"Pico-East Olympic-West " - CHRONOLOGY

	Date		Document		Description
	04/23/08		Press Release		Pico Olympic Solutions Response to LADOT NEW FAQs
	04/20/08		Press Release		LADOT Releases a NEW FAQ.
	04/02/08		Legal		GWLACC dba Pico Olympic Solutions' response to the City's answer dated 3/26/08.
	03/26/08		Legal		City's answer to the complaint filed 2/27/08.
	03/13/08		Article		City Watch LA- Neighborhood Councils, HOAs and constituent groups are only heard by the city if they sue.
	03/09/08		Article		Jewish Journal - Olympic Pico Traffic Plans on Hold.
	03/07/08		Article		Beverly Hills Courier Article - Beverly Hills Traffic Commission Meeting and Pico Olympic Solutions' Jay Handal is there.
	03/06/08		Article		Daily News Article
	03/03/08		Article		LA Times Article - Mayor doesn't measure up against today's global cities.
	02/29/08		Article		Jewish Journal - Pico Business Owners Protest Traffic Plans.
	02/29/08		Article		Pico Olympic Solutions POSITION PAPER.
	02/29/08		Article		CityWatch article by Harold Katz - opposed.
	02/29/08		Article		Larchmont Chronicle article - opposed.
	02/27/08		Legal		Suit Filed. Plaintiff - GWLACC dba Pico Olympic Solutions, Defendant - Mayor and City of Los Angeles.
	02/27/08		Article		L.A. Weekly Article - Councilman Rosendahl upset. Wesson gets his carveout.
	02/25/08		Article		L.A. Times Article weakly describes the Pico / Olympic dilema.
	02/22/08		Article		Westwood South of Santa Monica Homeowners Association also opposes the Mayor's plan.
	02/16/08		Press Release		Pico Olympic Solution’s Press Release in response to the Mayor’s action of 2/14.
	02/15/08		Article		LA Times article re: Mayor’s blockade.
	02/14/08		Press Release		Mayor’s bold move to bypass City Council.
	02/13/08		Letter		Statement of unlawfulness prepared by an atty and presented at the 2/13 Traffic Committee Meeting on behalf of Pico Olympic Solutions.
	02/05/08		Report		DOT Revised Report to the Traffic Commission in preparation for the 2/13 meeting
	02/02/08		Article		L.A.Times prints story profiling business fears.
	01/26/08		Emailed		Document prepared by Steven Chueng of the Mayor’s Office. Concessions to restricted parking hours. They’re not hearing the people. WE DON’T WANT THIS INITIATIVE.
	01/23/08		Report		DOT Report to the Traffic Commission. Parking Consultant's Findings: The key finding of the parking consultant was that the "Preferential Parking Program (PPP) is too accommodating, diminishing its effectiveness to manage demand". This is code for PPDs will be targeted for reduction and/or elimination to accommodate displaced traffic from businesses.
	01/18/08		Article		CityWatch - Opposed
	01/18/08		Article		Jewish Journal - Reaction to CD4 Meeting on 01/14.
	01/14/08		Meeting		Meeting notes for CD11 Rosendahl Townhall
	01/07/08		Meeting		Westside Neighborhood Council Notice for a TownHall Meeting on 1/14
	01/07/08		Article		Beverly Press article
	01/05/08		Action		Signatures and PICO NC Letter of Opposition sent to Traffic Commission and Mayor’s Office (Copy of letter below)
	01/03/08		Petition		Signatures gathered between 11/30/07 and 01/02/08 (electronically and manually) to oppose the initiative. Count = 1,147
	01/02/08		Survey		D.O.T. Survey for suggestions to make the traffic better on the Westside
	12/29/07		Article		Miracle Mile Monthly - Neutral POV- incomplete representation of core issues
	12/28/07		Article		Jewish Journal - Opposed
	12/22/07		Meeting		Organizational Meeting Minutes for ad hoc traffic group
	12/21/07		Letter		PICO NC formal letter of objection to the traffic initiative
	12/20/07		Article		Venice Paper - Opposed
	12/20/07		Meeting		Notice for a TownHall Meeting on 1/09 - CD11 Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
	12/18/07		Letter		Wendy Greuel, Traffic Commission Chair - plan for the future
	12/18/07		Web Info		Wendy Greuel, Traffic Commission Chair - strategic plan
	11/30/07		Petition		ONLINE PETITION - opposing the traffic initiative
	11/30/07		Petition		DOWNLOAD PETITION for physical distribution
	11/27/07		Report		Report filed by the Dept. of Trans. detailing the concept and implementation of a 3-phase project of turning PICO and Olympic into predominantly one-way streets, aka “Preferential Directional Traffic Flow”
	11/26/07		Press Release		Announcement of Mayor’s Pico East Olympic West Traffic Initiative
	03/06/07		Web Info		CITY OPENS FILE for Yaroslovsky's Initiative
	09/19/01		Report		LA’s dept of City Planning’s Plan for the Wilshire Community

"Olympic-West Pico-East Traffic Initiative" – Background

On the heels of Mayor Villaraigosa's November 26th press conference announcing his new "Olympic-West Pico-East Traffic Initiative”(1), several groups, who had fought this battle only 8 months prior, put aside their yule tide spirits and mobilized once again. In the peak of the holiday season, neighborhood councils, business groups and home owner associations were caught completely off guard, along with a majority of the L.A. City Council, by what appeared to be a strategically timed fast-track through the bureaucratic process. The mayor's new initiative had not been vetted to the community and was scheduled for implementation in January 2008. As a result, groups of business and community leaders descended on the December 3rd Traffic Committee Special Meeting to voice their opposition as well as the neglect they felt by being left out of the decision-making process; a process clearly stated in the city's charter that involves getting feedback from neighborhood councils and other community groups.

First of all, this initiative is not so new. It's actually the same wolf proposed by Councilmember Yaroslavsky in April 2007 but in different sheep's clothing. In January of 2007, Zev Yaroslavsky "hired a traffic consultant to analyze the feasibility of turning Olympic and Pico Boulevards into one-way streets from downtown Los Angeles to the City of Santa Monica."(2) The study, called the "Olympic/Pico One-Way Pair Initial Feasibility Study" was penned by Allyn D. Rifkin, P.E., presented to the Traffic Commission in April and given the file number 07-1199. The committee decided to request the Dept. of Transportation to review and analyze Councilmember Yaroslavsky's feasibility study, do some community outreach and report back in 60 days.

When the D.O.T. commenced with their outreach, the public was vehemently opposed to the proposal. Townhall Meetings in several impacted areas resulted in record high attendance by outraged citizens and businesses. Since July 2007 until the announcement of the mayor's new initiative there's been no ongoing dialogue with the community regarding any changes or re-proposing of Councilmember Yaroslavsky's original plan. It appeared to the community that their voices were heard and the initiative had been defeated. It's no surprise that the community was startled and outraged with the mayor's new "Olympic-West Pico-East Traffic Initiative" unveiled on November 26th (under the same city file number #07-1199).

Although presented with a bright and shiny new name, this new proposal bears no significant difference to the end result of it's predecessor. It's slippery schedule of implementation is split into 3 phases, however, it's clearly aimed at attaining the same goal: to create 2 one-way streets. Some will argue that the inclusion of a contra lane to accommodate busses is technically not a one-way street but that would be splitting hairs. The result is still predominantly one-way corridors. One might ask, " Why are we doing this at the expense of businesses, neighborhoods and community if the result produces no long-term sustainable solution?" The answer is, "We shouldn't." Are there other agendas at work here? Do politicos need to hang their star on a temporary solution to bolster their own public opinion polls? Are there hip-pocket developers waiting in the wings to snap-up prime boulevard real estate at a deep discount? After all, the new initiative would strip away valuable customer street parking forcing small businesses to close their doors, thereby reducing the value of commercial real estate – a great opportunity for larger developers to raise buildings much like what is happening along mid-Wilshire. What we should be doing is addressing the infrastructure of traffic in L.A. and creating a system that works in the long view instead of using solutions that are outdated and unsuccessful. Perhaps focusing on moving people instead of cars is the answer.

No one solution will address all the traffic problems that face L.A. but with smart planning, informed progressive politicians who show leadership along with citizenry that care, we can make it work. It's for this reason that this ad hoc coaltion was started. We're here to raise our voices, express our concerns and utilize every resource and braintrust in our majestic city to work together to bring about change that makes sense – keeping L.A. one of the best places to live.

-End

(1) Source: Mayor's 11/26/07 Press Release.
(2) Source: L.A. Traffic Commission Meeting Minutes – January 2007.

Congestion Pricing: More than a Bad Idea

Voice in the Cheap Seats
By Charles Tarlow

Congestion Pricing: it is not just a bad idea, it is morally corrupt.The new year has begun and already there is more talk about “Congestion Pricing”, the euphemism for “Preferential Access for the Rich”. An example of Congestion Pricing is the plan to charge for use of the diamond lanes with more being charged during the hours of highest traffic use. This week, the state said the plan for CP was on the fast track. Backed by the Federal Government, this plan will put cities to the moral test and the exam is a simple one question pass or fail integrity test:

Is it better to:

A. Take the Federal monies, along with gratuitous fees and rate hikes, in exchange for reserving diamond lanes, parking and even highway access exclusively for rich folks. Or,

B. Take responsibility for the planning mistakes of the past and develop a mass transit plan that will serve all the people of Los Angeles.

As incredible as it seems, Los Angeles is poised to fail this morality test. Economic pressure, callused indifference and the fact that all the decision makers are rich, conspire to support the path of least resistance: “take the money and run”. After all, the only people who will be negatively affected by CP are those who cannot afford to pay and by the time they figure it out, it will be too late.

It should come as no surprise that our leaders are isolated from the people they represent. Why else would they give themselves raises in the midst of a “financial crisis”? Why else would they continue to allow development over protests of the people? And why else would they consider selling public resources to the rich?!!!

If you are concerned about these issues, take the exam. Pick up your pencil; will it be “A.” or “B”? Money or morality?
If you believe that the diamond lane should be given to the highest bidder ... do nothing!
If you believe that public parking should be available only to the privileged ... do nothing!
If you believe private roads for the rich are the solution to congestion ... do nothing!
If you believe it is OK for our rich leaders to make laws that benefit only the rich ... do nothing!

Do nothing, say nothing, be quiet, and “Congestion Pricing” will solve the mobility problem ... FOR THE RICH!

(Charles Tarlow is a community activist and a member of a neighborhood council in the mid-city area.)

Heathrow to go PRT by Fall 2008!

"The Rand Corporation put its think tank people together some 30 years ago to study and consider transportation solutions for LA. What they determined was that one of the reasons Los Angeles drivers aren’t turned on by public transportation is that they prefer to travel in their own space. As, in the space their cars provide when they’re commuting. The Rand folks concluded that Personal Rapid Transit … an automated, on rail, overhead transpo system that provides personal cars … or pods … that will take you anywhere in the city … in your own space.

London's Heathrow Airport is building a Personal Rapid Transit system as you read this. It’s an idea. Would it work for LA? "(1) Click HERE to see a video of a PRT system.

This author feels that coupled with larger monorail systems that will support moving larger amounts of people, the PRT as a sub-system would further increase the attractiveness of park-and-ride scenarios.

It's well worth looking into.

-Scott

(1) Epstein, Sara. "Here’s an Idea: PRT to the Sea," CityWatchLA.com. Tuesday, January 22, 2008.

Pico/Olympic article, Street Fight

2008-01-18

Street fight

By David Suissa

The Brooklyn-born activist rose from his seat, walked slowly to the microphone, cleared his throat, and in front of a couple of hundred fellow activists assembled in an auditorium on a chilly Wednesday night, expressed his righteous indignation.

"We are tired of being used as stepping stones!" he bellowed to the delight of the crowd. "Enough is enough. It's time for our voice to be heard!"

Was the man referring to the abuse of Israel at the United Nations?

Was he expressing outrage at how thousands of Jews displaced from their homes in Gaza two years ago have had their lives turned upside down, while bombs keep falling on Sderot?

What was this man so passionate about?

Actually, he was talking about the parking and traffic situation on Pico and Olympic boulevards.

He was fuming that he and other residents were not consulted before the city announced their plan to relieve the ever-worsening traffic on those boulevards.

You see, a few months ago, the city decided it was time to finally show some action on this particular problem. The plan that was announced in November by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Councilman Jack Weiss at an outdoor press conference in November had three phases, the first being the most controversial: restrict the parking on Pico and Olympic boulevards during the peak traffic hours.

For storefront merchants who depend on street traffic and who contribute plenty in taxes and fees, that was the last thing they needed.

Take Julien Bohbot, owner of Delice Bakery in Pico-Robertson, who was sitting next to me at the Wednesday town hall meeting. Most of his customers use street parking on Pico, and the 3-7 p.m. time period is his busiest. If the city makes parking illegal during that time, he can't see how his business will survive.

The meeting was full of angry business owners and residents like Bohbot, and it was clear that the man who got up to speak, Jay Handal, was their hero.

Handal heads the Greater West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council. He was so passionate and knowledgeable about his cause, I felt I was listening to Alan Dershowitz defending Israel.

A few days later, I decided to track him down at the Italian restaurant in Brentwood he has owned for 21 years, San Gennaro.

It turns out that Handal is not only upset at Villaraigosa and Weiss for the way they "ambushed"

the neighborhoods with their press conference, he's also upset at the local media, particularly the Los Angeles Times, for not giving enough voice to the neighborhoods' grievances.

He does have kind words for councilman and former television host Bill Rosendhal, who arranged the town hall meeting and who is helping residents and small business merchants get their day in court.

Handal thinks it'll be an uphill battle to stop the city's plan, because, as he says, Villaraigosa and Weiss now have egg on their face, and it's not easy for politicians to admit they're wrong.

Are they wrong? Well, the fact that the Department of Transportation and a mayoral representative are now appearing at a series of town hall meetings to explain their plans and listen to people's concerns is a sign that they could have handled it better in the first place.

But Handal also thinks their proposals are misguided. He thinks restricting parking won't solve anything because it will encourage even more traffic on those boulevards, while hurting businesses -- which in the end only lowers the city's revenues. At the meeting, he got a rousing applause when he brought up the idea of starting with phase two -- retiming of traffic lights -- and leaving the street parking alone until more impact studies are done.

The real problem, he told me, is that the city of Santa Monica overdeveloped their business sector without a corresponding increase in housing. This has resulted in a huge increase in eastbound traffic on Pico and Olympic; and since Venice and Washington boulevards are underused, he thinks encouraging people to use those boulevards would be smarter.

But all those ideas are peanuts compared to what Handal dreams about for the future.

On Sunday, he told me about this dream, which he is working on with a group of activists, and which he believes will redefine the city of Los Angeles: High-speed, comfortable, pollution-free, magnetic-levitation monorails.

No kidding. He showed me plans. Instead of costing $7 billion like the city's much-touted "Subway to the Sea," and taking until the year 2030 to extend the current subway from Western to La Cienega, the monorail would cost $1.75 billion, go from the ocean to Union Station and could be completed in five years.

As he sees it, the monorail would rise majestically above Pico Boulevard (or any other major east-west artery) and would be a major tourist attraction. He talks about having fancy cafes in these monorails, first-class cabins with express service to downtown, convenient stops for shoppers and commuters, and, eventually, expanding the monorail to other parts of Los Angeles to reduce the congestion and get people to places like LAX without any hassles.

Handal is livid that these kind of creative ideas get so little attention. When I ask him why, he replies in his thick Brooklyn accent: "Just follow the money." Powerful unions and big business, he says, have a vested interest in lucrative projects like $7 billion subways, and politicians hungry for election money listen to them.

But Handal is not deterred. His passion never ends.

Frankly, I don't often meet people who go gaga over stuff like parking studies and the timing of traffic lights. But I confess, when I saw Handal get so passionate about the monorail idea and his vision for the city I love, it gave me a little thrill.

Maybe I'll go to the next town hall meeting. Mr. Mayor, are you listening?

David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine and Meals4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org.

© 2006 jewishjournal.com

Pico/Olympic traffic plan

Hello Malibu, Goodbye Mom & Pop

Pico/Olympic Traffic Crises
By David Chudnow

I recently attended one of the public meetings held to discuss the proposed Olympic/Pico traffic plan. What an exercise in futility! Although the issues are complex and deserving of legislative-type discussion, the Mayor has chosen to avoid the City Council and has announced his intent to implement this plan by himself, over the next few months. Apparently he has the support of Jack Weiss, Council representative of the Westside, the area which will be most impacted. Although both the Mayor and Mr. Weiss had representatives at the meeting, none of them chose to engage in dialogue with their constituents to offer any insight into the issues or to answer any of the questions aimed at them. Rather, they stood cowardly in the rear and let John Fisher, on behalf of the Department of Transportation (DOT), field the questions and dodge the spears. As you may be aware, the Plan (although its particulars are somewhat fluid) desires to transform Olympic Blvd into a “predominately west” street and Pico Blvd into a “predominately east” street during “peak hours” of rush hour (also a somewhat fluid term as used by DOT, but now stated as being 7-9 am and 4-7 pm), from the 405 all the way downtown, to purportedly alleviate traffic congestion. It was clear from the meeting, however, that the Powers that Be have a hidden agenda and are merely using this as a smokescreen.

In order to achieve their stated goal, DOT proposes a three-step Plan: a) Creation of Peak Period Lanes on Olympic and Pico – this will be done through the elimination of on-street parking; while this may not be much of a factor along Olympic, given the width of the Boulevard and the fact that most establishments already have their own parking, this would greatly impact the Mom & Pop businesses along Pico, which have little or no parking of their own; essentially it would reduce their business day to 7 hours; b) Alterations in Traffic Light Signalization – under this portion, the lights would be set to encourage “continuous flow” at 25 mph; there are obvious flaws with this; for example, DOT admits there will be interruptions caused by buses stopping in the curb lane; nor does the Plan really consider the qualitative and width difference between Pico east of Beverly Drive and Pico west of there; a test trial showed no improvement in the former location; c) Preferential Direction Flow Operation – under this portion, various strategies would be employed to encourage the desired traffic pattern; for example, left turns would be reduced to only two cars per light, the number of turn lanes would be reduced (in particular, at Motor and Beverly Glen) and traffic flow would be “encouraged” to only go north/south at Centinela and Crenshaw, while being actively discouraged elsewhere, a la the “privatization” of Motor Ave. Although DOT would like us to believe that the cost of the initial phases is only $300,000 apiece, that figure does not consider the substantial human cost to the areas affected nor the impact on local businesses. In effect, the Mayor wants the Westside to bear the burden for allowing this crush of traffic by Malibu commuters who do not want to use the 10 Freeway.

In listening to the DOT’s responses to resident questions it became clear that the Mayor does not simply want to move traffic. If DOT sincerely wanted to do that, they could concentrate traffic flow to and from downtown onto Venice Blvd., a substantially wider street and one far better suited to handle a high influx of cars without disruption of its neighborhoods.

Rather, the Powers that Be really desire to use this to achieve urban renewal of an area they see as “blighted,” the eastern portion of Pico, without engaging in appropriate eminent domain proceedings or paying compensation as required by law. For example, when asked if the Plan included funds to compensate owners for taking of their properties, the answer was a simple no. When asked about the impact on neighborhoods, Mr. Fisher replied that the areas “would adjust,” citing the area of Pico near the Apple Pan as a sterling example. Apparently Mr. Fisher does not recall or chooses to ignore that there were formerly many Mom and Pop stores on Pico east of Westwood Blvd. When the City implemented their new parking restrictions in the 70’s almost all of them were forced out of business. The City compensated no one. They have now been replaced by larger sleeker stores like Circuit City which was able to construct above-ground parking. The Apple Pan survived only due to the tenacity of its owners, its ability to service customers for longer hours and the fact that it has a small parking lot of its own. Mr. Fisher also told us that residents could “adjust their schedules” to the new regime; for example, they could do their shopping on weekends rather than during the week. This is simply unrealistic and impractical. Finally, the Mayor intends to rush the Plan through without any Environmental Impact Report even though it will have huge impact on thousands of residents and have significant adverse impact on numerous businesses. When asked about this, Mr. Fisher stated they see the Plan as simply implementing “parking restrictions.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

In short, if you are a business owner on Pico east or Beverwil, you will have two choices. Either organize or prepare now to close your business and move. There’s an express train bearing down on you and you are in the way. If you are resident, be prepared for substantial disruption and alteration to your lives for the foreseeable future. The Big Boys are ignoring you. (David Chudnow is a 35-year resident of the Westside and an attorney specializing in real estate and business law.)
Need to know: the DOT Plan summary can be found at www.wncla.org. For more perspective on the Pico West/ Olympic East debate, see Alan Mittelstaedt’s opinion piece … “Scream if you hate traffic” … at www.LACityBeat.com . _