. When a city agency does a good job, we should applaud them. The 6-3-2015 Bureau of Engineering Report on the Hyperion Bridge Project merits our kudos. 6-3-15 BofE Hyperion Rpt
. At the same time, we must realize that poor data in means poor conclusions out. As Zwartz Talk showed in its prior article on The City’s Mobility Plan 2035 and the Hyperion Bridge Bike Lanes http://bit.ly/1GkfZiv , the City has deprived all of us of vital data concerning the health hazards of Bike Lanes on major boulevards like the Hyperion Bridge. Thus, Zwartz Talk does not fault the Bureau of Engineering because the City withheld the scientific studies which show that the worldwide consensus is that due to the adverse health impacts of air pollution, wherever possible Bike Lanes should be located away from major roads.
. The Bureau of Engineering was not the only person who was mislead into overlooking the serious health hazard to children from placing Bike Lanes inches from auto emissions. Councilman-elect David Ryu made the same error.
. On the same day that the Bureau of Engineering released its report, Councilmember-elect David Ryu released his letter supporting the worst possible alternative. Ryu 6-3-15 L
. Ryu’s Option is: remove one northbound vehicle lane, have two Bike Lanes and sidewalks on both sides. After learning what the B of E has said, Zwartz Talk hopes that Councilmember-elect Ryu will revise his opinion to reflect the facts, science and law.
. 1. The Removal of the One Northbound Lane Would Immediately Reduce the Bridge’s LOS from LOS B to LOS D.
. On page 22, the B of E report says,” From a CEQA perspective, this would be a significant impact.”
. Councilmember-elect Ryu naively relied on a non-city report obtained by CD#13 Councilmember O’Farrell which said that removing one northbound vehicle lane would have “very minor impact to automobiles on the bridge.”
. Wrong! An immediate downgrade to an LOS of D is MAJOR. Councilman-elect Ryu will want to explain on what basis he wrote that removal of one vehicle lane would “improve traffic flow.” Not even O’Farrell’s hired-gun said removing one auto travel lane would improve traffic flow.
. 2. Remove One Vehicle Lane Means Litigation and a Revised IS/MND for the Entire Project.
. Any significant impact requires a revised EIR. The Bureau of Engineering was explicit that the removal of one auto travel lane is significant and requires that the project be recirculated.
The 2013 IS/MND did not include an alternative with three vehicle lanes. Approval of such an alternative would require additional CEQA review (at minimum revision and recirculation of an IS/MND and if any potentially significant impact could not be mitigated to less than significant, an Environmental Impact Report would be required).
. LA Weekly openly discussed this alternative http://bit.ly/1EHAQYI, but the City appears to have withheld this alternative from the Bureau of Engineering. This is a third major CEQA flaw – the failure to study all reasonable alternatives.
. As Zwartz Talk recently pointed out, Bike Lanes on major boulevards pose a very serious health risk to cyclists, especially children http://bit.ly/1GkfZiv. Garcettism© deliberately withheld from Angelenos the worldwide consensus against locating Bike Lanes on major boulevards, wherever feasible. Garcettism© withheld this vital information not only from the Hyperion Project but also from Garcetti’s Mobility Plan 2035.
. The serious Health Risk of Bike Lanes on major boulevards constitutes additional significant new data that requires the recirculation of the IS/MND. When the significant CEQA impact of the immediate downgrade of the Hyperion Bridge Project from an LOS of B to an LOS of D is added to the Serious Health Risks to locating the Bike Lanes on the bridge itself, not only will the IS/MND need to be recirculated, but a full CEQA EIR will be required.
. As Bureau of Engineering pointed out, this delay jeopardizes the CalTrans design funds which are presently set to expire on June 30, 2017.
. Under Garcettism©, the city is constantly involved in needless litigation due to Garcetti’s habitual use of Wishful Thinking and Fatally Flawed Data.
. In January 2015, Judge Allan Goodman rejected Garcetti’s update to the Hollywood Community Plan due to its Wishful Thinking and Fatally Flawed Data which subverted the law. 2014-1-15 J. Goodman Decision
. Garcettism also caused the losses in the projects at Hollywood and Gower (Judge Ann Jones), The Target Loss at Sunset and Western (Judge Fruin), the rejection of The Millennium and the fiasco with CIM Group’s Sunset and Gordon project (both Judge James Chalfant). Now the Hyperion Bridge Project is headed to litigation – simply because of the Garcetti Administration cannot be honest.
. A significant result of Garcettism© is that it stops projects which virtually everyone wants, such as the Hyperion Bridge project and the Target Store in Hollywood. In the Target Store litigation, even the petitioners wanted a Target Store at that location, but not at the cost of lawlessness. The devil is not necessarily in the projects themselves nor in the citizens who bring the litigation to force the Garcetti Administration to follow the law. The time-consuming and expensive litigation arises from the hubris of Garcettism© which places its own whims above both science and the law.
. The IS/MND needs to be re-circulated. The City could save a lot of time and maybe not lose the CalTrans design funding, if it voluntarily authorizes a CEQA Draft EIR – now, ASAP, forthwith, without delay.
. At least four areas should be in the Notice of Preparation for an honest Environment Impact Report:
. 1. The Health Risks of placing Bike Lanes on major boulevards.
. 2. The significant impact of the downgrading Hyperion Bridge to a LOS of D. Only 45/100 of 1% of those who use the bridge are bicyclists.
. 3. A full study of the construction of Hyperion Bridge Bike Lanes on the old piers for the Red Car, per the LA Weekly article.
. 4. The rejection of Garcettism’s© reliance on false data and myths rather than using science and full disclosure.