Pico/Olympic: The war continues
The mayor's decision to move forward with the Pico/Olympic one-way plan has critics -- including the South Carthy Neighborhood Assn., racing to block the idea. Here's an email: We have only one chance to stop this disaster. Please support Olympic Pico Solutions’ lawsuit seeking an injunction against the Mayor’s decree. Olympic Pico Solutions has already raised approximately $10,000.00. (The SCNA has already donated $1,000.00 and I am also writing a personal check.) Olympic Pico Solutions still needs to raise approximately $10,000.00 by Friday, February 22, 2008 to hire the law firm that defeated the Mayor’s plan to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District. The Times' Sharon Bernstein notes the one winner in the plan might be Councilman Herb Wesson, who got the what he wanted: The mayor reduced the size of the project by more than a mile. It was initially supposed to run from the Santa Monica city limits to La Brea Avenue. Now, the idea is for it to end at Fairfax Avenue. The change is apparently a nod to Wesson, because the project no longer goes through a part of his district for which he expressed concern. Old Map:
For the Record, the Greater West Los ANgeles Chamber of Commerce project name for the litigation against the Mayors Pico plan is"Pico Olympic Solutions.
COntact information is Jay Handal or Brandon SIlverman
at info@westlachamber,org
Posted by: jay handal | February 29, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I feel really good about what we are doing here helping the businesses in each community to have a voice and see how this Proposal will effect them. The DOT Proposal is an opportunity for all involved to get together threw neighborhood councils and Groups as well as HOA's and local residents find a solution for our traffic on these streets, the Mayer has stopped that process, it was his decision no one else's, he needs to be accountable for that.
Lets face it the bumper to bumper traffic on these two therofairs is present. Last week the traffic going west in the morning on Pico was stopped, not because of the parking on the north and south sides but the construction zone west of Beverwill Dr going to Roxbury. It was backed up to Livonia. Let's say that the parking was removed. The construction zone was still on the north side going west with cones extending out 2 lanes this was in the early am about 9. This is the kind of data the DOT should be looking at' what is stopping traffic" I am only sharing my experience last week. The data is what Pico Olympic Solutions in interested in. It show's over and over that the Dot Proposal as written currently is not clear in bring information to the community to understand there thought process.
There are a couple questions the community needs to ask. "if this proposal goes threw as written may it effect the way I go to take my kids to school, go to work, pick up my cleaning, go to my bakery, go to my school, go to my favorite restaurants, what impacts are they going to have and what can I do to help them with those impacts. Pico/Robertson has Built there community to be a walking one as well, Safety first, A place where smiles are exchanged and the community means more then saving six minutes which brings me to another point. Now that the proposal has been altered, To eliminate the restricted parking on the north and south sides from La Brea to La Cienaga and the restriction from Westgate to Centinala, Is it really six minutes. How is that possible this was also brought up in the Transportation meeting on February 13, 2008.
Also lets look, at the selected North and South streets lets use Westwood blvd as an example. I invite you to see the traffic going North and South from the Westside Pavillian Bridge. Now imagine the left had turn lanes during these hours of "one way operation".
The first phase effects the parking, where do these cars park? Pico / Robertson doesn’t have parking structures like Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Development has not let that particular process take place yet.
Lets all work together to see what we can do help out each other. Lets us use this opportunity of the Mayer’s decision to come together.
We oppose the way the plan is written not doing something about the traffic. I wouldn't get very far with the name "Pico Olympic Solutions if we didn’t do something about the traffic.
Brandon Silverman
Pico Olympic Solutions - Founder
GWLACC
310-746-7111 (C)
310-481-0600 (O)
310-478-2068 (F)
RE: City Council File #07-1199
Council Districtt # 5, 10 and 11
Posted by: Brandon SIlverman - Pico Olympic Solutions (Founder) | February 26, 2008 at 01:08 PM
It is unfortunate that Susan writes so much with so little facts. Yesterday, based on her commentrs, I spoke with the deputy city manager of beverly hills, who sent me a press release dates 2/18 which stated that the city of beverly hills has not taken either a soft or firm position on Pico. She went on to state there is a commission meeting in March to hear the issue. She also stated that the city had MANY calls of concern, and was in fact concerned about the impacts of the plan.
Susan also went on to talk about all of the meetings over the past year. FACT: The plan as proposed now is not the same as the Zev plan, proposed last year. FACT; THe Mayor snatched a potential plan out of the hands of the city council and the voters, by overriding the transportation committees 60 day delay in order to continue dialogue with the community. Fact-this plan has nothing to do with Cheviot HIlls and the expo line and Mr. Everloff, but yet, the truth be known, it should. The impacts of north/south traffic will be felt every time a train crosses at grade and stops the already gridlocked traffic.
I assure Ms. Susan this is not a nimby issue, but ratrher a quality of life issue. I would invite her to our meetings so she could see first hand what is being discussed, so that next time she writes, it can be factual and not an attack of an individual.
Posted by: jay handal | February 26, 2008 at 09:27 AM
Re Pico/Olympic: The War Continues
This is a strange "war" in that we have heard almost unanimous opposition (10 to 1 against according to Councilman Jack Weiss on "Which Way LA?") to the Mayor's plan from the roughly 100,000 residents and hundreds of businesses in the vicinity of Pico and Olympic, but we rarely hear from any supporters of the plan other than a handful of weird and excessively hostile anonymous bloggers. There do not even appear to be many vocal supporters of the plan among the drivers who use Pico and Olympic between downtown and Santa Monica each day. (I suspect that is because most of these drivers do not actually travel between Santa Monica and downtown, but in fact only use Pico and Olympic for limited distances and don't want more traffic on these boulevards.) So, who is supporting this plan? There is no visible support for this plan among the members of the public. More to the point, why are the flawed and fading Mayor and the soon to be termed out Councilman pushing it so hard? The Mayor has even resorted to acting like a tin pot dictator. Who or what is behind this nonsense? Should we start following the money? Perhaps only discovery in the upcoming litigation will answer these questions. Maybe then the LA Times will take its thumb out of its mouth and start connecting the dots.
Posted by: Eric Lardiere | February 25, 2008 at 07:01 PM
And just out: Proof that Susan is ill-informed.
The City of Beverly Hills just issued a press release which reads in part:
"The City of Beverly Hills has taken no formal or informal action on Mayor Villaraigosa’s ‘Olympic West/Pico East’ proposal,” stated Mayor Jimmy Delshad. Furthermore, the City of Los Angeles cannot proceed with changes to roadways within Beverly Hills without the City’s concurrence.
...
The City has already received numerous expressions of concern from residents and business people. "
Posted by: WLABusiness | February 25, 2008 at 01:32 PM
"Susan" is clearly misinformed or paid to misinform.
First, the effort against the Pico/Olympic plan is being waged primarily by businesses, not so called NIMBYs. While residents between Pico and Olympic are exceptionally against this plan, the main force behind the effort to stop the plan pending further mandataed reivew is small businesses.
Second, she makes conclusory statements about the plan's benefits without a shred of data to refute the concerns raised by the business community. In contrast, opponents of the plan have provided a full position paper on why the plan will not work.
Simply put, this plan favors commuters who pass through an area over small businesses and their local customers. Small businesses need to be convenient to their customers. That means available parking and not fighting ever-increasing rivers of traffic. That is why businesses are against it.
DOT has stated that they have not studied impacts on north/south streets. DOT has stated that they do not know if the plan will work. They stated: "Directional signal operation and preferential directional flow are experimental, have not been tried elsewhere in the nation and might have unanticipated
impacts."
That's great for Susan, but for business owners whose entire livelihood is represented by their businesses, being a national test-case seems downright wrong. Thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of employees find themselves the target of this plan.
DOT has also stated "The addition of peak period lanes for both the AM and PM peak periods will have
initial adverse impacts to parking availability until schools, religious institutions, businesses, and customers can adjust to the new parking restrictions, as has occurred elsewhere in the City."
The ONLY way the city can relieve the parking problem created by the plan is to remove or modify preferential parking zones that protect residential areas from retail parking intrusion. This will bring the business community into direct conflict with their best customers - their neighbors. There is also ZERO funding for any parking mitigation or in fact ANY corrective actions if businesses are harmed.
Let's look a bit more closely at the key benefit being represented by the plan - a 7 minute travel-time improvement. Unfortunately, with Councilman Wesson removing his area from the plan, Councilman Rosendahl threatening to do the same and (despite Susan's assurances to the contrary) Beverly Hills NOT being part of the plan, the benefit is illusory - at best.
Another problematic part of the plan for business is the reliance by the plan on north/south streets to carry "crossover" traffic between Pico and Olympic. This includes streets like Sepulveda, Sawtelle and Westwood Boulevard which are already FULL at rush hour. There is just NO MORE ROOM to handle any more diverted traffic.
Further, DOT has stated that it expects Century City commuters to travel to Centinela to access the 10 freeway west or as far as Crenshaw or La Brea to go east on the 10. Any plan that makes this assumption is just not a plan grounded in reality.
Given the city’s financial crisis, one of the most troubling aspects of this plan is its fiscal irresponsibility.
When the Santa Monica Boulevard project was implemented, a $700,000 fund was established to handle and pay for unexpected impacts after the project was implemented. A $300,000 fund was created to handle impacts during implementation. The Santa Monica Boulevard project was a 2.5 mile project.
The Pico/Olympic plan covers SIX TIMES more roadway. Given City budget constraints, can the City really guarantee that money will be available to react to critical and unexpected impacts as promised? Can the City dedicate a pool of funds exclusively for unexpected project impacts?
From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, is it appropriate to state a budget for the project that does NOT include a mitigation fund?
Approving the project without committing resources to mitigation is either approving a blank check OR giving empty promises of future mitigation for which there will be no funding.
In this time of decreasing revenue and tight budgets, can the City afford to write a blank check for mitigations? Will the City be opening itself up to lawsuits for irreparable harm to local businesses? Is it unethical to promise that mitigations will be forthcoming when no money has been budgeted for those mitigations? The bottom line: Unfunded mandates are bad planning.
Councilwoman Greuel stated: “We are never going to solve our transportation crisis with a piecemeal solution. During the last 20 years, the region’s transportation leadership has failed Angelenos by focusing on short-term political gains rather than long-term investments. We must have a comprehensive citywide vision and invest in long-term planning.”
Councilman Rosendahl has stated: “When it comes to fighting traffic gridlock, we need a coordinated, comprehensive strategy that addresses transportation issues in specific communities. We can no longer have a piecemeal approach to traffic congestion.”
What we really need is a fiscally responsible, comprehensive plan for handling traffic. This isn't it. This is just a misguided effort that focuses on “short-term political gains rather than long-term investments.”
Posted by: WLABusiness | February 25, 2008 at 01:24 PM
The fact is that this plan will NOT increase traffic through the area as critics claim, but do exactly the opposite. The City of Beverly Hills, which has signed onto the Plan since November, estimates that 70% of the traffic on this corridor (the SAME corridor being addressed here) is pass-through traffic to/ from downtown or City of Santa Monica, and at their recent Town Hall meeting, City Planners and Mayor Delshad emphasized that this plan should speed this traffic though the city and REDUCE traffic on residentail streets, thus overall improving quality of life, air quality from idling cars, etc.
This is of course the logical analysis, but the group opposed to this plan is spearheaded by Mike Eveloff, who fought Weiss on every Century City development and demanded that his HOA must be allowed to determine how much the developer was shaken down for being allowed to improve their property. (They've earned the city a reputation for being unfriendly to business and ALL developers, as full of militant HOAs -- so what they think was good for them, is bad for the city. Exactly like their wrong-headed battle against this Plan.)
Eveloff, Jay Handel and their group are even giving out false information to rile up the residents, like telling them that Mayor Villaraigosa and Weiss didn't even consult Beverly Hills, when the opposite is clearly true and they know it. (As does Bill Rosendahl, who they're looking to to override the Plan -- Rosendahl was part of the plan all along with Beverly Hills' Mayor, but has the stamina and spine of a wet noodle. Maybe it's his generous "heart," but this waffling from one day to the next and inability to stick to a vision and plan in the fact of any opposition, is a poor quality for a "leader.")
The Mayor and Weiss have held community meetings for well over a year, and included a lot of resident comments into the way this Plan has been dramatically modified and improved over Zev's rough one-way street proposal. But NOTHING is enough for this group. They claim concern for businesses who will be affected by rush- hour parking restrictions, but also oppose the businesses using temp parking permits on residential streets for their clients. They give false and misleading info on their HOA websites, and behave with childish rudeness at meetings with DOT and Weiss and the Mayor.
The opponents who claim they haven't been consulted and that offers haven't been made, are not telling the truth. They also opposed the subway going through Cheviott Hills and this same Olympic//Pico corridor, so the Expo line is so far south, many consider it as likely to be underused by commuters as the Red Line subway is. (which was also thwarted by this same group decades ago.)
Yes, these people scream for immediate traffic relief -- as long as the Plan is implemented so much fuirther south like the Expo line that it will become useless to commuters. If these people had any sense, they'd see what Beverly Hills does: that moving the same amount of traffic through your area FASTER will mean less congestion and pollution (idling cars pollute more), and less cut-through traffic on side streets.
Of course, logic has never been a strong suit of this group, who have been out for NIMBYist obstructionism, control and childishly and rudely, battling our Councilman and Mayor in the belief that rude behavior is the best way to "negotiate" for solutions,.
Posted by: susan | February 18, 2008 at 05:41 PM
The fact is that this plan will NOT increase traffic through the area as critics claim, but do exactly the opposite. The City of Beverly Hills, which has signed onto the Plan since November, estimates that 70% of the traffic on this corridor (the SAME corridor being addressed here) is pass-through traffic to/ from downtown or City of Santa Monica, and at their recent Town Hall meeting, City Planners and Mayor Delshad emphasized that this plan should speed this traffic though the city and REDUCE traffic on residentail streets, thus overall improving quality of life, air quality from idling cars, etc.
This is of course the logical analysis, but the group opposed to this plan is spearheaded by Mike Eveloff, who fought Weiss on every Century City development and demanded that his HOA must be allowed to determine how much the developer was shaken down for being allowed to improve their property. (They've earned the city a reputation for being unfriendly to business and ALL developers, as full of militant HOAs -- so what they think was good for them, is bad for the city. Exactly like their wrong-headed battle against this Plan.)
Eveloff, Jay Handel and their group are even giving out false information to rile up the residents, like telling them that Mayor Villaraigosa and Weiss didn't even consult Beverly Hills, when the opposite is clearly true and they know it. (As does Bill Rosendahl, who they're looking to to override the Plan -- Rosendahl was part of the plan all along with Beverly Hills' Mayor, but has the stamina and spine of a wet noodle. Maybe it's his generous "heart," but this waffling from one day to the next and inability to stick to a vision and plan in the fact of any opposition, is a poor quality for a "leader.")
The Mayor and Weiss have held community meetings for well over a year, and included a lot of resident comments into the way this Plan has been dramatically modified and improved over Zev's rough one-way street proposal. But NOTHING is enough for this group. They claim concern for businesses who will be affected by rush- hour parking restrictions, but also oppose the businesses using temp parking permits on residential streets for their clients. They give false and misleading info on their HOA websites, and behave with childish rudeness at meetings with DOT and Weiss and the Mayor.
The opponents who claim they haven't been consulted and that offers haven't been made, are not telling the truth. They also opposed the subway going through Cheviott Hills and this same Olympic//Pico corridor, so the Expo line is so far south, many consider it as likely to be underused by commuters as the Red Line subway is. (which was also thwarted by this same group decades ago.)
Yes, these people scream for immediate traffic relief -- as long as the Plan is implemented so much fuirther south like the Expo line that it will become useless to commuters. If these people had any sense, they'd see what Beverly Hills does: that moving the same amount of traffic through your area FASTER will mean less congestion and pollution (idling cars pollute more), and less cut-through traffic on side streets.
Of course, logic has never been a strong suit of this group, who have been out for NIMBYist obstructionism, control and childishly and rudely, battling our Councilman and Mayor in the belief that rude behavior is the best way to "negotiate" for solutions,.
Posted by: susan | February 18, 2008 at 05:40 PM
The fact is that this plan will NOT increase traffic through the area as critics claim, but do exactly the opposite. The City of Beverly Hills, which has signed onto the Plan since November, estimates that 70% of the traffic on this corridor (the SAME corridor being addressed here) is pass-through traffic to/ from downtown or City of Santa Monica, and at their recent Town Hall meeting, City Planners and Mayor Delshad emphasized that this plan should speed this traffic though the city and REDUCE traffic on residentail streets, thus overall improving quality of life, air quality from idling cars, etc.
This is of course the logical analysis, but the group opposed to this plan is spearheaded by Mike Eveloff, who fought Weiss on every Century City development and demanded that his HOA must be allowed to determine how much the developer was shaken down for being allowed to improve their property. (They've earned the city a reputation for being unfriendly to business and ALL developers, as full of militant HOAs -- so what they think was good for them, is bad for the city. Exactly like their wrong-headed battle against this Plan.)
Eveloff, Jay Handel and their group are even giving out false information to rile up the residents, like telling them that Mayor Villaraigosa and Weiss didn't even consult Beverly Hills, when the opposite is clearly true and they know it. (As does Bill Rosendahl, who they're looking to to override the Plan -- Rosendahl was part of the plan all along with Beverly Hills' Mayor, but has the stamina and spine of a wet noodle. Maybe it's his generous "heart," but this waffling from one day to the next and inability to stick to a vision and plan in the fact of any opposition, is a poor quality for a "leader.")
The Mayor and Weiss have held community meetings for well over a year, and included a lot of resident comments into the way this Plan has been dramatically modified and improved over Zev's rough one-way street proposal. But NOTHING is enough for this group. They claim concern for businesses who will be affected by rush- hour parking restrictions, but also oppose the businesses using temp parking permits on residential streets for their clients. They give false and misleading info on their HOA websites, and behave with childish rudeness at meetings with DOT and Weiss and the Mayor.
The opponents who claim they haven't been consulted and that offers haven't been made, are not telling the truth. They also opposed the subway going through Cheviott Hills and this same Olympic//Pico corridor, so the Expo line is so far south, many consider it as likely to be underused by commuters as the Red Line subway is. (which was also thwarted by this same group decades ago.)
Yes, these people scream for immediate traffic relief -- as long as the Plan is implemented so much fuirther south like the Expo line that it will become useless to commuters. If these people had any sense, they'd see what Beverly Hills does: that moving the same amount of traffic through your area FASTER will mean less congestion and pollution (idling cars pollute more), and less cut-through traffic on side streets.
Of course, logic has never been a strong suit of this group, who have been out for NIMBYist obstructionism, control and childishly and rudely, battling our Councilman and Mayor in the belief that rude behavior is the best way to "negotiate" for solutions,.
Posted by: susan | February 18, 2008 at 05:40 PM
The fact is that this plan will NOT increase traffic through the area as critics claim, but do exactly the opposite. The City of Beverly Hills, which has signed onto the Plan since November, estimates that 70% of the traffic on this corridor (the SAME corridor being addressed here) is pass-through traffic to/ from downtown or City of Santa Monica, and at their recent Town Hall meeting, City Planners and Mayor Delshad emphasized that this plan should speed this traffic though the city and REDUCE traffic on residentail streets, thus overall improving quality of life, air quality from idling cars, etc.
This is of course the logical analysis, but the group opposed to this plan is spearheaded by Mike Eveloff, who fought Weiss on every Century City development and demanded that his HOA must be allowed to determine how much the developer was shaken down for being allowed to improve their property. (They've earned the city a reputation for being unfriendly to business and ALL developers, as full of militant HOAs -- so what they think was good for them, is bad for the city. Exactly like their wrong-headed battle against this Plan.)
Eveloff, Jay Handel and their group are even giving out false information to rile up the residents, like telling them that Mayor Villaraigosa and Weiss didn't even consult Beverly Hills, when the opposite is clearly true and they know it. (As does Bill Rosendahl, who they're looking to to override the Plan -- Rosendahl was part of the plan all along with Beverly Hills' Mayor, but has the stamina and spine of a wet noodle. Maybe it's his generous "heart," but this waffling from one day to the next and inability to stick to a vision and plan in the fact of any opposition, is a poor quality for a "leader.")
The Mayor and Weiss have held community meetings for well over a year, and included a lot of resident comments into the way this Plan has been dramatically modified and improved over Zev's rough one-way street proposal. But NOTHING is enough for this group. They claim concern for businesses who will be affected by rush- hour parking restrictions, but also oppose the businesses using temp parking permits on residential streets for their clients. They give false and misleading info on their HOA websites, and behave with childish rudeness at meetings with DOT and Weiss and the Mayor.
The opponents who claim they haven't been consulted and that offers haven't been made, are not telling the truth. They also opposed the subway going through Cheviott Hills and this same Olympic//Pico corridor, so the Expo line is so far south, many consider it as likely to be underused by commuters as the Red Line subway is. (which was also thwarted by this same group decades ago.)
Yes, these people scream for immediate traffic relief -- as long as the Plan is implemented so much fuirther south like the Expo line that it will become useless to commuters. If these people had any sense, they'd see what Beverly Hills does: that moving the same amount of traffic through your area FASTER will mean less congestion and pollution (idling cars pollute more), and less cut-through traffic on side streets.
Of course, logic has never been a strong suit of this group, who have been out for NIMBYist obstructionism, control and childishly and rudely, battling our Councilman and Mayor in the belief that rude behavior is the best way to "negotiate" for solutions,.
Posted by: susan | February 18, 2008 at 05:39 PM