disappears during the Festival of Lights in order to create another lane for motor vehicles.

All this from the self-proclaimed Patron Saint of Cyclists!

This is the 13th year for the Griffith Park Festival of Lights. It was originally conceived by Councilmember John Ferraro as LA's "gift to the people." Ferraro was inspired by a Festival of Lights he witnessed in San Antonio and he returned to Los Angeles vowing to create a display worthy of LA. This he accomplished, in ways he may not have imagined.

In all fairness to the DWP, this year's festival shows great improvement with two weeks (November 25 - Dec 7) set aside for a vehicle-free festival featuring special accommodations for equestrians (Tues, Wed, Thurs) and even a protected lane for the peds who bring their dogs. In other words, even those who arrive by dog-sled can enjoy the Festival of Lights, all while cyclists are banned.

The progressive changes in the operation of the Festival are largely the result of strong lobbying from the Parks, Rec and Open Space Committee (PROS) led by Bernadette Soter and a coalition of supporting organizations which includes the Los Feliz Improvement Association, the Oaks Homeowners Association, the Sierra Club, the Greater Griffith Park, the Hollywood United and the Atwater Village Neighborhood Councils, the Bike Writers Collective and a full complement of community groups that totals approximately 30.

The Coalition has long been advocating for improvements to the auto-centric, environmental nightmare that the Festival of Lights wreaks on the local community. Fully a half-million people arrive each year to enjoy "LA's gift to the people" resulting in traffic congestion so significant that the adjacent freeway is brought to a halt. Festival attendees sit in traffic congestion so thick that the notion that cyclists would be endangered is laughable. (Coughable?) Signs announcing 90 minute to 2 hour delays in traffic bear witness to the significant negative impact that the large number of idling vehicles represent, all as they wait for access to the one-mile long Festival of Lights.

Meanwhile, cyclists are banned in order to allow for more motor vehicles. (Or was it for the safety of the cyclists?)

In either case, the "Yea for Motorists! Nay for Cyclists!" Griffith Park Light Festival is well under way, with only one week left to join the DWP in its effort to help the City of LA become "America's Greenest City!" and to enjoy the vehicle (and bicycle) free Festival. After that it's business (bike-free) as usual.

As for the cyclists of Los Angeles, December 8th, which is the opening night for the motor vehicle crowd, is also the night for the Griffith Park "Festival of Rights," a ritual ride of protest where cyclists adorn themselves in the appropriate holiday decorations and ride through the gridlock, sharing holiday goodwill and cheer with the motorists who find themselves trapped in the awe-inspiring gridlock that is most certainly worthy of a city such as LA. This was certainly not what Ferraro had in mind. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist activist and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net )

INFO: For the “Festival of Rights” ride, cyclists meet at the Mulholland Fountain at the SW corner of Los Feliz Boulevard and Crystal Springs/Riverside Drive at 6:30 p.m. December 8 and ride @ 7:00 pm. (3700 Los Feliz Blvd. LA, CA 90027)

CityWatchLA - Welcome Sign Comes Down at Board Meetings

CityWatch, Nov 7, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 90

DWP Watch
By Stephen Box

This past Tuesday I traveled to the DWP Commission meeting in order to request a repeal of the ban on cyclists during the DWP's Griffith Park Festival of Lights. This was my 4th visit to the Commission this year in an effort to lift the ban and this is my third year of fighting to lift the prohibition. (I've also gone to the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee, Councilman LaBonge, San Antonio and the Parks, Rec and Open Space Committee, all in an effort to sway the DWP)

I arrived late to find a thinly populated room with Commissioner Forescee Hogan-Rowles chairing the Commission, Commissioner Lee Kanon Alpert to her left and Commissioner Wally Knox to her right.

The Commission Chambers, traditionally a full house, was thinly populated and those in attendance seemed distracted and bored with a couple most certainly taking a nap.

I tried to sign in for public comment but my opportunity had passed so I attempted to turn in a speaker card for the last item on the agenda, only to be informed that they heard that item at the beginning of the session because of the large number of people who turned out to speak. I asked how many people turned out and was told seven. That included Councilmembers Garcetti and LaBonge.

With little to do but watch, I settled in and was immediately struck by the new tone and demeanor of the proceedings.

A couple of contracts come up for approval which prompted DWP GM David Nahai to address the issue of conflict of interest and DWP Chief Operating Officer Raman Raj's relationship with DWP vendors. Nahai began an overview of the process to ensure that all contracts were executed openly and transparently and in accord with the DWP's ethics policies, only to be cut off by Commissioner Alpert who said "I know Mr. Raj, I've had conversations with Mr. Raj and I've experienced his commitment to an ethical style of operation. I don't need to hear any more, Mr. Nahai. I trust Mr. Raj and I trust you."

Commissioner Knox leaned into the microphone and offered his endorsement saying "I echo Commissioner Alpert's comments."

Chair Hogan-Rowles beamed, the speaker who was preparing to speak was relieved, the issue was put to rest and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the contracts.

Long gone were the days of the (Commissioner Nick) Patsauoras-Nahai tension. Days when one could show up a half hour late and still make public comment. The DWP Commission had morphed into a mutual admiration club with checks and balances and oversight replaced by a new love fest environment. All that was missing was a round of Kumbaya and some Graham Crackers and milk.

The meeting adjourned and the room cleared, quickly.

I found myself standing in Commission Chambers with Nahai and Knox and so I took the opportunity to present my case for the repeal of the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park during the DWP's Festival of Lights.

Mr. Nahai made eye contact, listened, nodded and seemed to be interested. Knox paused for a moment, looked at Mr. Nahai and dismissed me with the simple comment "Cyclists have been given concessions and access to the Festival. They're allowed in on Bike Night." He then nodded, turned and left the room. Apparently he thinks that cyclists should celebrate the holidays on Nov 25th. He's wrong.

Since I had the opportunity I charged ahead and pointed out that a DWP ban on cyclists violated State Law (CVC 21 - Uniformity Code which precludes municipalities from restricting cyclists unless expressly permitted) Griffith Park Charter (transportation “kept within the reach of the most modest means.”) and simple logic. (who on earth can defend a ban on cyclists in an urban wilderness environment, all in an effort to make way for more automobiles who will then spend 90 minutes in a traffic jam)

Nahai responded that stakeholders had responded favorably to the DWP's "Bike Night" access plan. I pointed out that there were no stakeholders in favor of the "Bike Night Preview" on November 25th and that, in fact, I had the support of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee in lifting the ban. I pointed out that the significant stakeholder attitude was one of opposition to an auto-centric Festival.

I stated clearly that the DWP's ban on cyclists was simply indefensible and asked him to lift it. To his credit he never wavered but simply acknowledged my argument and promised to investigate. I thanked him and turned for the door. As I crossed the room, he called out, "By the way, I admire and respect your tenacity."

The ball is now in Nahai's court. Here's hoping the holidays are happy for everybody in Los Angeles, including the cyclists.

(Stephen Box is an important cyclist advocate in Los Angeles and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Brown Out at the DWP

CityWatch, Sept 26, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 78

City Ignores the Law
By Stephen Box

Legendary rock band Van Halen, at the peak of its popularity, was taken to task by the media when it was discovered that Van Halen’s contract contained a provision that called for a backstage bowl of M&M’s, but with all of the brown ones removed. Often dismissed as Urban Legend, Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth confirms the story as true, quoting article #126 of their production contract which specifies “There will be no brown M&M’s in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.”

As for the charge that this was evidence of the lavish and whimsical demands that Rock Stars made on promoters, Roth responds the ban on brown M&M’s was far from frivolous and was instead simply a quality control measure, implemented to guarantee adherence to a contract that was complicated and included complex technical specifications.

In short, when the band arrived in town, they would stop backstage and look for the bowl of M&M’s on the craft service table. If they found brown M&M’s, they knew it was time to line check the entire production because there were sure to be technical problems. Sometimes they might be minor, sometimes they might threaten to destroy the show and sometimes they might be simply dangerous.

There’s a lesson here for the members of the public who attend meetings covered by the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state law that guarantees the public the opportunity to participate in government meetings and deliberations.

Simply announce to the Security Staff at the entrance that you are a member of the public attending a public meeting. The Brown Act specifies that the members of the public have the right to attend public meetings without having to provide their name or any information.

Last month I attended the DWP Commission meeting in order to appeal to the Board to lift the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park during the DWP Festival of Lights in November and December.

I approached the Security Desk and was asked to sign-in. I smiled and identified myself as a “member of the public, here to attend a public meeting.” The guard didn’t smile and instead informed me that I needed to show identification and sign in. I responded that I was a “member of the public, here to attend a public meeting.” He repeated his position, I asked for a Supervisor, the Supervisor supported the Guards position and I showed identification and signed.

When it came time to speak before the Commission, presenting my claim that the DWP is violating state law (CVC 21) by banning cyclists from the streets while leaving them open to motor vehicles, I pointed out that the DWP was also violating state law, the Brown Act, by refusing to allow me to attend the DWP Commission without showing identification and signing in.

General Counsel to the DWP, Richard M. Brown (no relation to Ralph M.) responded quickly saying “you’re absolutely right! According to the Brown Act, the public has the right to attend meetings without having to identify themselves or provide identification.”

I pointed out that I was there to ask the DWP to stop violating state law at Griffith Park only to find the DWP violating state law at the DWP Commission. The remedy or “cure” for the Brown Act violation is to re-agendize the meeting and reconvene at a later date. I passed on requesting the “cure” but I did ask them to adhere to state law and lift the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park.

My request drew a meeting with Councilman Tom LaBonge, DWP staff and Recreation & Parks staff, all who reiterated that the ban on cyclists would stand.

At the next DWP Commission meeting I repeated the “I’m a member of the public and I’m here to attend a public meeting” request. This time it only took four members of the DWP security detail a consultation with the supervisor, a series of back and forth requests to sign in, a discussion with regards to providing me with an escort and …voilá…I was free to attend the DWP Commission meeting without signing in. This was progress!

I spoke my piece and then DWP Commission Chair Nick Patsaouras graciously noted that this was my second visit the DWP Commission on the same topic and instructed staff to put my issue on the agenda “so it can be resolved.”

As I left the meeting, I had the opportunity to chat with the Deputy Counsel to the DWP, Joseph A. Grajevich, and I pointed out that progress had been made but that it was still an ordeal to invoke the Brown Act at the DWP. He shook his head and said they were working on it. I reminded him that the law was 53 years old and at this rate, I was worried that they would never get to my real concern, the ban on cyclists during the DWP Festival of Lights.

He asked me who was in charge of the DWP Festival of Lights. I chuckled and responded “If it’s successful, there will be many departments responsible, if it’s controversial, it will be an orphan.”

The journey is far from complete. I’ll be at the next DWP Commission meeting on October 7 and I look forward to presenting my proposal to lift the DWP ban on cyclists.

I hope you’ll join me, not just in fighting for my cause, but also in claiming your rights under the Brown Act and in ensuring that those in power are reminded at every opportunity that the Brown Act is a real law and that we expect it to be enforced.

“See you in Chambers!”

(Stephen Box is a community activist and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)